Source Analysis Structure

[anniegaze]

Hello! I'm a little bit confused as my teacher at school said that we need to analyse the effectiveness/reliability of the Sources in our 10 mark question, but I recently went to a lecture where the lecturer said that this is not needed anymore and you just need to include the source in your response. Can anyone clear this up for me?? Thanks.

[K888]

Hi there! Welcome to the forums

I'd be interested to see what other users have to say - so if anyone has anything to say, please don't hesitate to share!
The great thing about Revs is that everyone has a different way to approach things, and one way isn't necessarily superior or inferior to another way.

To be honest, even in the last study design, you didn't really have to say whether the source was reliable/effective. What the question was based around, was "evaluate the extent to which this source provides an accurate depiction of...", where you basically just opened your answer with a sentence about whether the document provided a limited/complete (it was never complete haha) depiction of whatever you were discussing (eg: tensions contributing to a revolutionary situation in Russia in October 1917). But like, even then you didn't have to always say that. I often just wrote a sentence about the "viewpoint" the document provided, then talked about other things you needed in order to get a more complete depiction - using historians viewpoints and evidence. Certainly didn't harm me marks wise To me, it's just not the sort of thing that VCAA wants from you.

I'm admittedly not super familiar with the structure of the new study design, but having read over the exam, I'd argue that you don't have to talk about the effectiveness/reliability, and just need to discuss the source and other viewpoints. Kind of relates to my paragraph above. The question phrasing just isn't geared towards focusing purely on the source, and I know that VCAA wanted to move even further away from only discussing the source you see in front of you - they rewarded students who expanded past the source in the past study design, so it wouldn't make sense for them to do a full 180 with the new study design.
To me, the new study design is all about encouraging students to think broadly and see that you need to consider lots of different opinions and viewpoints to understand what happened. It encourages a bit of broad and critical thinking, if you think about it

In the end, if you want to put it in, you probably can chuck it in a sentence quickly. But it's not what VCAA are wanting you to focus on, so you're not gonna be compromised by not doing it, and if you focus on what VCAA truly want in the responses (which you'll be able to see if you read the exam report from last year, but I'll include some quotes relevant to the c. response here), that's what's gonna get you the marks. No need to make extra work for yourself by including stuff that's not super necessary!

A good strategy used in high-scoring answers was to quote from the sources at the start of the answer to begin discussion, and then develop information and weigh it against other information and views.

High-scoring answers discussed the viewpoints rather than simply including a historian’s name in sentences. Low-scoring
answers ignored the instruction to refer to the sources and other views.

Some students attributed views to the incorrect historians and some attempted to fit learned quotes that showed little  relevance to the argument. Some incorrect answers attempted to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the sources, which was not relevant to the questions.

So, if you go off that quote, definitely don't focus on analysing the strengths/weaknesses of a source, because that's just straying away from the question.

The highest-scoring strategies for the organisation of answers began with the source or a
summative reference to the sources.

Hope this has helped! Sorry I couldn't provide a *super* definitive answer. Like I said, I'll be interested to see what other people have to say about this.

[Sam M]

Hi, this is just my view -- don't quote me on it though, I could be be really wrong >_<, but...

My teacher has never told us to refer to a source's reliability.

Personally, I think K888 post covers this idea well; its definitely not necessary every time for each source (personally, I think if it was it would become a little tedious), and you can score well without it.

Of course, if the question asks you to refer to the reliability of the source/effectiveness you would definitely do so.

Also, I think its important that sometimes your answer to specific questions would benefit greatly by acknowledging the perspective of the source's creator. e.g. My history teacher told us the name of person who produced many prominent propaganda images for the Russian rev (although I can't remember the name of him) and said that it would be great in the showing extra 'knowledge' criteria if you mentioned how he was commissioned by the Bolsheviks (can't remember the exact details...).

Additionally, In one of my sacs, part 1A required us to compare what two written sources (one by Lenin, one by Bolshevik-critic Pipes) said about the Bolsheviks following their rise to power. In this question, I think it is implied to discuss the bias of each perspective; I mentioned in a sentence or two how Lenin was a leader of the Bolshevik party which blah blah blah, and also that Pipes is a Western Liberal historian who holds a critical view of the Bolsheviks blah blah blah.

I haven't done too many practice questions for the new study design, but it doesn't seem like commenting on a source's reliability/effectiveness is very common.

If it were to come up in the exam, I think it would be a source depicting the storming of the winter palace (this might be completely irrelevant if you're not doing the Russian rev), which was often glorified in propaganda despite being (in reality) characterised by confusion etc.
Ok, hope this helped and isn't too convoluted (as it seems now that I'm finished...)