CCEA GCSE History (528) Past Papers 2026

Modern World Studies in Depth and Local Study

Duration: 1h 45m

Outline Study

Duration: 1h 15m

Source reliability — maintaining a consistent judgement throughout

Across all three years in both Unit 1 Section B Q4 and Unit 2 Q4, examiners flagged that candidates often contradicted themselves — asserting a source was reliable then stating the opposite in the next sentence. This inconsistency prevents access to Level 3 regardless of the quality of individual points.

Unit 1 Section B Q4, Unit 2 Q4

Unit 2 Q4 authorship analysis — explaining WHY authors hold their views

Identified in every Q4 report across all three years as the most common reason candidates cannot reach Level 3 or Level 4. Candidates can identify what sources say but routinely fail to analyse the reasons why a particular author holds that particular view — the core authorship analysis skill.

Unit 2 Section A Q4

High-tariff questions — engaging with the proposition rather than digressing

The most persistent issue in Unit 1 Section A across all three years. Candidates who wrote everything they knew about the topic without addressing the specific proposition in the question were repeatedly identified as underachieving. This affects Q5 (Unit 1 Option 1) and Q10 (Unit 1 Option 2) most heavily.

Unit 1 Section A Q5, Unit 1 Section A Q10

Date range awareness in structured describe/explain questions

Recurring across both Unit 1 options in Q2 and Q4-style questions. Candidates include detail outside the stated date range, which earns no credit. The 2024 report noted this explicitly for Unit 1 Section A Q4 (churches and army, 1939-1945), and the 2025 report flagged it for life in wartime Germany and the USA.

Unit 1 Section A Q2, Unit 1 Section A Q4

Local Study — knowledge of specific terms, agreements, and less popular events

Across all three years, examiners noted that less popular Local Study topics (e.g. Declaration of the Republic of Ireland 1949, O'Neill's Five-Point Reform Programme, reasons for internment 1971) were consistently poorly answered, with many candidates leaving questions blank or confusing events with similar but incorrect alternatives.

Unit 1 Section B Q5, Unit 1 Section B Q11, Unit 1 Section B Q12

Source comparison (Unit 2 Q2a) — identifying differences from content rather than authorship

In all three years, a minority of candidates focused on authorship in Q2(a) despite explicit instructions that this question targets differences in content. The same pattern persisted even after being flagged in successive Chief Examiner reports.

Unit 2 Section A Q2a

Unit 2 Q3 — writing about contextual knowledge outside the question's specific topic

Examiners noted candidates repeatedly wrote all they knew about a general period rather than focusing on the specific view in the source. In 2024, many candidates wrote about 9/11 when the question was about Iraq in 2003; in 2025, about the Cuban Missile Crisis when the question was about Vietnam.

Unit 2 Section A Q3

Extended writing chronology — confused timelines in Unit 2 Section B Q6

In 2024 and 2025, examiners noted confused chronology in Q6 responses, including candidates extending events outside the question's time period and mixing up Cold War developments. This directly limited the quality of extended writing and prevented access to higher mark levels.

Unit 2 Section B Q6