AQA 7042 · C3.22 - Where teacher feedback must stop
A helpful comment can point you towards a criterion while still leaving the historical decisions to you. Learn how to recognise that boundary, use general feedback independently and understand why marked work cannot be reopened for improvement.
The boundary in one move
The Historical Investigation is supervised, but it must still show the student's independent decisions. Teachers therefore monitor how the work develops and may keep the learner focused on the task requirements and marking criteria. Supervision answers the authentication question, “Can the centre be confident that this work is the student's own?” It does not turn the teacher into a co-author or editor.
During ongoing supervision, teachers may review work and offer advice at a general level, provided they leave the student's particular diagnosis and response untouched. The decisive distinction is between a general signal and a bespoke repair:
| General signal: permitted | Bespoke repair: not permitted |
|---|---|
| Identifies a broad problem in the learner's approach or highlights a marking-criterion requirement. | Identifies exactly where the problem lies and tells this learner how to correct it. |
| Leaves the learner to diagnose the affected passage, evidence or reasoning. | Supplies the diagnosis, content choice, structure, wording or sequence of changes. |
| May take the form of a question about the learner's approach. | Functions as a question-specific instruction even if phrased as a question. |
This boundary applies to oral and written feedback. Changing the format does not change the substance: a spoken instruction, tracked comment or digital annotation can all become prohibited if it gives detailed, specific improvement advice. AQA History's subject rule controls here, and its specification guidance warns that specific comments telling a learner how to improve the NEA constitute teacher malpractice. The fact that some JCQ procedures discuss recording additional assistance does not make assistance acceptable when AQA 7042 expressly prohibits it.
General guidance can identify the criterion to consider. The student must locate the weakness and decide whether and how to change the work.
General diagnosis across AO1, AO2 and AO3
AQA's guidance shows that a teacher may identify a broad weakness under an assessment objective. The boundary is crossed when the feedback supplies the learner's next historical decision.
| Assessment objective | A permitted general diagnosis | Where the teacher must stop | What the learner must do |
|---|---|---|---|
| AO1 | Signal that the work is too narrative and needs more analysis. | Do not identify which event paragraph to recast, which causal link to add or how to reorganise the argument. | Locate the narrative passages, decide which relationships matter and construct the analysis independently. |
| AO2 | Signal that attention to the value of sources for the issue in the title is limited. | Do not name the source or passage to repair, supply the contextual test or dictate the value judgement. | Decide where the limitation occurs and perform the source-value reasoning independently. |
| AO3 | Signal that analysis of the time, context or limitations affecting interpretations is weak. | Do not point to the exact interpretation, reveal the specific missing context or prescribe the evaluation. | Diagnose the weakness, select relevant contextual knowledge and reach an independent evaluation. |
The teacher may also ask an approach question, such as whether the learner has checked that each section answers the set question. That question remains general because it does not identify a particular section or provide the answer. By contrast, a leading question that names the exact paragraph, evidence and required conclusion is an instruction disguised by a question mark.
Consider this wholly fictional process case. A teacher tells a learner, “Your AO2 focus on value for the issue is limited.” The learner then asks, “Which source, which paragraph and what should I say?” The first comment stays at the general criterion level. Answering the follow-up with those three specifics would cross the boundary; the learner must make those diagnostic and evaluative decisions.
Frames, models and previous work
General teaching about writing remains possible. A teacher may teach effective paragraphing, general essay-writing skills and general ways of integrating source material or interpretations. The instruction must be transferable: it should work as broad historical-writing guidance rather than map out one learner's set question.
Three forms of support go too far:
- A bespoke writing frame. Headings or section prompts designed around the particular NEA question pre-select the route through the argument.
- A question-specific model answer. This gives the learner a pattern of content, structure or judgement too close to the assessed decision they must make.
- An earlier NEA on the same or a similar question. AQA says learners should not be given such examples, because the earlier work can become an answer route rather than general instruction.
The label on a resource is not decisive. Calling a tailored sequence a “planning sheet,” a “checklist” or a “set of hints” does not make it general. Test its function: could a learner follow it without independently deciding the argument's content and organisation? If so, it has crossed into bespoke support.
Here are three fictional resources, described without any historical content:
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account