Jocaleb123
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Hi i am currently in year 12 moving to year 13 in September and I am doing my coursework for history it has to be a max of 4500 words and a period of 100 years and we are doing Russia. Can anyone kindly share tips on how to plan it, structure it and how to write it all up as I have no clue what to do and where to start.

I have already got my themes and a bit of facts to support/go against them other than that nothing.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by Jocaleb123)
Hi i am currently in year 12 moving to year 13 in September and I am doing my coursework for history it has to be a max of 4500 words and a period of 100 years and we are doing Russia. Can anyone kindly share tips on how to plan it, structure it and how to write it all up as I have no clue what to do and where to start.

I have already got my themes and a bit of facts to support/go against them other than that nothing.
What is your title? I started writing an answer, but without knowing the title its a bit of a waste of time .
0
reply
Em395
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
I don't know how much it'll help but here goes. I wrote my history NEA essay on the French Revolution looking at the monarchy being to blame for the French Revolution of 1789.

Intro:
Defined key word - "Revolution" and linked it to the context (Peasant uprising against the monarchy due to discontent) - Dictionary def quote + footnote
I added a theorist's view and because I was looking at the peasantry I spoke of how it correlated with Marxist theory
Allude to the main factors - things you'll be talking about
End by alluding to your conclusion - e.g. The .... aspects will be further explored however, it will be concluded that...

First few paragraphs
- one per monarch and looking at evidence for and against the statement that the monarchy were to blame
- Focus on historical context
- Justification - "implying that the monarchy wasn't to blame"
- Suggest what other factors could influence this statement i.e. parlement, tax system (in this essay's case)

Second section
- So here I added my first source where I analysed it like in British History's essay extract
--- Provenance, context, purpose, author, date, tone etc
- After each point I would add in a statement like "this decreases/ increases the source's value because..."
- And then end the paragraph on it's reliablity

- I added a conclusion paragraph after it starting "This conveys the idea that...was/wasn't to blame" (link to question) and then summarise why and which other factor(s) are more relevant

I then continued with the essay focusing on these factors I had introduced arguing against the statement (don't focus on more than one per paragraph)
I did a paragraph per monarch for this factor and compared each with another showing the difference in people's thoughts on the monarchy
Other factors that influence the truth of the statement (could be cultural, economic and/or social)
Third Section
- This is where I introduced the two historians I looked at: George Rude and William Doyle:
One big paragraph on how there are different interpretations and the views some tend to agree with
- another small paragraph on the two you've chosen and how they have opposing views
- Paragraph on one historian's book and main views and how they relate to question e.g. who they focus on; Rude focuses one the historically neglected crowd and links to the revolution being a social revolution as well as political due to the attack on the Bastille

Alternatively, (introduce other historian's book and views)
- could use quotes (remember to footnote and add to biography)

- next complete a paragraph(s) on each historian:
- when wrote - do they have all relevant info, outdated?
- Purpose, others views on it, profession - respected historian?, used as text material?
- Value overall?
- Background - influences on them!?
( do this for both in separate paragraphs)
You can also state that they support sources, just add why.

Section Four
- Introduce another factor influencing the question
- Context
- (like section one in structure)

Section FIve
- Add another source (relevant to question, can find on historical websites)
- Provence etc (find as previously typed)

Section six
- another factor
- add source next (different paragraph)

Conclusion
- State what your overall opinion is ("The ... was largely influence by... due to... as well as...)
- For argument and context
- However...
- Which historian supports this...
- Which historian you find more valuable e.g. Doyle's argument that... is convincing because it...
- Finish with something like "overall, (your argument/ conclusion) because ...

Hope this is useful.
1
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Moved to the history forum.

It really depends on your exam board and chosen title. If we know what the coursework is about we'll be in a better position to help
0
reply
Jocaleb123
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by 999tigger)
What is your title? I started writing an answer, but without knowing the title its a bit of a waste of time .
Hi sorry for the late reply I have been on holiday. My title is "To what extent was repression the main means of political and social control in Russia in the period 1856-1953?" Thank you for your help in advance
0
reply
Jocaleb123
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Em395)
I don't know how much it'll help but here goes. I wrote my history NEA essay on the French Revolution looking at the monarchy being to blame for the French Revolution of 1789.

Intro:
Defined key word - "Revolution" and linked it to the context (Peasant uprising against the monarchy due to discontent) - Dictionary def quote + footnote
I added a theorist's view and because I was looking at the peasantry I spoke of how it correlated with Marxist theory
Allude to the main factors - things you'll be talking about
End by alluding to your conclusion - e.g. The .... aspects will be further explored however, it will be concluded that...

First few paragraphs
- one per monarch and looking at evidence for and against the statement that the monarchy were to blame
- Focus on historical context
- Justification - "implying that the monarchy wasn't to blame"
- Suggest what other factors could influence this statement i.e. parlement, tax system (in this essay's case)

Second section
- So here I added my first source where I analysed it like in British History's essay extract
--- Provenance, context, purpose, author, date, tone etc
- After each point I would add in a statement like "this decreases/ increases the source's value because..."
- And then end the paragraph on it's reliablity

- I added a conclusion paragraph after it starting "This conveys the idea that...was/wasn't to blame" (link to question) and then summarise why and which other factor(s) are more relevant

I then continued with the essay focusing on these factors I had introduced arguing against the statement (don't focus on more than one per paragraph)
I did a paragraph per monarch for this factor and compared each with another showing the difference in people's thoughts on the monarchy
Other factors that influence the truth of the statement (could be cultural, economic and/or social)
Third Section
- This is where I introduced the two historians I looked at: George Rude and William Doyle:
One big paragraph on how there are different interpretations and the views some tend to agree with
- another small paragraph on the two you've chosen and how they have opposing views
- Paragraph on one historian's book and main views and how they relate to question e.g. who they focus on; Rude focuses one the historically neglected crowd and links to the revolution being a social revolution as well as political due to the attack on the Bastille

Alternatively, (introduce other historian's book and views)
- could use quotes (remember to footnote and add to biography)

- next complete a paragraph(s) on each historian:
- when wrote - do they have all relevant info, outdated?
- Purpose, others views on it, profession - respected historian?, used as text material?
- Value overall?
- Background - influences on them!?
( do this for both in separate paragraphs)
You can also state that they support sources, just add why.

Section Four
- Introduce another factor influencing the question
- Context
- (like section one in structure)

Section FIve
- Add another source (relevant to question, can find on historical websites)
- Provence etc (find as previously typed)

Section six
- another factor
- add source next (different paragraph)

Conclusion
- State what your overall opinion is ("The ... was largely influence by... due to... as well as...)
- For argument and context
- However...
- Which historian supports this...
- Which historian you find more valuable e.g. Doyle's argument that... is convincing because it...
- Finish with something like "overall, (your argument/ conclusion) because ...

Hope this is useful.
Thank you so much for your help I really appreciate it
0
reply
Jocaleb123
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Sinnoh)
Moved to the history forum.

It really depends on your exam board and chosen title. If we know what the coursework is about we'll be in a better position to help
The title for the coursework is: "To what extent was repression the main means of political and social control in Russia in the period 1856-1953?"
0
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Jocaleb123)
The title for the coursework is: "To what extent was repression the main means of political and social control in Russia in the period 1856-1953?"
It might be different for your exam board, but my coursework question was also a "to what extent..."-type question. What I did was assess the various arguments surrounding that question, and determine which was more convincing given the primary evidence available. I had a very long paragraph for the different 'approaches'.
There are going to be historians who have different ideas about how far repression was the primary method for political and social control - find them and weigh up their arguments. i recommend Orlando Figes if you haven't read stuff by him already.
0
reply
Jocaleb123
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Sinnoh)
It might be different for your exam board, but my coursework question was also a "to what extent..."-type question. What I did was assess the various arguments surrounding that question, and determine which was more convincing given the primary evidence available. I had a very long paragraph for the different 'approaches'.
There are going to be historians who have different ideas about how far repression was the primary method for political and social control - find them and weigh up their arguments. i recommend Orlando Figes if you haven't read stuff by him already.
Thanks for your advice. Please can you explain more about what you meant by different approaches.
And thank you also for the historian recommendation I have heard about him but I will find out more info about him and hopefully find some useful interpretations to use
0
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Jocaleb123)
Thanks for your advice. Please can you explain more about what you meant by different approaches.
And thank you also for the historian recommendation I have heard about him but I will find out more info about him and hopefully find some useful interpretations to use
I'll use my coursework as an example to show what I mean. It was "to what extent was the October Revolution of 1917 a Bolshevik coup?", and there are a few schools of history that answer it differently. The liberal/Western approach is that it was indeed a coup, and there was no significant popular support for it, but then again it has historically relied on the testimony of defectors for evidence. Soviet/Marxist-oriented historians, such as Neil Faulkner or Trotsky would argue that Lenin ignited some kind of revolutionary fervour in the common people to implement Soviet rule. Libertarian historians on the subject suggest that leadership from above played a small role and that it was the rising of the people that pushed the Bolsheviks into power.

So you should look for the various arguments made by historians on your coursework title. See what the debate around the subject is. If there's no debate to be had, find a different topic.
0
reply
Jocaleb123
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Sinnoh)
I'll use my coursework as an example to show what I mean. It was "to what extent was the October Revolution of 1917 a Bolshevik coup?", and there are a few schools of history that answer it differently. The liberal/Western approach is that it was indeed a coup, and there was no significant popular support for it, but then again it has historically relied on the testimony of defectors for evidence. Soviet/Marxist-oriented historians, such as Neil Faulkner or Trotsky would argue that Lenin ignited some kind of revolutionary fervour in the common people to implement Soviet rule. Libertarian historians on the subject suggest that leadership from above played a small role and that it was the rising of the people that pushed the Bolsheviks into power.

So you should look for the various arguments made by historians on your coursework title. See what the debate around the subject is. If there's no debate to be had, find a different topic.
Ohh ok that makes more sense. Thank you so much once again
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

With no certainty that exams next year will take place, how does this make you feel?

More motivated (84)
31.46%
Less motivated (183)
68.54%

Watched Threads

View All