I'm just wondering, for Section A questions 2 and 3 (the 10 markers) do we need to include historians in our responses?
I've heard mixed answers from my teachers, lecturers, and other students and I don't know whether to be safe and include them or save myself time memorising other pieces of evidence.
Thanks
Hi there!
So, these questions are basically the new equivalent of the 3 or 4 pointers from the old study design (when I did Revs)- didn't need historians interpretations in those ones.
However, I just read over the exam report from last year:
These questions began with the command word ‘explain’ and students should have focused on using primary sources and historical interpretations as evidence to support an argument about the consequences of the Revolution. The highest-scoring answers presented an array of detailed and precise evidence from primary sources and historical interpretations. Answers should always include dates for named legislation or events, and many students placed this in brackets. Some responses included evidence from historical interpretations, but this often disrupted the flow of a tightly controlled argument. The highest-scoring answers began with a one-sentence contention or outline. This helped to focus the response and keep the supporting details focused on the question. High-scoring answers also tended to either use paragraphs or signpost phrases to announce the start of each point and organise the steps in an argument.
Even VCAA are giving mixed signals! The example of the high scoring response has some historian viewpoints in there, though. So to me, it seems that including the historians, as long as you're at the point of comfortably writing high scoring responses/know how to integrate the viewpoint(s), can really be helpful.
VCAA's quote about the example:
Its strength is also the presentation of detailed evidence from primary sources and historical interpretations that is weighed carefully in the construction of the argument.
So - if you can do it well, from this, I'd say put it in! Why not maximise your marks? Imo, seems like you could still score a high mark with a well written piece (making sure you're focusing on answering the question, not just explaining events) without a historian viewpoint, but I'd argue that as long as you can fit it in well, it'd enrich your piece. The thing about Revs is that it's so important to nail how you answer questions, so I guess you need to ask yourself whether including the historians is gonna make your answers of better quality, or whether it won't.
I mean like, in the end, it doesn't overtly say you have to include historian viewpoints in there - so, probably repeating myself, but I'd argue that you can score well either way. It's not like it says you have to reference other views (unlike in your c. response in question 1).
What does your teacher say? Is there something said specifically in the study design?
Maybe ask your teacher if they can get in contact with a VCAA marker/the head examiner? My teacher regularly liaised with VCAA History people to make sure my class was doing things the best possible way - and I seriously credit that and his general efforts as the main reason I did well
HTAV might also be worth contacting.
If anyone else has any opinions or a more clear-cut answer, would be glad to hear it!
I'm gonna go have a look over the study design and resources on the VCAA website to see if I can find out anything further