A thread on how I'm teaching the blasted #edexcelhistory interpretations for Germany. This is very much about navigating through the vagaries of this paper rather than ethically pure teaching of interpretations so if you're looking for that, then soz.
First of all, I only introduce this question type after I've got to the end of Key Topic - as I've detailed before there's enough hard stuff in this topic as it is without chucking this into the equation and overloading my students.
I model the students through the parts (b), (c) and (d) questions to go with these interpretations about the growth of Nazi popularity between 1929 and 1932. 
For the part (b) - which is effortlessly simple - I explain clearly what the students need to do and provide a basic frame. I ask the students to read the interps first and then clarify clearly the difference in view before then getting them to write the answer.
I then show them my model answer and underline on the board key things like the quotations used to make clear that's what we expect.
For the stupid part (c) why are they different - I explain the three different approaches (while ridiculing the premise of this question to satisfy my ethics) and bold the top one to say basically that 'this is the one I'm going to drill you to use...'
I do ask students to suggest possible answers before getting into this to get the wrong answers out of the way - e.g. they're different because they were written at different times, they're different because one of the authors liked Hitler and the other didn't.
And then they practice writing up and I show them my model answers - focusing on the top 1. We've done very well compared to national avg on these two questions (otherwise as a centre we're not pulling up any trees but we're nailing these two questions)
For the part (d) I've rethought how I do this. Initially I was looking for essentially equal treatment of the two interps but I don't actually think that's what the Q wants having read the examiners reports and been on their training.
Instead you need to use knowledge and the other interp to evaluate the components of the arguments (the bases for the claims made) in the interp stated in the Q. As long as they use the other interp somewhere (and beyond a token mention) it should be fine.
I'm using this template to get the students to do that - one of the Thinking Maps templates I nicked from another school I worked at. These are a good labour saver as much as anything. I use sequencing and cause and effect maps loads in my lessons.
The first box on the left revisits part (b) and should be the intro. The middle column should consist of three separate arguments made supporting the overall view. Then on the right use evidence to support/challenge those arguments from knowledge/other interp. Worked example.
Get the students to turn this into an answer (purely practice, not going to be marked to ensure my wide range of abilities have an attempt at something they perceive to be difficult). Then we look at the model answer I've made and highlight key features of this.
Each main paragraph takes one aspect of the argument from the interp in the question and then we evaluate. Students now going to have a go at a different set of questions on Weimar Golden Years tomorrow with the guidance given reduced. We'll see how we go.
We're not as strong at the part (d) - particularly a few of the weaker/disaffected students give up really by the end and trying to curtail that is a key goal to avoid any U-bombs in the summer. It shouldn't be that hard to get some marks but need stds to be willing to try!
