Edexcel International GCSE History (9–1) Past Papers, Source Booklets & Examiner Tips (2026 Updated)
- Emily Harrington
- Jan 20
- 7 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
If you're studying IGCSE History (Edexcel), you've come to the right place. Below you'll find a full collection of past papers from 2025 going all the way back to 2019 — covering both Paper 1 (Depth Study) and Paper 2 (Investigation and Breadth Studies), with mark schemes included where available.
Before you dive in, we'd also recommend scrolling down to check out the Examiner's Advice section below the papers. It's packed with the kind of tips that come straight from the marking room — the sort of thing that can make a real difference to your grade.
2025
Paper 1: Depth Study
Topic | Question Paper |
June 2025 Depth Studies Timezone R | |
June 2024 Depth Studies |
Paper 2: Investigation and Breadth Studies
Topic | Question Paper |
June 2025: Investigation and Breadth Studies Timezone R | |
June 2025 Investigation and Breadth Studies |
2024
Paper 1: Depth Study
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2024 Depth Study | ||
June 2024 Depth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2024 Depth Studies |
Paper 2: Investigation and Breadth Studies
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2024 Investigation and Breadth Studies | ||
June 2024: Investigation and Breadth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2024 Investigation and Breadth Studies |
2023
Paper 1: Depth Study
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2023 Depth Study | ||
June 2023 Depth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2023 Depth Studies |
Paper 2: Investigation and Breadth Studies
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2023 Investigation and Breadth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2023 Investigation and Breadth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2023 Investigation and Breadth Studies |
2022
Paper 1: Depth Study
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
June 2022 1A. Depth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2022 1A. Depth Studies | ||
June 2022 Paper 1B. Depth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2022 1B. Depth Studies |
Paper 2: Investigation and Breadth Studies
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
June 2022 2A. Investigation Studies | ||
June 2022 2A. Investigation Studies | ||
June 2022 2B. Investigation and Breadth Studies | ||
June 2022 2B. Investigation and Breadth Studies |
2021
Paper 1: Depth Study
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2021 1A. Depth Studies | ||
November 2021 1B. Depth Studies | ||
June 2021 1A. Depth Studies | ||
June 2021 1B. Depth Studies |
Paper 2: Investigation and Breadth Studies
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2021 Investigation Studies | ||
November 2021 2B. Investigation and Breadth Studies | ||
June 2021 2A. Investigation Studies | ||
June 2021 2B. Investigation and Breadth Studies |
2020
Paper 1: Depth Study
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2020 Depth Study | ||
November 2020 Depth Study |
Paper 2: Investigation and Breadth Studies
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
November 2020 Investigation and Breadth Studies Timezone R | ||
November 2020: Investigation and Breadth Studies |
2019
Paper 1: Depth Study
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
June 2019 Depth Study | ||
June 2019 Depth Study |
Paper 2: Investigation and Breadth Studies
Topic | Question Paper | Mark Scheme |
June 2019: Investigation and Breadth Studies Timezone R | ||
June 2019 Investigation and Breadth Studies |
IGCSE History Examiner's Advice: How to Avoid Common Pitfalls
These are patterns that come up time and again in the marking room, so it's well worth taking a few minutes to read through them carefully. None of these mistakes are difficult to fix once you know what to look for.
1. Getting the chronology wrong
This one crops up more than you might expect. Candidates regularly place people or events in the wrong time period — and it can cost you significantly. A classic example is using Florence Nightingale to answer a question about the modern period (c1900–present). Nightingale belongs firmly in the 19th century. More surprisingly, some candidates have confused the Black Death of 1348 with the Great Plague of 1665 — two very different events separated by over 300 years.
The fix here is straightforward: make sure you have a solid grip on the chronological periods as defined in the specification. Medieval means c1250–c1500; Renaissance means c1500–c1700. Learn those boundaries and stick to them.
2. Answering the topic instead of the question
This is probably the most common way that otherwise knowledgeable candidates limit their marks. The question will always have a specific conceptual hook — causation, significance, problems, change — and your answer needs to stay locked onto that focus throughout.
A good example: a question about the problems of transporting wounded soldiers prompted many candidates to simply describe the methods of transport. That's not the same thing. The question is asking why it was difficult, not how it was done. Before you write a single sentence, identify the hook in the question and keep returning to it.
3. Letting the source do all the work
In source analysis questions, a Level 2 response typically does one of two things: it either just repeats what the source says, or it offers vague provenance comments like "it's a primary source, so it's reliable." Neither of these approaches gets you very far.
What examiners are looking for is your own knowledge working alongside the source. Use what you know to add detail to something the source mentions, or to judge whether the situation it depicts is typical or unusual. That's what moves you into the higher levels.
4. Vague follow-up enquiries
When asked how a historian might follow up a source, many candidates reach for answers like "they could search the internet" or "look at history books" or "read some diaries." These answers are too broad to be credited well.
Think like a historian. What specific sources would actually help answer the question? For a topic on military medicine, for instance, you might suggest RAMC medical records, or a professional publication like The Lancet. The more precise and historically grounded your suggestion, the better.
5. Only covering one of the two time periods
In 4-mark similarity questions, you need to demonstrate that a similarity genuinely spans both periods — but a very common pattern is for candidates to give a solid, specific example for one period and then either go vague or say nothing concrete about the second. Half a comparison isn't a comparison.
The requirement here is simple: one specific supporting example for each time period, every time. If you can't supply both, rethink your similarity.
6. Describing when you should be explaining
This is a subtle but important distinction, and it affects a large number of responses to "effects" and "causation" questions. Description tells the story of what happened. Explanation shows why it happened or what it led to — and those are very different things.
If you find yourself writing a narrative of events, stop and ask: have I actually connected this to the outcome the question is asking about? A simple habit that helps enormously is to force yourself to write "This meant that..." or "As a result..." after every point you make. If you can't complete that sentence meaningfully, you're probably still in description mode.
7. Making judgements without a yardstick
In 16-mark questions, many candidates reach a conclusion — "this was the most significant factor" — but don't explain how they decided that. Phrases like "somewhat important" or "the most significant" are only as convincing as the criteria behind them, and without explicit criteria, the judgement carries very little weight.
Before you conclude, establish what you're measuring significance by. Did the development affect large numbers of people? Did its impact last across multiple periods? Did it act as a catalyst that made other changes possible? State your criteria clearly and then apply them to the factors you've discussed. That's what separates a genuine historical judgement from an unsupported assertion.
8. Using knowledge that falls outside the date range
This one is particularly frustrating to mark, because the knowledge itself is often very good — it just isn't answering the question that was set. A candidate who writes confidently about the Cuban Missile Crisis for a question capped at 1960 has done themselves a disservice, however accurate their history is. The marks simply aren't available for material outside the specified years.
Get into the habit of underlining the date range in the question before you start writing, and treat it as a hard boundary. If a piece of knowledge sits outside those years, leave it out — however relevant it might feel.
9. Spending too long on short questions
This is a time management issue, and it's a costly one. Examiners regularly see candidates write half a page for a 4-mark question — often hitting full marks within the first two or three sentences — and then run out of time when they reach the 16-mark question at the end. That's where the marks are, and rushing it will hurt your overall grade far more than any small gain on an earlier question.
Use the mark allocation as your guide for how long to spend and how much to write. For a 4-mark question, you're typically looking for two sentences per feature: one to identify it, one to add supporting detail. Once you've done that, move on.
10. Weak structure and presentation
An answer without clear paragraphs makes it genuinely difficult for an examiner to follow your reasoning — and if they can't follow it, they can't credit it. This matters particularly in longer responses, where examiners are looking to see that you've covered the required aspects of content across your answer.
Paragraph breaks are not a cosmetic nicety; they're a signal that you're moving from one distinct point to the next. Use them consistently, write as clearly as you can, and your argument will be far easier to reward.
How do I get regional predicted paper for 2026? Paper 2 exam in June 2026, IGCSE Edexcel board. Thanks