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

AQA A2 HISTORY HIS3B: The Triumph of Elizabeth, 1547-1603. 10th June 2016

Scroll to see replies

Original post by elen90
Do you write plans or do you just hop right into it? If you do write plans what would your structure be?

Spoiler

I'm never short of content or arguments/historiographical debate but I struggle to hit the top grades due to my erratic structures.

With such a structure as above, would you be more tempted to simply do the 3 for/3 against in order or would you follow a for/against, for/against, for/against structure? I do the second but my teacher says it's confusing.


I used to do the exact same thing as you and get my marks docked for it. I thought 'well, you wanted balance, so here's your balance'. Basically, what my teacher explained to me is that you are trying to make your own argument (independent judgement) and if you are arguing (for example's sake) for the question and then you put a point against it, you are effectively counteracting your own argument. It is necessary to show balance though, so start off with your argument against what you popped in the introduction, then halfway through after about 3 points that "some may argue" say "on balance" and hammer your argument home. Basically manipulate the examiner into thinking you are right through the powers of persuasion and hard facts :wink:. Then just reiterate your largest points succinctly in your conclusion, and you will probably find your marks shoot up! Good luck for tomorrow :smile:
Original post by emmappleby22
Does it matter too much if you don't add in any historian quotes? I'm struggling to remember many 😅


Posted from TSR Mobile


Honestly, not really. Read an exam script from a student a few years ago who got 40/45 with NO historiography whatsoever. Not even a classic Guy or Haigh name drop :smile:
Original post by emmappleby22
Does it matter too much if you don't add in any historian quotes? I'm struggling to remember many 😅


Posted from TSR Mobile


From what I understand from my teacher, you don't have to remember the exact quotes, but you need to know the interpretation of a historian on the given topic, and then lead the essay based on that for good marks. I haven't ever really used direct quotes in my essays on this in my assessments I have gotten As without them.

Original post by V1008
Hi guys, the thread is so useful! Hope you all do well, hope they are kind to us!!
Im really struggling with my essay intros it doesnt flow like normally what i would do is

E g. Between 1571-1588 the cath threat to elizabeth both at home and abroad was neutralised with relative ease. How convincing is this view?

Id give some arguments for and against? In the intro any tips on how to like impress the examiner from the onsent in the intro


I would establish your own interpretation against another historian and then use the rest of the essay to debate the idea between yours and the historians, splitting down into themes or time periods dependent on the essay. So for instance, I would point to Elton for that essay and say he basically thought the exact opposite, and then espouse my view. Then I would split internal and external, first showing his interpretation and giving him evidence, then contrast my own against his with more evidence, eventually coming to a neat conclusion at the end of each paragraph, and then one at the end too.

That's what I have found to be successful at least.
Original post by TercioOfParma
Go and read the examiners reports, they are usually a very good source to guess what they will set.


"Manystudents castigated Archbishop Grindal for having the temerity to challenge Elizabeth overthe issue of prophesyings; few bothered to consider that he might have had a point."

I SPOT A PURITAN SYMPATHIZER! Must talk about my otb Huldrych Zwingli and sarcastically reproach Elizabeth's vigilance.
Ah, I'm so glad to find some discussion about this exam! I'm imagining that because it's the last year, they're going to throw in questions that are hard and they have avoided asking in the past. I haven't seen a question on Puritans, so I'm wondering if they'll come up (or possibly intertwined with the Catholic threat, like which was the greater threat). Nor a specific question on France, which considering it's a fairly big topic is quite odd. This has all been interesting stuff to read anyway, thank you everyone :smile:
I thought I would just put in here, you need to get an average of 34/45 in each question to get an A by last years paper, so you don't even need to get two A grade responses to get an A grade.
Original post by TercioOfParma
Not a problem. I think they will do a mixture of both in order to ensure a decent spread of marks. I can kinda see there being a question on rebellions and another on religion based on last years examiner's report.


Even though it was rebellions last year?
Original post by sineaddow98
Even though it was rebellions last year?


Yeah, there will still be questions that involve them probably.
Original post by katinthehat
"Manystudents castigated Archbishop Grindal for having the temerity to challenge Elizabeth overthe issue of prophesyings; few bothered to consider that he might have had a point."

I SPOT A PURITAN SYMPATHIZER! Must talk about my otb Huldrych Zwingli and sarcastically reproach Elizabeth's vigilance.


I think i remeber reading this, your comment made me laugh immensely :smile:
Are rebellions that likely considering it was last years question? How likely do you think it is for examiners to repeat question topics in consecutive years?
Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob
I think i remeber reading this, your comment made me laugh immensely :smile:


#ArchbishopOfBanterbury
Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob
Are rebellions that likely considering it was last years question? How likely do you think it is for examiners to repeat question topics in consecutive years?


It probably won't come up as a specific question for 1547-1558 but they could still be included in an answer. For example, using rebellions in an effectiveness of government question ☺️


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by emmappleby22
It probably won't come up as a specific question for 1547-1558 but they could still be included in an answer. For example, using rebellions in an effectiveness of government question ☺️







Posted from TSR Mobile
How would you structure a parliament question?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob
Are rebellions that likely considering it was last years question? How likely do you think it is for examiners to repeat question topics in consecutive years?


They repeated royal authority one year, applying it to Elizabeth instead of Mid-Tudor Crisis, so it has happened :smile:
Original post by Theendoftheworld
Ah, I'm so glad to find some discussion about this exam! I'm imagining that because it's the last year, they're going to throw in questions that are hard and they have avoided asking in the past. I haven't seen a question on Puritans, so I'm wondering if they'll come up (or possibly intertwined with the Catholic threat, like which was the greater threat). Nor a specific question on France, which considering it's a fairly big topic is quite odd. This has all been interesting stuff to read anyway, thank you everyone :smile:


Puritans have come up before, but a while ago!

I reckon it's going to be extent of mid-Tudor religious reform. Then a meaty Q on Elizabethan parliament and Spanish/French FP.

Spoiler

Would you peeps say that throwing out dozens of arguments would be a good idea in the essays? As in, rather than go very in depth with but a few events, would it still be alright to mention many various events and happenings without mentioning as many details pertaining to those events? In the way of writing more than just 3 main body paragraphs of pros and cons to certain factors with regards to the question's quote or what not.

In short, would one be doomed for having good general knowledge but little 'specialized' or in depth knowledge? As long as the debate itself would be sound and still include a few dates?
can anyone help me with a plan for this question struggling a bit,
Elizabeths involvement in ireland is one of a cycle of successful failures, assess the validity of this view
Original post by emmappleby22
How would you structure a parliament question?


Posted from TSR Mobile


I would certainly look at the role of parliament as being doing what the monarch and Privy council told them too, and the slow growth in autonomy and sense of self evidenced after james came to the throne and bills that went directly against Elizabeth's intention for religious policy (Strickland bill 1571, Cope Bill and Booke 1585 etc.). Beyond that dependent on the question.
Reply 179
Avatar for V1008
V1008
What points would you make in terms of france helping elizabeth to achieve her foreign policy aims?
- Anjou's intervention (didnt she provide financial support)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you