The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

OCR Coursework query

Hey, been reading the examiner's reports on the investigation and they state that juxtaposition is not source evaluation whereas corss-referencing is. Please could someoen explain the difference please?

I've done things like X historians argues... and this is supported by Y who argues.... Similarly, Z argues '.......' Is that cross reference or juxtaposition?

Then I've used contextual knowledge to demonstrate how valid these claims are which i think is evaluation?

Thanks for any help.
Reply 1
Avatar for 200428
200428
3
cross referencing is stating 2 historians who agree. Juxtaposition is 2 different things being set together.
Funny though, cos we were told that counter referencing did count as evaluation as long as it had appropriate analysis eg: Historian X disagrees with Y, and considering X's sources it is apparent that his is the more reliable perspective.
I guess they mean it's not enough to just say that X and Y disagree, you have to explain it.
Reply 2
Avatar for JoseReina
JoseReina
OP
ah right, thanks :smile:.

i find that it's so hard to do all this source evaluation within the 3000 words and keep your argument flowing too! can X-referencing simply be therefore eg, 'Similar to X, Y argues'

and, 'In contrast to Y, D contends that...' then you explain why they contrast...?
Reply 3
Avatar for 200428
200428
3
We were told to do it more like "Giving further credibility to X's argument is Y's observation that..."
Reply 4
Avatar for JoseReina
JoseReina
OP
okay, thanks :smile:
Reply 5
Avatar for 02mik_e
02mik_e
14
JoseReina
ah right, thanks :smile:.

i find that it's so hard to do all this source evaluation within the 3000 words and keep your argument flowing too! can X-referencing simply be therefore eg, 'Similar to X, Y argues'

and, 'In contrast to Y, D contends that...' then you explain why they contrast...?

Source evaluation can be done an number of ways. On the examiners report I read that a good way to do it was to use contextual evidence. So is there evidence to prove that the historian's view is slightly mis-interpreted etc.. and yeah you've got it right about the cross referencing and counter referencing. I'm not sure whether it's been said already, but you could evaluate a historian's view by cross/counter referencing it with another, but always make sure you back it up with evidence, especially if you're counter-referencing :smile:
Reply 6
Avatar for JoseReina
JoseReina
OP
On the examiners report I read that a good way to do it was to use contextual evidence. So is there evidence to prove that the historian's view is slightly mis-interpreted etc..


if i use contextual evidence to show how the historian's view is correct/justifiable, would it constitute evaluation?
Reply 7
Avatar for 02mik_e
02mik_e
14
JoseReina
if i use contextual evidence to show how the historian's view is correct/justifiable, would it constitute evaluation?

Yes. It's vital for the historical interpretations paper as well. If an historian gives a view, it has to be evaluated by giving evidence. Look on this examiners report. I think it's this one. Just go to the coursework section

http://www.ocr.org.uk/Data/publications/reports_2007/L_A_Level_History_CER_Jun_07.pdf

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you