OxfordAQA IGCSE World History: Studies in Change — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. This is a new qualification (first teaching September 2026, first examined May/June 2028) with limited past papers, so use these alongside OxfordAQA’s own specimen assessment materials as the primary guide to question style.

Paper 2 offers a genuine choice of options — one Section A society (Germany 1919–49, Russia and the USSR 1914–53, or the USA 1919–68) and one Section B theme (Technology and change, or Medicine and change) — so these questions deliberately do not name a specific option. Apply each question to your own centre’s studied society and theme.

Related: Studies in Change study guide, Studies in Change revision notes

---

Section A (practise using your own studied society-in-change option)

1. For your studied society-in-change option, identify three turning points across the period and explain why each represents a genuine turning point rather than an isolated event. [9]

2. Explain how two of these turning points are connected — how did the earlier one help cause or shape the later one? [6]

Section B (practise using your own studied thematic study)

3. For your studied thematic study, give one example each from an early period, a middle period, and a modern period, and explain what each shows about the pace of change over time. [9]

4. “How far was [a factor such as war, science and technology, government, or the role of an individual] responsible for change in your studied theme?” Write a full response to this question type, referencing your chosen factor and weighing it against at least one other factor. [10]

Section C (applies regardless of which options you study)

5. A textbook states: “Change in [a historical theme] over a long period was rapid and consistently positive.” Explain, using your own knowledge of your studied theme, why this statement is an oversimplification. [8]

6. Explain the difference between “explaining what changed” and “explaining why it changed and how significant it was”, using an example from your studied Section A society. [6]

---

Answers (worked approach — marks depend on your studied options)

1. A strong answer names three specific moments (such as a change of regime, a war, or an economic crisis) rather than describing the whole period generally [3]. For each, it explains why that specific moment marks a genuine shift — a measurable before-and-after change in political, social or economic life — rather than simply an event that happened during the period [3] [3]. A weaker answer lists events chronologically without explaining what makes each one a turning point specifically.

2. A strong answer selects two turning points already identified and traces a specific causal or shaping link between them — for example, how an economic crisis created the conditions that made a change of regime possible, or how a change of regime’s early policies led directly to a later crisis [3] [3]. Simply stating that one happened before the other, without explaining the connection between them, does not answer the question.

3. A strong answer selects one clear, specific example from each of three separated eras within the theme’s c800–present timeframe [1] [1] [1], and explains for each what it shows about the pace of change at that point — whether change was rapid, slow, driven by a single breakthrough, or the result of gradual accumulation [2] [2] [2]. A response using three examples clustered in the same era, rather than genuinely spread across the timeframe, does not demonstrate the required grasp of pace and significance over the long period.

4. A strong answer explains the named factor’s specific contribution to change in the studied theme, using a precise, dated example [3]. It then weighs this against at least one other factor (such as science and technology, government policy, or chance), explaining how that second factor also contributed, and considering whether it was more, less, or similarly significant [4]. It closes with a supported judgement on how far the named factor explains the change overall, rather than simply restating both factors without reaching a conclusion [3]. Answers that discuss only the named factor, without any weighing against an alternative, cannot access the top band regardless of how detailed the single-factor discussion is.

5. A strong answer challenges both halves of the claim using specific evidence from the studied theme: it identifies at least one period of rapid change and at least one period of slow or stalled change, showing the pace was not consistent [4], and identifies at least one setback, reversal, or negative consequence of a change usually presented as progress, showing it was not consistently positive [4]. A response that only disagrees with “rapid” or only disagrees with “positive,” rather than addressing both claims in the statement, has not fully answered the question.

6. “Explaining what changed” is a descriptive account of the specific political, social or economic differences between two points in time [1]; “explaining why it changed and how significant it was” additionally requires identifying the causes that produced the change and making a judgement about its importance relative to other developments in the period [2] [2]. A strong answer illustrates this distinction with a specific example from the studied society — describing a policy or event, then explicitly separating what changed from why it happened and how significant the change was, rather than blending the three into a single narrative account [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Listing events in Section A without explaining why each one represents a genuine turning point.
• Choosing Section B examples clustered in one era instead of spread across the full timeframe.
• Discussing only the named factor in a “how far” question, without weighing it against an alternative.
• Agreeing or disagreeing with only one half of a two-part claim about pace and positivity of change.
• Blending description, causation and significance together instead of addressing each explicitly when a question asks for more than a description.

Approaching Paper 2 regardless of your specific options

Because Paper 2 offers a genuine choice at both Section A and Section B, the transferable skills these questions test — building a connected turning-point narrative, sampling a long timeframe with well-spread evidence, and structuring a weighed “how far” judgement — matter more to your revision than which specific society or theme your centre has taught. Practise applying this page’s question structures directly to your own studied content, and revisit the Studies in Change revision notes for the recommended turning-point and factor-weighing templates to prepare in advance.