AS History: Do I need an introduction for a source question?

There are no questions in AS/A-Level History that don't require an introduction

Reply 2

To write sophisticated and for you to hit higher levels you'll need to answer the question and suggest which one is the most valuable or convincing in the intro.

Reply 3

You don't need to have an introduction in both AS and A2. Structure your answer as analysis of extract A -> analysis of extract B -> conclusion why one of them is stronger and you will be fine

EDIT: in source questions, that is. Introduction is essential in section B

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 4

Original post by Salcia

You don't need to have an introduction in both AS and A2. Structure your answer as analysis of extract A -> analysis of extract B -> conclusion why one of them is stronger and you will be fine

That's just not true though, you can't get high marks without an introduction

Reply 5

Original post by popcornjpg

That's just not true though, you can't get high marks without an introduction

I agree. It's getting to answer the question as soon as possible. A good one adds sophistication to writing which allows a level 5 to be hit, especially if the question is answered

Reply 6

Original post by popcornjpg

There are no questions in AS/A-Level History that don't require an introduction

Check AQA website. In new specification, the following applies:

AS Source questions: Comparison by theme or analysis of each extract in turn, up to candidate, but need to conclude which extract is better. No need for introduction as reflected by some exemplary/specimen answers.

A2 Source questions: Evaluation by theme or each extract in turn, up to candidate. No need for introduction/conclusion, as this is not a comparative exercise.

Reply 7

Original post by Salcia

Check AQA website. In new specification, the following applies:

AS Source questions: Comparison by theme or analysis of each extract in turn, up to candidate, but need to conclude which extract is better. No need for introduction as reflected by some exemplary/specimen answers.

A2 Source questions: Evaluation by theme or each extract in turn, up to candidate. No need for introduction/conclusion, as this is not a comparative exercise.

My teacher is retarded then, she's always said you need introductions & conclusions in the source essays

Reply 8

Original post by popcornjpg

My teacher is retarded then, she's always said you need introductions & conclusions in the source essays

Trust me, teachers apply their knowledge from the previous specification to the new one, which sometimes might lead to misunderstanding.

Last year, when I did my AS, I followed only my teacher's advice and ended up with ABC, which is not bad but not marvellous either.

When I started my A2, I became obsessed with AQA website and I found that a lot of things are taught incorrectly at colleges.

Reply 9

Original post by popcornjpg

My teacher is retarded then, she's always said you need introductions & conclusions in the source essays

I would've thought that an intro would've helped analyse all the sources briefly ect with an answer. I've been told the same thing too that we should intro and even compare 2 sources together in a level

Reply 10

Original post by Salcia

Trust me, teachers apply their knowledge from the previous specification to the new one, which sometimes might lead to misunderstanding.

Last year, when I did my AS, I followed only my teacher's advice and ended up with ABC, which is not bad but not marvellous either.

When I started my A2, I became obsessed with AQA website and I found that a lot of things are taught incorrectly at colleges.

Can you link me the page you quoted? I can't find it

Reply 11

Original post by Salcia

Trust me, teachers apply their knowledge from the previous specification to the new one, which sometimes might lead to misunderstanding.

Last year, when I did my AS, I followed only my teacher's advice and ended up with ABC, which is not bad but not marvellous either.

When I started my A2, I became obsessed with AQA website and I found that a lot of things are taught incorrectly at colleges.

Where on the website can i find this information. Help a guy out :biggrin:

Reply 12

Original post by popcornjpg

Can you link me the page you quoted? I can't find it

Introductions/conclusions It is recognised that students like, and are trained, to write introductions and conclusions, essential features when answering a ‘traditional’ essay question, as is found in Section B of the paper. Whilst neither is required in response to the extract/interpretation question, we accept that students may wish to produce them. Such an approach will not be penalised by examiners – an answer with a conclusion which comments on some general issues associated with the interrogation of the extracts might strengthen the answer. However, as shown in the examples below, very good answers without conclusions can be awarded full marks, and it may be most productive for students to begin the evaluation without an introduction. Substantiated judgement should, however, be provided in the evaluation of each extract.

Taken from: http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/history/AQA-70421-EQ-GUIDE.PDF

Please note that this is taken from A level section. However, a quick glance at some of the exemplary AS answers awarded level 5 shows that it can be achieved without introduction. My advice would be to focus on strong evaluation throughout and good, logical conclusion.

Reply 13

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/history/AQA-70411A-Q1-S1-CEX.PDF

Just like here. Guy begins by evaluating extract, not an introduction. He is focused on answering how valid the interpretation is (in paper 2, that would be changed to how valuable the source is).

That's literally the first answer I opened.

Another pro-tip: don't be fooled by teachers to write extensive conclusions. Instead, evaluate each point you make in your paragraphs as you go and then sharp and very concise conclusion that proves your reasoning makes sense.

Reply 14

Original post by Salcia

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/history/AQA-70411A-Q1-S1-CEX.PDF

Just like here. Guy begins by evaluating extract, not an introduction. He is focused on answering how valid the interpretation is (in paper 2, that would be changed to how valuable the source is).

That's literally the first answer I opened.

Another pro-tip: don't be fooled by teachers to write extensive conclusions. Instead, evaluate each point you make in your paragraphs as you go and then sharp and very concise conclusion that proves your reasoning makes sense.

Thanks a lot for this dude I've been reading through it and it seems great! I can't believe I was writing like a fool all this time XD

Reply 15

Original post by Chief_98

Thanks a lot for this dude I've been reading through it and it seems great! I can't believe I was writing like a fool all this time XD

Haha you're welcome. Good luck with your exams :smile:

And remember - evaluate, evaluate, evaluate. By the time the examiner reaches your conclusion, he should feel like you reached that conclusion long, long ago because it was that obvious and logical.

AS history students: introduction in source questions DOESN'T GET YOU EXTRA MARKS!!! Can't stress it enough.

Reply 16

Original post by Salcia

Haha you're welcome. Good luck with your exams :smile:

And remember - evaluate, evaluate, evaluate. By the time the examiner reaches your conclusion, he should feel like you reached that conclusion long, long ago because it was that obvious and logical.

AS history students: introduction in source questions DOESN'T GET YOU EXTRA MARKS!!! Can't stress it enough.

Does this apply to interpretations as well?

Reply 17

Wikia

OP

21

Original post by Salcia

Check AQA website. In new specification, the following applies:

AS Source questions: Comparison by theme or analysis of each extract in turn, up to candidate, but need to conclude which extract is better. No need for introduction as reflected by some exemplary/specimen answers.

A2 Source questions: Evaluation by theme or each extract in turn, up to candidate. No need for introduction/conclusion, as this is not a comparative exercise.

Damn that's pretty useful information, thank you.

I just had a question though, say my first paragraph was analysing Extract A, is it also important that whilst I evaulate it I make links to the second extract? For example say the first extract said 'Henry VII made no changes to parliament' whilst the second said 'he introduced many branches of government' (yeah I don't know what I'm saying, just trying to create an example), am I then supposed to say something like -

Though extract A states 'Henry VII made no changes to parliament' this can be disputed against by the fact that Henry created many new branches of government, one being the 'Council Learned in Law' in 1495, supporting the statement by the extract B that Henry 'introduced many branches of government'.

Basically what I'm asking is, do I need to interlink my two analysis'? Or can I just have one paragraph completely analysing extract A and then one completely analysing extract B?

EDIT: Just looked at the example one you gave which kinda cleared stuff up a bit, thank you.

Do you buy any chance have an example answer for the questions where you have to 'assess the validity of this view'?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 18

Original post by popcornjpg

Does this apply to interpretations as well?

Yes, in both papers it is crucial that you evaluate.

Paper 1 - evaluation of interpretations, is it convincing? If so, why? Try to answer the following:

Can it be backed up by evidence? For example in option 1F, historians such as E P Thompson (Marxist) will see political motives in working class disturbances, but if you look at the Luddites and other protests, you will see that they are more of a response to economic distress and his argument can be easily refuted with examples

Is it objective or one-sided? If the extract considers many factors and does not seem to be biased, it is likely to be convincing. If the extract has a strong point of view it doesn't mean it's bad, unless it doesn't provide valid evidence and focuses too much on one side of the story

Most importantly, what exactly does it comment on? Last year, many students, including myself, did not notice that Extract B was commenting on some guy's speeches, not his leadership. It's a crucial difference, especially as the question was about his ministry. Make sure you really understand what the extract is about before attempting to answer the question.

Paper 2 - evaluation of value.

Assess provenance and tone to hit higher levels ie. simply stating it's a secondary source written by some guy who had some spare time won't get you any marks.

Valuable DOES NOT mean written by a respected person. For example, in 20, if you have an account from some random farmer describing why he joined the Nazi Party, it will be valuable as it will reflect the thinking of the ordinary citizens and demonstrate the influence of Nazi propaganda. If the source is adapted, it DOES NOT mean the context has changed or that it is less valuable. However, if it was published in a collection of accounts or at a time when texts were censored, you could argue that takes away some value.

Same with tone. Depending on the context and question, emotive language might be as good as factual tone.

Most importantly, what does the source say? Can you support it with facts? Does it go with your knowledge of the subject?

That's it I guess. Just try to evaluate rather than describe no matter what you do, same with section B.

Reply 19