This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

WJEC A Level History

Thanks and good luck to you both.Though to be honest I'm more worried about the period study question on this paper.Our teacher said that when we incoporate our own knowledge (mainly ommisions) that we should write most historians believe/agree/noted that beforehand because it makes you look like you have researched into the topic yourself.Would that really be helpful?

Also our teacher said that it's no good just mentioning ommisions, in order to get into the top of band 4 you need to mention why it contradicts the interpretation you have in front of you which helps you to deal with the reliability issue.

Reply 41

Hikari

1

city_chic

You seemed to analyse the sources very well. Though I noticed you wrote a lot - 'she needs to have written about...' I'd personally refrain from saying that and just say something like 'a limitation in the source is that there's no mention of blah blah blah which was very significant at the time/would enable us to get a clearer picture of blah blah blah...' It felt a tiny bit repetitive too. Overall good though. :smile:

Sorry to butt in, but I thought you had to do that sort of stuff? That's what my teacher always said anyway haha. It's the historigraphy side of things, which is quite a lot of the marks non?

Also, do you need to include the names of other historians in the essay or not? *worry* x:

Reply 42

made_of_fail

1

Nice to see some other WJEC people on here.

I'm stressing about this paper because a) I haven't revised enough. b) I really don't like the style of question. I still don't understand why an assessment of the validity of a source should entail a full coverage of the period, which is one of the things WJEC insist you do. And in any case I'm not entirely sure what you are meant to take validity to mean.

Reply 43

steverf

Don't worry, i'm literally starting my revision right now.

RE: hisoriography, we've been told to put it in, and shown past papers where people have done it and got marks for it.

this, relating to the 'course of the nazi party' paper, not whatever else people are doin, maybe that's different?

we need to name different historians and talk about their interpretations of the real extent of hitler's power, essentially the coursework but not to do with the holocaust this time.

Reply 44

Charlotte_Heart_NYC

8

For the Changing Military Relations question, you do not need to mention other historians.

I don't like the over-view study, too much to remember and write in 50mins! Luckily I only need a low D on this paper to get an A overall and a high U (haha if there is such a thing) to get a B (my uni requirement).

Reply 45

city_chic

13

Hikari

Sorry to butt in, but I thought you had to do that sort of stuff? That's what my teacher always said anyway haha. It's the historigraphy side of things, which is quite a lot of the marks non?

Also, do you need to include the names of other historians in the essay or not? *worry* x:

I didn't mean not to include it (you're right; it's very important), I was just commenting on the way she phrased it. :smile:

I don't think so, no...

Reply 46

made_of_fail

1

Well, I need an A (and then some probably) if I want an A overall, so I really should have given myself a few more days.

Were most of you prepared for two in depth study questions? We've only done the changing fortunes of the Nazi Party.

As for referencing specific historians, I wouldn't bother. You don't have time to provide more than the briefest of outlines of the positions involved, so it's just name-dropping really. Also, there is a lot more to the historiography of the period than structuralism/intentionalism, although I couldn't really fill you in on the details! I took a book out the library by Kershaw that summarises the key issues, but it didn't really look worth the effort; the summaries in my textbook will be more than I can ever use in the exam.

Reply 47

steverf

from examiners' report summer 2007 on changing fortunes:

"Discussions of the historiography therefore were sometimes far too
limited and prescribed and for some candidates amounted to nothing more than namedropping.
Candidates should try and link the historiography to the sources or to what the
sources do not deal with."

Reply 48

made_of_fail

1

well yes, that's why putting a name to a theory or interpretation is not really that important. the main thing is that it should be relevant to the question, not just worked in because you feel you need to.

also, looking at that examiner's report, they complain that candidates answered the question by discussing how support for the Nazi Party changed, but in their own words, 'this is not quite the same thing as changing fortunes. Some historians argue that the fortunes of the Nazi party never changed, it was just that the nature of support changed in the period.' Eh?

Reply 49

city_chic

13

I think that means that the amount of support overall didn't falter during the years, but the type of support did, like from different groups such as the youth/catholics etc. So although the regime faced some opposition from particular groups like the army/traditional elitists, it wasn't directly threatened and opposition overall didn't amount to much.

That's my view anyway :s-smilie:

lol.

I hate the fact we have two totally different papers tomorrow. So many different things to learn for each area. :frown:

Reply 50

Cursed

city_chic

I think that means that the amount of support overall didn't falter during the years, but the type of support did, like from different groups such as the youth/catholics etc. So although the regime faced some opposition from particular groups like the army/traditional elitists, it wasn't directly threatened and opposition overall didn't amount to much.

That's my view anyway :s-smilie:

lol.

I hate the fact we have two totally different papers tomorrow. So many different things to learn for each area. :frown:

Yea, this HI6 unit is MUCH more demanding that any of the other WJEC units by far in my opinion ;/

Oh well i guess thats what you'd expect from a synoptic in History :colondollar:

Reply 51

josh117

For HI6 Hitlers Relationship with the German Military - here is my exam technique.

So there are 2 sources.

Discuss one source at a time!
First Source:
- Firstly explain (2 or 3 lines) what the sources says and indicates.
- Then discuss the reliability of the source. the Attribution. Here you should see who wrote it, why the wrote it and what the date it was written. Mention who it is aimed at also etc.
- Write some of the strengths of the source and expand a little on it using own knowledge.
- Then write 3 or 4 things that it omits. 'However, the source omits...'

Then Do the same thing for source 2

- After that is completed then you can add overall ommisions, just some extra omissions (perhaps a paragraph or two).

- Then you can add a conclusion, sum up everything. Perhaps you can mention yours thoughts. Also mention that the very nature of sources is that it can only contain a certain ammount of information so it would not be a reliable depiction of the relationship between Hitler and the German Military.
Say that the relationship was ever changing throughout the period. Perhaps comment on which source you think is most reliable.

Thats about it. :smile:

Reply 52

Hikari

1

So how did everyone find it?

I'm so gutted lol, I didn't finish the Lutheran paper x: I mis-read how much time I had left, didn't get to write in detail about the Jesuits or the Peace of Augsburg or a conclusion *dies* I think the first one went pretty okay though, hope I included everything there!

Reply 53

Witness23

OP

I think they went okay, not brilliantly, okay though

Reply 54

Cursed

It went terrible...... :frown:

Reply 55

Louisdf

1

The nazi question for the military was CRAP!!!Hopefully I did well on the British paper on the Liberals so that cancels out my crap mark on this paper. :frown:

I put source A was more reliable.

Reply 56

made_of_fail

1

It went terrible......

same

two years of a level history an i still can't write to a time limit. it's what makes history so hard to blag - you don't have time to sit there and think.

still don't know what the correct approach to the nazi paper should be. i think it's just a crap exam (whereas the period study is challenging in a good way)

Reply 57

geewhizz

ugghhhhhhh it wasn't nice at all. these examiners are sly.

well, i did the religious change in wales and england. edward VI came up, we hardly did anything on him and it wasn't really in the syllabus, although it came under the date of 1485-1603. but still, nasty of them.

then i did the changing fortunes of the nazi party. i didn't like the sources they gave us. my conclusion was crap cos i was only just starting it when the woman said that our time was over. bum.

Reply 58

Hikari

1

Ooh you did Edward as well!

I kinda half expected it to come up [I actually dreamt last night that the question was Ed VI D: ]

What did you put for it? I said that his was the reign were parliament really began to come into its own, but even though changes were dramatic they weren't to last due to the quickness in which it was implemented and that Mary restored Catholicism after it. Chatted aboutall the different acts and prayer books and stuff then went on about the other monarchs for a lot of it :P

I thought they worded it quite sneakily though with the ~legislation passed by parliament~ popped in :P

Reply 59

torytrotter

LisaRoberts

ugghhhhhhh it wasn't nice at all. these examiners are sly.

well, i did the religious change in wales and england. edward VI came up, we hardly did anything on him and it wasn't really in the syllabus, although it came under the date of 1485-1603. but still, nasty of them.

then i did the changing fortunes of the nazi party. i didn't like the sources they gave us. my conclusion was crap cos i was only just starting it when the woman said that our time was over. bum.

I did WJEC HI6 Religious Change & Changing Fortunes of the Nazi Party, what a coincidence!

I totally agree with you I think the papers were nasty this year. Maybe not so much the Nazi Paper as the sources were quite straightforward. However, the religious change paper was horrendous the only thing which I could vaguely remember was the First Book of Common Prayer followed by the Second Book of Common Prayer. However, I think I rescued myself by making sure I included all other major religious changes such as the Reformation, Break with Rome, Dissolution of Monastries, Elizabethan Church Settle, Mary I etc!!!

The Changing fortunes of the Nazi Party was ok I felt, easy to summarise and compare and contrasts, got a bit dismayed by my historiography on which I feel I spent too much time. I was rushing so much I'm worried I didn't write enough on the attribution but looking back I'm sure I covered most of the points! I was just starting my conclusion when they said time is up and so I quickly rushed saying they were limited in their focus of the period and that is hard for anyone to make a firm judgement on the matter as opinions are constantly changing! Hope it went well for us all!!!

WJEC A Level History

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you