OCR AS History B - Using Historical Evidence

Remember that your introduction needs to outline the argument that you are going to make. :smile:

It helps to write your introduction last.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

Remember that your introduction needs to outline the argument that you are going to make. :smile:

It helps to write your introduction last.

I suppose so, it just seemed counter-intuitive to me that the question asks you to analyse how the sources support the interpretation, but if you are changing the interpretation you are using the sources for something different?

Reply 3

Original post by snikutsmullac

Hmm, what does your teacher mean by 'amending the interpretation'? Do you have a specific example?

Reply 4

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

Hmm, what does your teacher mean by 'amending the interpretation'? Do you have a specific example?

Right, in the exam you are given an interpretation (which is basically a statement summarising the period of time), for example 'economic grievances were the driving force of radicalism'. She then said to amend (change the statement to something more suitable) it using your knowledge e.g "economic AND political grievances were the driving force", but if the exam is source based it makes more sense to me to use the sources to amend it?

Reply 5

Original post by snikutsmullac

Ok, so what I would do is this...:

Introduction - I am going to amend the interpretation because... (why? It's too simplistic? It's incorrect?) Give some contextual knowledge.

Main body - Use the sources to challenge/support the interpretation. Show how the sources justify your amendment.

(Are there any important points the sources don't mention but which you know about? Might be worth mentioning.)

Conclusion - I have justified my amendment using the sources (also a bit of my own knowledge).

Does your teacher want you to criticise the original interpretation, or are you simply amending the statement to better fit the given sources/make answering easier...?

Remember you need to present your argument as a 'complete package' as it were, so if you're going to actually amend the interpretation you can't just randomly do that in the conclusion. Of course, you don't have to amend the interpretation at all, you can simply talk about how far it is supported by the sources.

I'm speaking to you from an undergrad perspective, where you can do whatever you want so long as you use the evidence and justify your argument. I'm a bit nervous in case AS is looking for a very specific way of answering... :smile:

This is the question from a past paper:

'Explain how far Sources 1–7 support this interpretation. You may, if you wish, amend the
interpretation or suggest a different interpretation. If you do this you must use the sources to support the changes you make.'

I don't know if you've found it, but there are lots of past papers here which might be of help: http://www.ocr.org.uk/i-want-to/download-past-papers/

I did manage to find some exemplar candidate answers but they weren't for the right course... :/

Reply 6

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

Remember that your introduction needs to outline the argument that you are going to make. :smile:

It helps to write your introduction last.

Not sure if that's an A-Level History/Stylistic choice, but I never do, especially in a short essay. In a long paper you have time for an executive summary, in a 2000 word essay or whatever you have to slim it down a little. I generally use my introduction to define terms and shape conditions.

Apologies is it's some requirement of the exam board that I'm unaware of, just my take :biggrin:

Reply 7

Original post by samba

Ah, yes. Defining terms and shaping conditions is the most important part. This is what I meant, really - rather than summarising your argument in the introduction. I wasn't very clear on that.

Reply 8

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

Ah, yes. Defining terms and shaping conditions is the most important part. This is what I meant, really - rather than summarising your argument in the introduction. I wasn't very clear on that.

This is how I'd do it, and probably why I'd horribly fail A-level history :biggrin:

Intro - What is radicalism? Basic info about period

Main - The prerequisites for radicalism to both exist and thrive - Find sources that discuss the development of radicalism in comparable situations. What allows it to thrive? What curbs radicalism? Use sources liberally. Don't rely on the crap you're probably forced to read, spread your net wider.

Conclusion - What were the driving forces behind this radicalism? Did it meet the above stated prerequisites for certain conditions? What do you feel were and weren't the factors based on the evidence you have?

Basically, who cares what the teacher says or wants. Be historically accurate, make an argument, and be able to back it up.

Reply 9

Original post by samba

This is how I'd do it, and probably why I'd horribly fail A-level history :biggrin:

This is what an (example) question is:

Interpretation: The Black Death had its greatest impact on the rural population

'!!!---> Explain how far Sources 1–7 support this interpretation. <--- !!!

You may, if you wish, amend the interpretation or suggest a different interpretation. If you do this !!! --> you must use the sources to support the changes you make <---!!!.'

Say what you like kids, but answer the bloody question. :wink:

I.e, they don't want a disucssion of radicalism, they want you to show how far an interpretation is justified. :wink:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 10

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

This is what the (example) question is:

Interpretation: The Black Death had its greatest impact on the rural population

'Explain how far Sources 1–7 support this interpretation. You may, if you wish, amend the interpretation or suggest a different interpretation. If you do this you must use the sources to support the changes you make.'

Say what you like kids, but answer the bloody question. :wink:

I'd probably write down something like in the intro 'this is a history essay, not year7 English comprehension. In history we don't consider 'sources 1-7,' we expand our knowledge to take in as many accurate historical viewpoints as possible. with that being said, I'm about to waste x minutes of my life to satisfy your whims and horrific questioning.'

As I said, I'd fail it horribly :biggrin:

Reply 11

Original post by samba

This attitude works well at degree level, though!

Reply 12

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

This attitude works well at degree level, though!

Exactly. We're probably getting a little off topic here [sorry OP :ninja:

] but I really do feel like it's an affront to a subject I'm passionate about [and many other pupils are] and can damage that passion during the course of the A-Level. Imagine doing law and being told 'make a judgement based on laws 1-7. you may not research any other precedent or pertaining law'.

History in the words of Heredotus, is about investigation. Slinging your net far and wide and finding nuggets that help out, then logically constructing a viewpoint based on any and all information you can find. If it's just based on '1-7' it's not history, it's just some sadistic form of English language!

Reply 13

Original post by samba

Exactly. We're probably getting a little off topic here [sorry OP :ninja:

I think what they're trying to do at A level is give students the tools for critical thinking, but it goes wrong somewhere and becomes a check-the-box exercise instead. :dontknow:

Reply 14

Original post by Puddles the Monkey

I.e, they don't want a disucssion of radicalism, they want you to show how far an interpretation is justified. :wink:

But 15 marks out of 35 are for using your own knowledge of the period

Reply 15

Nash96

Original post by snikutsmullac

Really need help how to structure your answer for the first question. My teacher has suggested a way, but I don't really like the way she wants us to do it. She said:

•

Amend the interpretation in your introduction using your own knowledge, then group the sources according to those that support or challenge the amendment

•

Use extracts from the sources to show why they support or challenge the amendment.

It seems stupid to me because although you are told you can amend the interpretation, surely you should do it at the end? I thought a better way to do it would be this:

•

Use the sources to challenge or support the original interpretation

•

Amend the interpretation at the end using what you have learnt from the sourceS

Does that not seem more logical?

When I did this exam last year, I amended the interpretation in the introduction but I used the sources not my own knowledge - the new interpretation has to be based on the sources remember! I then went through each source and explained how it agreed/disagreed with the given interpretation and why my new one fit it better. Try to group sources together and cross reference to do this, dont just go through one by one. Hope this helps! By doing this I got an A :smile:

Reply 16

Original post by snikutsmullac

But 15 marks out of 35 are for using your own knowledge of the period

Ok, so then you need to supplement the sources with your own knowledge - providing wider contexts, or mentioning important events/points that the sources don't cover, etc. :smile:

Reply 17

Original post by samba

Exactly. We're probably getting a little off topic here [sorry OP :ninja:

This is precisely why I've been turned off of Chemistry. The way our AS-Level course is assessed and marked is unfair, it makes me feel like, "what is the point?".

Reply 18