For the past two years, I have loved the content for Modern History, the only problem is I cannot write a Historical essay without going on a tangent or storytelling. My Trial results were shocking, but expected. I received a 50/100 and I was so disappointed with myself. I have been studying everyday for the past week writing essays and revising notes, but I fear that I will freak out in the exam room and completely forget anything.
- Do you have any tips for revising essays
- Do you have any tips for revising notes
- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question
- Do you have any tips on not storytelling
- Do you have any tips on using great histiography
Kind Regards,
Isho Dinkha
Hey Isho!! No worries, happy to help
Don't dwell on Trials too much, between now and the HSC exam you can improve exponentially with some hard work!
Here are my answers to your questions:
- Do you have any tips for revising essaysWhen it comes to revising essays, I think the best way to do this is to actually write them! Writing practice responses was the only way that I studied for Modern History last year - I didn't write notes (not to say that that is a bad idea, I just didn't do it personally), using the time that I saved to dedicate my time to doing past papers and exams, and getting my teacher to look over them. By doing this consistently throughout the year (even during weeks where we didn't have an exam coming up) I could pinpoint and identify issues much earlier, so by the time it was a week or two before an exam, when everyone else started studying, all the problems that they were only now identifying I had fixed weeks earlier, and was up to the stage whereby all I really needed to do was revise detail and work out arguments.
Reading other peoples essays as well, and identifying what is good about it, what is bad about it, different structures you may not have considered, etc. is also a really good idea!
- Do you have any tips for revising notesI don't really have any tips personally, because, as I said, I didn't write notes for any of my subjects last year, as it just wasn't an effective study method for me (again, it may be for you! This was just personal experience). However, my teacher recommended this system:
STEP ONE: Write basic notes - just the bare bones, no detail. What you NEED to know.
STEP TWO: Expand basic notes to comprehensive - take your basic notes, and add more content. Add dates, statistics, terminology, etc.
STEP THREE: Expand on comprehensive notes to "perfect" - take your comprehensive notes and now add extra detail, quotes, and identify links/arguments!
STEP FOUR: Simplify "perfect" notes back to comprehensive - without looking at your comprehensive notes, now try to simplify your perfect notes to only the content.
STEP FIVE: Simplify comprehensive notes to basic notes - without looking at your basic notes, now try to simplify your comprehensive notes to only include the stuff that you 100% need to know (and anything that you typically forget).
I also recommend using a table structure, and constructing a detail table (structured according to the syllabus, ONLY includes detail (stats, terminology, interesting facts, quotes - no content/arguments), argument table (work out the most common arguments and how you would argue them - for and against) and linking tables (how do all the factors on the syllabus like a) together, and b) to greater themes, eg. ideology).
- Do you have any tips on formulating responses according to the question Identify which essay "type" you're most comfortable with, and that works well with the question. If the question appears quite specific, I usually recommend a "factors" essays - the factors are usually the events and issues that are raised in the syllabus. If the question is quote broad, I typically wrote a "thematic" essay - so a paragraph on the political, economic and socio-cultural issues relevant to the question.
Another massive tip is to work out what exactly they're asking, and where in the syllabus it is from. For example, a lot of the Russia students during the CSSA trial were thrown by the "Red Army" question, because it appeared too specific - when it reality, "Red Army" was just a substitute for saying Civil War (a syllabus dot point), as the Red Army was only really critical during this time (in regards to the syllabus), meaning that they could have written a Civil War essay and be set! So I really recommend these two things:
1. Try to write out the syllabus, without looking. Do you know all the dot points?
2. Look at all the dot points, do you know the key points under each? eg. For Reasons for Allied Victory and German Collapse, the key points are the British Naval Blockade, Firepower, Manpower, Strategy v. Tactic and Morale.
- Do you have any tips on not storytellingMake sure that you are ALWAYS addressing the question. The best way to do this is literally and clearly bringing it back to the question with sentences like this; "thus it is clear that [judgement]", or "therefore, asserting the high significance of [judgement]."
That's the other thing - JUDGEMENT. Make sure that you have one! This should actually be your first sentence for every paragraph (and your introduction). For example, lets say the question was "To what extent was the New Economic Policy critical to the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power?". My judgement would be "The New Economic Policy was
highly critical to the Bolshevik Consolidation of Power". May seem super simple, but now, already, the marker knows what my answer/opinion is. Having a judgement also means that its harder to storytell, as rather than just explaining what the New Economic Policy was, I have to justify why it was highly critical!
- Do you have any tips on using great histiographyOnly use historiography to back up YOUR OWN arguments. Don't ever use them to form your essay, or else that will just look like a shopping list of historians. We know that the historians are experts - we need to know that you are, and that doesn't happen by just parroting what the historians say. Don't get me wrong, historians are fantastic to use, as they count as detail, but just make sure that you only ever use them to support your own analysis. With that in mind, I think the best way to go about it was always to introduce your own argument first, explain it, then later, bring in historians like this - "This is supported by Hobsbawm, who states....." or "Deutscher elaborates upon this phemonenon, suggesting that .........", or "[your argument], as according to Service "......".
Hope this helps! Please let me know if you're stull confused, or would like me to clarify anything
Susie