HISTORY-8HI0 · Pearson Edexcel AS Level
HISTORY-8HI0/11
Breadth study with interpretations (Option 1A: The crusades, c1095–1204)
History · 2022 · Variant 1
Relative difficulty
Analysis source: Pearson Edexcel
Analysis aligned to the official syllabus and assessment design.
3.8 / 5
100
225 min
The crusades, c1095–1204
Cohort performance
Session statistics from official examination reports
Total marks
100
Duration
225 min
Session difficulty
3.8 / 5
Key examiner messages
Top priorities from the principal examiner before you revise
In Paper 1 (Option 1A), high-scoring scripts successfully navigated Section C (interpretations) by directly comparing the arguments of Steven Runciman and Jonathan Harris on the failure of the Fourth Crusade.
Marks were won by candidates who avoided treating the extracts as simple comprehension tasks and instead analyzed how the historians' overarching perspectives conflicted.
In Paper 2, the source analysis questions (Parts a and b) heavily rewarded students who evaluated utility and weight using the specific context of the authors' origins (such as Abbot Baldwin's direct experience of subinfeudation or Eadmer's personal friendship with Anselm) rather than falling back on generic, low-level evaluation templates.
Question difficulty map
How candidates performed on each question in this series
No data available in official reports
Assessment objectives
Skill and AO weighting from official examiner commentary
Skill weighting
Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.
Source
Weight: 6100%Valuation
Weight: 583%Historical Interpretation
Weight: 467%Thematic Essay Writing Writing
Weight: 233%
Method marks watchlist
Where working, steps, or method marks were commonly lost
No data available in official reports
Recurring mistakes across years
Themes examiners flag in multiple recent sessions for this subject
No data available in official reports
Question choice intelligence
Mean scores and popularity for optional questions (HKDSE electives)
No data available in official reports
Level exemplars
What candidate scripts at each grade level looked like
No data available in official reports
Grade & admission context
How marks relate to grade thresholds and entry standards
Report type
Examiner report — national grade boundaries and question-level commentary
Level A
Approx. 79% of maximum mark
Level B
Approx. 67% of maximum mark
Level C
Approx. 55% of maximum mark
Level D
Approx. 43% of maximum mark
Level E
Approx. 31% of maximum mark
Deep insights
What top candidates did
Techniques and approaches examiners rewarded in this series
No data available in official reports
Command word playbook
How to match each command word to the expected response style
Match the expected response style for “say” questions.
Match the expected response style for “valuable” questions.
Match the expected response style for “give” questions.
Match the expected response style for “agree” questions.
Match the expected response style for “significant” questions.
Match the expected response style for “extent” questions.
Match the expected response style for “reason” questions.
Time traps
Sections where candidates spent disproportionate time relative to marks
Min per mark: 2.3
Min per mark: 2.3
Min per mark: 2
Syllabus traceability
Topics linked to questions and mark weighting in this session
The crusades, c1095–1204
60 marks this session
Anglo-Saxon England and the Anglo-Norman Kingdom, c1053–1106
40 marks this session
England and the Angevin Empire in the reign of Henry II, 1154–89
40 marks this session
MCQ trap analytics
Commonly chosen wrong options from examiner commentary
No data available in official reports
Topic heatmap across years
Mark concentration by topic and exam year for this subject
Mark intensity
The crusades, c1095–1204
England and the Angevin Empire in the reign of Henry II, 1154–89
Anglo-Saxon England and the Anglo-Norman Kingdom, c1053–1106
Difficulty trend
How session difficulty has shifted across recent years
Paper comparison
Marks and duration breakdown across papers in this session
Paper 1: Breadth study with interpretations (Option 1A):
Paper 2: Depth study (Option 2A):
Marks you can still earn
Where valid approaches outside the mark scheme may still gain credit
No data available in official reports
Practise what examiners flagged
Target weak topics from this report inside the Revui app
The crusades, c1095–1204
60 marks this session
Practise in RevuiAnglo-Saxon England and the Anglo-Norman Kingdom, c1053–1106
40 marks this session
Practise in RevuiEngland and the Angevin Empire in the reign of Henry II, 1154–89
40 marks this session
Practise in RevuiSelf-diagnostic checklist
Key actions before you sit this paper — copy and tick off as you revise
- 1Message
In Paper 1 (Option 1A), high-scoring scripts successfully navigated Section C (interpretations) by directly comparing the arguments of Steven Runciman and Jonathan Harris on the failure of the Fourth Crusade.
- 2Message
Marks were won by candidates who avoided treating the extracts as simple comprehension tasks and instead analyzed how the historians' overarching perspectives conflicted.
- 3Message
In Paper 2, the source analysis questions (Parts a and b) heavily rewarded students who evaluated utility and weight using the specific context of the authors' origins (such as Abbot Baldwin's direct experience of subinfeudation or Eadmer's personal friendship with Anselm) rather than falling back on generic, low-level evaluation templates.
Teacher briefing pack
One-page session summary for tutors and classroom review
2022 2022
History
In Paper 1 (Option 1A), high-scoring scripts successfully navigated Section C (interpretations) by directly comparing the arguments of Steven Runciman and Jonathan Harris on the failure of the Fourth Crusade. Marks were won by candidates who avoided treating the extracts as simpl
In Paper 1 (Option 1A), high-scoring scripts successfully navigated Section C (interpretations) by directly comparing the arguments of Steven Runciman and Jonathan Harris on the failure of the Fourth Crusade.
Marks were won by candidates who avoided treating the extracts as simple comprehension tasks and instead analyzed how the historians' overarching perspectives conflicted.
In Paper 2, the source analysis questions (Parts a and b) heavily rewarded students who evaluated utility and weight using the specific context of the authors' origins (such as Abbot Baldwin's direct experience of subinfeudation or Eadmer's personal friendship with Anselm) rather than falling back on generic, low-level evaluation templates.
- Total marks
- 100
- Duration
- 225 min
- Session difficulty
- 3.8 / 5
Session analysis
In Paper 1 (Option 1A), high-scoring scripts successfully navigated Section C (interpretations) by directly comparing the arguments of Steven Runciman and Jonathan Harris on the failure of the Fourth Crusade. Marks were won by candidates who avoided treating the extracts as simple comprehension tasks and instead analyzed how the historians' overarching perspectives conflicted. In Paper 2, the source analysis questions (Parts a and b) heavily rewarded students who evaluated utility and weight using the specific context of the authors' origins (such as Abbot Baldwin's direct experience of subinfeudation or Eadmer's personal friendship with Anselm) rather than falling back on generic, low-level evaluation templates.
Updated Jun 14, 2026
Paper breakdown
Paper 1: Breadth study with interpretations (Option 1A):
Paper 2: Depth study (Option 2A):
Top chapters
Exam structure insights
Marks by chapter
See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.
Mark accessibility
Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.
75% within easy or medium reach
Command word frequency
Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.
Question type mix
Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.
Breadth Essay
(AO1)
40·2·40%
Interpretations Essay
(AO3)
20·1·20%
Depth Essay
(AO1)
20·1·20%
Source Weight
(AO2)
12·1·12%
Source Value
(AO2)
8·1·8%
Study ROI
Bigger bubbles recur more often; higher bubbles carry more marks, helping you rank revision priorities.
Time vs marks
Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.
Paper 1 Section A (
0.50 m/minPaper 2 Section A P
0.44 m/minPaper 2 Section A P
0.44 m/minTotal marks
30
Total time
65 min
Avg pace
0.46
Cumulative marks ladder
The line is your running mark total question by question; dashed lines are the estimated grade cut-offs. See which question the line crosses your target grade at, so you know how far you must answer cleanly and which questions decide a band.
Next-year prediction
Topics worth watching next year, with the reason shown directly below each bar.
Domestic Legal and Judicial Reforms of Henry II
5%5%
The Military Orders and Crusader Castles
4%4%
The Reign of William Rufus (William II)
4%4%
Examiner notes & key calculations
- The 'Proximity Bias' in Source Appraisal: Asserting that a source is inherently '100% reliable' simply because the author was contemporary or a close associate (e.g., William FitzStephen for Becket), without acknowledging personal or political motivations.
- Descriptive Outpourings: In the essay sections, presenting a chronological retelling of crusading events (like the Third Crusade or Henry II's conflicts) rather than structuring arguments around thematic analytical factors (such as leadership failures versus external challenges).
- Unbalanced Evaluation of Interpretations: Focusing heavily on Pope Innocent III's specific errors in Section C while neglecting the alternative systemic causes raised by the second extract.
Exam tips
Paper format
- Duration
- 2h 15min
- Total marks
- 60
- Weighting
- 60%
- Question types
- Essay (AO1), Interpretations (AO3)
Analysis is paraphrased for study purposes. Always verify against the official examiner report and mark scheme.