20th May Wednesday
1hr 20 min.
We have 26 days before the exam!
Seeing as there is no thread for those doing the 20th century in Britian, here's the thread to discuss ideas and notes.
Please also help each other out, and if you have any notes, essays, please do upload them here.
Also, here's a very good guide to answer source based questions for those that struggle. Its a very good guide that is not complex and doesn't eat your head out.
Good links:How do I structure a Section A style answer?
How far do sources 1, 2 and 3 agree that......
What is this question like?
- This wants you to understand three sources and explain how much they agree with an argument based on WHAT They argue and how RELIABLE and USEFUL They are as evidence.
- It wants you to be able to compare and contrast the sources and evaluate them.
• Briefly cross- reference the sources by explaining which sources agree with the statement and which sources disagree with the statement
• Give your line of argument on the question – in other words answer it! How far do the sources agree on the statement that you have been given. In this bit you should have already thought about the reliability of the sources in your planning for this and made a judgement on how far they agree based on their weight (whether their content agrees with it and whether they are useful pieces of evidence)
Paragraph one: Argue which sources agree with the question and how far they agree
- Select the source that agrees with the statement to the largest extent in terms of it’s content.
- Explain how it agrees with the statement (use small quotes and explain these)
- Back it up with references to bits of any of the other two sources that also agree (corroborate) with the statement (here you are CROSS-REFERNCING)
- Then evaluate how much weight the source/s you have used actually give to the statement in the questions by considering their nature, origin and purpose
- Reach a judgement on therefore how far the sources you have used in this paragraph agree with the statement
- Select the source/s that disagrees with the statement in terms of their content.
- Explain how they disagree with the statement (use small quotes and explain these). When you explain you must explain how the sources agree (CROSS-REFERENCING) with each other or perhaps how they both agree with the statement but in different ways. Also clearly compare tem to the source/ sources you used in paragraph 1 – how do these sources challenge those used in paragraph 1?
- Then evaluate how much weight the source/s you have used actually give against statement in the questions by considering their nature, origin and purpose
- Reach a judgement on therefore how far the sources you have used in this paragraph disagree with the statement
Sum up how far the sources agree with the statement based on their content and reliability
Do this by weighing up the evidence – refer to all sources in the conclusion
How do I structure section B style answers?
Section B is worth 40 marks
Use sources.........and your own knowledge.
Do you accept/ agree with the view that.............
Explain your answer using the sources and your own knowledge
What is this question like?
It is asking you to examine the three sources to debate the view in the question using the three sources and your own knowledge.
• Briefly cross- reference the sources by explaining which sources agree with the statement and which sources disagree with the statement
• Give your line of argument on the question – in other words answer it! How far do you agree with the view in the question based on the views of the sources, their validity and your own knowledge.
Main part 1: Consider the sources that agree with the statement and support and evaluate them with your own knowledge
- Select the sources that agree with the view in the question
- Explain the message of the sources in your own words and how they relate to the question. Make sure you incorporate small quotes to reinforce your points
- Use your own knowledge to support the arguments of the sources in relation to the question
- Evaluate the content, origin and purpose of the sources (in other words challenge their reliability, typicality, completeness) and also use your own knowledge to challenge the views of the sources
- LINK back to the question by making a judgement therefore on how far the statement in the question is correct based on the two sources you have evaluated and your own knowledge
Main part 2
- Select the source that appears to disagree with the view in the question
- Explain how it disagrees and why it disagrees. Make sure you incorporate small quotes to reinforce your points
- Develop the views of the source by using your own knowledge
- Evaluate the content, origin and purpose of the source (in other words explore it’s reliability, typicality, completeness)
- Challenge the source with your own knowledge
- LINK back to the question by making a judgement therefore on how far the statement in the question is correct based on the source you have evaluated and your own knowledge
- Reach a clear judgment on the question based on discriminating use of the source and your own knowledge
It isn't clear that section B should be 2 paragraphs for, two against.
for Section B:
2 paragraphs for the question
2 paragraphs against the question
50 minutes – 10 mins planning
40 marks – 24 own k and 16 sources.
Also make sure you:
Cross reference the sources in each paragraph
Avoid telling the story and focus on the question
Make your intro clear – context and refer to the sources
Reach a judgement in the conclusion and refer to the weighting of the sources
Avoid paraphrasing the sources
Hope this helps!
In AS History examinations, different types of question are used to assess your abilities and skills. Unit tests mainly use either source-based questions or structured questions.
The types of question you may encounter are:
- Comprehension and explanation of references or issues mentioned in the sources. Here is an example: - Explain briefly what is meant by the phrase ‘people of the free provinces’.
- Extraction of information from the sources. Here is an example: What can you learn from source 2 about why the Old Poor Law was often criticised in the years before 1834?
- Comparison between two sources. Here are two examples:Compare and explain the objections made in sources B and C to Lloyd George’s proposals for National Insurance in 1911. Explain how far the statistics in source A support the view expressed in source B concerning economic growth in Russia after 1880.
- Evaluation of the reliability or usefulness of one or two of the sources. Use all the information available to you – the content of the source, the information given to you about it by the examiners, comparison with the other sources, your own knowledge – to decide what use a historian could make of it.
- Here are two examples: Assess the value of these sources to a historian studying the reasons why people supported the Nazis in the 1920s and early 1930s. How reliable are sources B and C to an historian as evidence of the relations between France and Piedmont?
- Use of sources as evidence to answer a broader question, e.g. to construct an explanation, discuss an interpretation or assess a judgement. This type of question usually requires you to use your own knowledge as well as the sources. Make sure you refer to both: failure to do so is one of the commonest mistakes made by candidates.
- Here is an example: From source A and from your own knowledge explain why Ulster was such animportant consideration in the Home Rule question in 1886.
Structured questions are in two or three parts. The parts are usually related to a common issue and are progressively more difficult. Typically the first part of a twopart question will ask for identification or explanation of key issues and the second part for analysis of causation or assessment of the significance of an issue. Sometimes one or two relatively short sources are provided and the first part then asks you to extract information from the source or explain a reference in it.
Here are two examples (Edexcel specimen questions):
- In what ways did Lenin’s economic policies, in the period to 1924, attempt to solve the problems facing the Bolsheviks in 1918? [15 marks]
- Explain why these policies aroused opposition within the Bolshevik Party and within the USSR. [15 marks]
Here are two examples (WJEC specimen questions)
- Explain briefly the main aims of British foreign policy in 1815. [24 marks]
- To what extent was British foreign policy consistent between 1815 and 1865. [36 marks]
Read more at http://www.revisionworld.com/a2-leve...lEoz3ZtTwGE.99
Turn on thread page Beta
Edexcel Option E: Britain in the later 20th century unit 2[exam discussion] watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by The Marshall; 24-04-2015 at 14:08.
- 24-04-2015 14:03
- Thread Starter
- 24-04-2015 14:04
These are also good guides as well so have a look:
Four steps to successful revision
Quick reviseStep 1: Understand
- Study the topic to be learned slowly. Make sure you understand the logic or important concepts.
- Mark up the text if necessary – underline, highlight and make notes.
- Re-read each paragraph slowly.
Step 2: Summarise
- Now make your own revision note summary: What is the main idea, theme or concept to be learned? What are the main points? How does the logic develop? Ask questions: Why? How? What next?
- Use bullet points, mind maps, patterned notes.
- Link ideas with mnemonics, mind maps, crazy stories.
- Note the title and date of the revision notes (e.g. History: The Edwardian age, 3rd March).
- Organise your notes carefully and keep them in a file.
This is now in short-term memory. You will forget 80% of it if you do not go to Step 3. GO TO STEP 3, but first take a 10 minute break.
Step 3: Memorise
- Take 25 minute learning ‘bites’ with 5 minute breaks
- After each 5 minute break test yourself:
- Cover the original revision note summary
- Write down the main points
- Speak out loud (record on tape)
- Tell someone else
- Repeat many times.
The material is well on its way to long-term memory. You will forget 40% if you do not do step 4. GO TO STEP 4
Step 4: Track/Review
- Create a Revision Diary (one A4 page per day)
- Make a revision plan for the topic, e.g. 1 day later, 1 week later, 1 month later.
- Record your revision in your Revision Diary, e.g.
- History: The Edwardian Age, 3rd March 25 minutes
- History: The Edwardian Age, 5th March 15 minutes
- History: The Edwardian Age, 3rd April 15 minutes
- ... and then at monthly intervals.
Read more at http://www.revisionworld.com/a2-leve...BH9E3Ez8Mcl.99
What are examiners looking for?
History examiners indicate the length of answer expected by the mark allocation and the type of answer expected by key words in the questions.
The mark allocation tells you two things: the length of answer expected and the relative difficulty of the question. Questions allocated higher marks are not only to be answered at greater length but are more testing. In source-based questions, a question which asks you to evaluate the reliability and usefulness of two sources is more testing than one which asks you to explain a reference and would earn more marks. In structured questions, questions with lower marks will generally be narrower in focus and require a shorter answer.
Key words point you to the type of question. The most common types of question are those, which require an analysis of cause and consequence, and those, which require an assessment or judgement. You may also be required to produce a piece of descriptive writing.
Explain, Describe, Examine, In what ways?
These instructions call for a piece of descriptive or analytical writing. Be sure to focus on the issue or event required, e.g. aims, factors, policies, or results.
This asks for an analysis of causes. Make sure you do not leave out important causes and that you consider long-term causes as well as short-term ones. A good answer will consider the relative importance of causes and how they are linked together.
Assess, How far? To what extent?
These instructions require you to make a judgement. The examiners expect you to set out the main arguments on opposite sides and balance them in your conclusion. For example, you might assess the success of a statesman by explaining his successes and then his failures. Most questions which begin with the word ‘how’ (e.g. ‘how valid’, ‘how serious’) are of this type. Another way of setting this type of question is to offer you a judgement for assessment and ask why you agree or disagree.
If you are asked to compare two sources, look for similarities and differences. You should explain in turn each point of similarity or difference for both sources. Avoid the temptation to paraphrase the first source and then the second.
Some dos and don’ts
- Do answer the question - No credit can be given for good History that is irrelevant to the question.
- Do spend some time planning your answers - This is especially important for questions requiring extended writing. It will ensure that your argument is coherent and that you avoid omissions.
- Do use the mark allocation to guide how much you write - A question allocated 18 marks out of 30 or 60 out of 90 requires a piece of extended writing.
- Do pay attention to correct spelling, grammar and punctuation - Quality of written communication is taken into account in all assessment units.
- Do write legibly - An examiner cannot give marks if the answer cannot be read.
- Don’t produce undirected narrative - Most questions require you to use your knowledge to follow the instructions given in the key words of the question. Even descriptive answers need to be ordered and directed to the requirements of the question.
- Don’t introduce irrelevant material - You will get no credit for it.
Read more at http://www.revisionworld.com/a2-leve...B3mKajY04UD.99
- Thread Starter
- 24-04-2015 14:06
Unfortunately, I could not get at the January 2010 papers because I do not have access, but I was allowed to see the January 2009 paper, which I assume is much the same.
It seemed to me that the (a.) questions went like this:
- How far do the sources suggest ... Explain your answer, using the evidence of the Sources.
Now, as I say, when I went to the markscheme, it was very obscure, but it is against this that your answer will be measured, so it is worth reading it a few times and stripping out the elements that the examiners are looking for:
- Reaches a judgement in relation to the issue posed by the question supported by careful examination of the evidence of the sources. The sources are cross-referenced and the elements of challenge and corroboration are analysed. The issues raised by the process of comparison are used to address the specific enquiry. The attributes of the source are taken into account in order to establish what weight the content they will bear in relation to the specific enquiry. In addressing ‘how far’ the sources are used in combination.
Basically, what the examiner wants you to do is to answer the question!
This is a 'how far' question, so it is going to offer two (or more) possible answers.
The first possibility is that the assertion ('suggestion') in the question is not true. First, look at the CONTENT ('evidence') of those sources which contradict ('challenge') the assertion and explain how they do so. Remember that you will need to look at their implication/inference as well as just their surface content to do this 'carefully'. Next, look at the provenance ('attributes' - ie nature, origin and purpose') of those sources to comment on what 'weight' they will carry in relation to the specific enquiry (ie can you trust them to be telling the truth/ know what they are talking about).
Next, address the second possibility - that the assertion ('suggestion') in the question is true. Again, look (again 'carefully') at the CONTENT of those sources which support ('corroborate') the assertion and explain how they do so. Next, look at the provenance ('attributes' - ie nature, origin and purpose') of those sources to comment on what 'weight' they will carry in relation to the specific enquiry (ie can you trust them to be telling the truth/ know what they are talking about). Throughout this process you will be wanting to acknowledge/point out that this directly contradicts what was said/implied by the sources you addressed in the first section of your essay.
Finally, write a conclusion which considers, and finds a solution for, the apparent dichotomy between the two sides. Usually it will suggest a halfway house, but it might come down on one side or the other. Whatever, you MUST make a judgement (it is not enough so say that there 'is evidnece for both sides' and cop out). Note that this must address the question directly, that it will draw on points you have made in the first two sections of your essay, but also - if it is to meet the requirements of the markscheme - it will direct and explicitly compare ('combine') the opposing sources.
In my part B answers I'm getting low marks, because of my structure. However I think its probably due to my lack of understanding with the question itself.It seemed to me that the (b.) questions went like this:
- Do you agree with the view that... Explain your answer, using the evidence of the Sources and your own knowledge.
The 'do you agree' is just another either/or question - which you will again answer 'on the one hand...on the other...in conclusion' (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), in much the same way as you did the (a.) question. Nothing very frightening there.
But the second thing to note is that this question, unlike question (a.), asks you to use your own knowledge as well.
However, this time the markscheme is even worse:
- Candidates offer an analytical response which relates well to the focus of the question and which shows some understanding of the key issues contained in it. The analysis will be supported by accurate factual material which will be mostly relevant to the question asked.
Nevetheless, let's try to see how you can interpret this to gain better marks than you are.
Firstly, what does it mean when it requires 'an analytical response which relates well to the focus of the question'? The answer is that it requires you to address this question IN MUCH THE SAME WAY AS YOU DID THE (a.) QUESTION, using thesis-antithesis-synthesis - thatis your 'analysis').
Secondly, let's remember that when it asks for 'accurate factual material' it means:
1. facts and ideas that YOU know about the issue in question
2. points and ideas which other historians have made about the issue in question (ie its 'historiography')- be specific, mentioning names and books wherever possible.
Thus, to full-out your strategy (even though it is almost exactly what I said above:
Firstly, discuss the ideas/evidence which suggest that the suggested idea ('focus' of the question) is not true. First, look at the CONTENT of those sources which contradict the idea and explain how they do so. Remember that you will need to look at their implication/inference as well as just their surface content. Next, look at the nature, origin and purpose of those sources to comment on what 'weight' they will carry in relation to the specific enquiry (ie can you trust them to be telling the truth/ know what they are talking about. But also, throughout this process, use also your own knowledge of the facts and historiography to weigh the sources.
Next, address the second possibility - that the focus issue in the question is true. Again, look carefully at the CONTENT of those sources which support the assertion and explain how they do so. Next, look at the provenance (of those sources to comment on what 'weight' they will carry in relation to the specific enquiry - but also, again, throughout this section, use your own knowledge of the facts and historiography to weigh the sources. Remember also to acknowledge/point out that this directly contradicts what was said/implied by the sources you addressed in the first section of your essay.
Finally, write a conclusion which considers, and finds a solution for, the apparent dichotomy between the two sides. Usually it will suggest a halfway house, but it might come down on one side or the other. Whatever, you MUST make a judgement (it is not enough so say that there 'is evidnece for both sides' and cop out). Note that this must address the question directly, that it will draw on points you have made in the first two sections of your essay, and also - if it is to meet the requirements of the markscheme - it will direct and explicitly compare ('combine') the opposing sources. However, also,make sure you have held back telling facts and historiographical points which you can bring out, so that you can explicitly 'support' your final judgement of the issue and the sources.