HSC Modern History Question Thread

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hello again!
Yesterday I was asking about 'describe' essays, so now I'd like to ask how to approach 'evaluate' essays. In class, my teacher treats 'evaluate' like it's an 'assess' question. But when you look at the Board of Studies Definitions (or NESA, idk which), 'evaluate' is to make a judgement based on criteria whereas 'assess' is to make a judgement. So do you treat 'evaluate' and 'assess' as the same thing or are there any differences?

Thanks

hi! it's nesa now hahaha but it's okay to call it bostes whatever lots of people still do it out of habit :-) but yea, treat them as the same thing because you're still making a judgement. if you check out some of the past hsc questions, a lot of them ask to evaluate/assess the significance of something, or to what extent did _____ impact on _____. pretty much the same thing.

[Thebarman]

How much historiography should we aim for in sections 2-4? Is it mandatory for the 2 main essays? Also, how do we integrate it well? 

[fantasticbeasts3]

How much historiography should we aim for in sections 2-4? Is it mandatory for the 2 main essays? Also, how do we integrate it well? 

historiography isn't a must in sections 2 and 4; you can still get a band 6 without it :-) it just adds to the amount of detail you have in an essay, but if you want to include it, maybe like 1-2 quotes per paragraph? i integrate quotes something like this: e.g. containment affected the development of the cold war, as evidenced by (historian name), who states/asserts/suggests that (quote). terrible example but it's pretty much how you insert quotes in english, LCMs in legal, case studies in business, etc.

[dancing phalanges]

Yeah 100% right^^ definitely not mandatory for a Band 6, let alone full marks. For instance, for War in the Pacific, it is harder than say Germany to find historiography easily and when I wrote my trial essay I realised I had completely forgotten about that and had no historians in my essay. But I used plenty of stats and details and still got 25 so as long as you sustain your thesis and can add in stats to back it up there's no need for historians, although I personally do like to use them, but only to support my argument, not to overwhelm it. Typically, I reference historians like this - Hitler had a significant influence on his own rise to power as "he put into words what people wanted to hear" (Carr). Also it can be fun to use historiography/historians so you can disagree with them and show your sophistication! Eg. The Determinist view of the rise of Nazism was that it was predestined/inevitable in the sense of Germany's authoritarian history and how its history of philosophers had ingrained a support of the state over the individual. However, in an essay, I would say something along the lines of (after introducing the Determinst View) - However, while the Nazi party appealed to conservative Germans given its authoritarian tradition, its rise was not inevitable. For instance, while the Nazi Party experienced significant growth following the outbreak of the Great Depression, its support was beginning to decline from 1932 as the Nazis only gained 33% of the votes in November, despite having 37% of the vote four months earlier in October. Rather, the rise of the Nazi Party was, to a greater extent, a product of the political miscalculations of others... then I would go into how Bruning, von Papen etc. underestimated Hitler and brought the Nazis into power. So that's why I also love use historians/historiography to show my own perspective!

[sudodds]

Big thank you to everyone here who kept this thread going, and made sure that everything got answered while I was MIA with lectures <3 Really impressed with the quality of all of the answers as well, you guys are literally going to smash the coming exams holy shit 

[maria1999]

hey guys!
I was wondering if I could have some help on how to approach this question:

To what extent was Japan responsible for the growth of Pacific tensions to 1941?

[av-angie-er]

hey guys!
I was wondering if I could have some help on how to approach this question:

To what extent was Japan responsible for the growth of Pacific tensions to 1941?

Hi! I'm doing the Conflict in the Pacific study as well so hopefully I can help

For this question I'd definitely go with the argument that Japan was, to a large extent, the primary instigator for the growth of tensions in the Pacific. This would be a reasonable line of argument because without Japan's plans to create a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere through aggressive territorial expansion, it's likely that the conflict wouldn't have emerged. From here you could back your thesis up with specific examples of factors/events that clearly displayed Japan as the aggressor, such as the Marco Polo Bridge incident, the Manchurian incident, the Rape of Nanking, the invasion of French Indochina etc.

Alternatively, you could create a thematic essay focusing on the motivations/strategies of Japan that lead to the growth of tensions in the Pacific. This could include paragraphs explaining the concept of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and the ideology behind it, outlining Japan's distrust towards the Western powers, and/or describing the nationalist ambition and strength of the Imperial Japanese Army.

These are just some examples of ways one might tackle the question, but I definitely think it's safe to approach it with the argument that Japan was largely the initiator of tensions in the Pacific. From there, you'd just need to back it up with evidence of how Japan clearly provoked the conflict by expanding aggressively throughout Asia. Hope this helps!

[bun00]

heyy!
has any1 got any predictions for wot Conflict in the Pacific essay questions will be?? It's my worst topic and i'm so scared of certain questions that we never covered properly
tku!

i thought this might help but i couldnt really see any patterns so maybe some1 else can??

2006
- allied occupation
- defeat of Japan despite earlier strategic positions
2007
- Battle of Coral Sea the major turning point
- Japanese occupation, impact on civillians
2008
- strategies used by Japan and Allies
- Allied Occupation
2009
- Japanese nationalism led to Pearl Harbour bombing
- America had no option but to drop A-bomb
2010
- Battle of Midway, the major turning point
- Homefronts of AUS + JAPAN
2011
- Japanese foreign policy
- Allied Occupation
2012
- US + British policies
- defeat of Japan
2013
- bombing of Pearl Harbour to achieve Japanese foreign policy aims
- Japanese Occupation, impact on civillians
2014
- homefronts AUS + Japan
- A-bomb ended the conflict
2015
- imperialism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Battle of Coral Sea, major turning point
2016
- Japanese nationalism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Allied Occupation

[kristineyr]

Hello! This is my first post so I'm not entirely sure how this works haha.
But I'm currently in Year 11 Modern History (Year 12 next week!), and I'm absolutely enjoying it. Though, due to some family circumstances - I haven't been able to study well and boost my marks. I know that I can do a lot better, but I don't know how!

I'm pretty much trying to learn how to analyse sources and write essays - from scratch. I'm not doing the greatest at the moment and I really want to aim to get higher marks. Do you guys have any tips on how I could possibly do this? We're starting WWI now I'm pretty sure so it is a new topic that I don't really have to catch up on thankfully. I really want to heighten my skills!

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hello! This is my first post so I'm not entirely sure how this works haha.
But I'm currently in Year 11 Modern History (Year 12 next week!), and I'm absolutely enjoying it. Though, due to some family circumstances - I haven't been able to study well and boost my marks. I know that I can do a lot better, but I don't know how!

I'm pretty much trying to learn how to analyse sources and write essays - from scratch. I'm not doing the greatest at the moment and I really want to aim to get higher marks. Do you guys have any tips on how I could possibly do this? We're starting WWI now I'm pretty sure so it is a new topic that I don't really have to catch up on thankfully. I really want to heighten my skills!

hi, welcome to the forums! i hope AN becomes a great place of support, love and friendship for you throughout the year and hopefully into the future :-)

props to you for wanting to improve lots despite what's going on, your initiative takes you a step closer to doing better!

anyway, your first port of call should be your teacher. they're amazing, and will always send you on the right track when it comes to writing responses. you've mentioned doing a source analysis and essay so i'll give you a quick rundown of both.

source analysis - they are always going to assess the usefulness of a source, with reference to perspective and reliability. if the source is in an exam, it's probably useful hahahah

one of the lecturers here, susie, has an amazing structure (guaranteed 10/10 if executed properly i'm not even exaggerating) so here it is:
1. make a judgement on the source - is it useful?
2. explain your judgement
3. explain source (primary, secondary, all that jazz)
4. perspective (where is the source from? who wrote it? stuff like that)
5. reliability (does the perspective impact on how reliable the source is? the time it is written?)
6. usefulness (perspective + reliability = usefulness! put everything you've written to conclude if the source is useful or not.)

essay - there are a ton of ways to do this, but the most important thing to remember is to sustain a judgement throughout your entire essay!!!!!!!!! this will keep you from retell. the questions are usually something like "assess/evaluate the significance/impact/importance of _______ on ______" so make sure your thesis statement is something relating to the question, and is sustained throughout the essay. once again, ask your teacher on how to write an essay - simple question, but you'll get so much out of it. your teacher becomes a really great friend to you, and no matter how many questions you ask on the same thing, they will never get annoyed at you.

best of luck for year 12,
fantasticbeasts

[dancing phalanges]

heyy!
has any1 got any predictions for wot Conflict in the Pacific essay questions will be?? It's my worst topic and i'm so scared of certain questions that we never covered properly
tku!

i thought this might help but i couldnt really see any patterns so maybe some1 else can??

2006
- allied occupation
- defeat of Japan despite earlier strategic positions
2007
- Battle of Coral Sea the major turning point
- Japanese occupation, impact on civillians
2008
- strategies used by Japan and Allies
- Allied Occupation
2009
- Japanese nationalism led to Pearl Harbour bombing
- America had no option but to drop A-bomb
2010
- Battle of Midway, the major turning point
- Homefronts of AUS + JAPAN
2011
- Japanese foreign policy
- Allied Occupation
2012
- US + British policies
- defeat of Japan
2013
- bombing of Pearl Harbour to achieve Japanese foreign policy aims
- Japanese Occupation, impact on civillians
2014
- homefronts AUS + Japan
- A-bomb ended the conflict
2015
- imperialism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Battle of Coral Sea, major turning point
2016
- Japanese nationalism led to Growth of Pacific Tensions
- Allied Occupation

I definitely don't recommend predicting for modern because they can ask anything haha - but I definitely get the sense one question will be on reasons for Japanese defeat/allied victory. What I personally love about this topic is that so many of the syllabus dot points overlap!
EG. Reasons for Allied Victory includes talking about the turning points, allied strategies to 1942, the a bomb, you can even bring up us foreign policy such as the export control act and how it crippled japan's already limited industrial resources.
So yeah don't worry too much, as for the other one I personally have no clue or guess maybe japanese occupation and its impact on civilians just because it hasnt been done for a while and is very different to japanese defeat and allied victory but really not sure!
and don't take my guess on allied victory as bible, just my thoughts aha.
good luck

[Primallis]

Hello people!

Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hello people!

Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?

okay i reaaaaallly don't know how to put this lightly, but here goes. ken. webb. is. not. a. historian!!!!!!!!! use his resources and stuff but do not quote him! when i did extension history, my teacher told the class, and i quote, "i'd rather you make up a historian than use ken webb." i don't know what the markers would do if you wrote something like "webb states, ________" but nah please don't quote him

[av-angie-er]

I definitely don't recommend predicting for modern because they can ask anything haha - but I definitely get the sense one question will be on reasons for Japanese defeat/allied victory. What I personally love about this topic is that so many of the syllabus dot points overlap!
EG. Reasons for Allied Victory includes talking about the turning points, allied strategies to 1942, the a bomb, you can even bring up us foreign policy such as the export control act and how it crippled japan's already limited industrial resources.
So yeah don't worry too much, as for the other one I personally have no clue or guess maybe japanese occupation and its impact on civilians just because it hasnt been done for a while and is very different to japanese defeat and allied victory but really not sure!
and don't take my guess on allied victory as bible, just my thoughts aha.
good luck

I agree that it's safer to not anticipate a certain question. And it definitely has been a while since a 'reasons for Allied victory' question's been asked! Interesting stuff to think about, but it's always nice to have two options just in case

[sudodds]

Hello people!

Is quoting Ken Webb within your arguments not recommended? Even if it's a short and sharp bit?

Just reiterating what fantasticbeasts said - NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.

Never EVER quote Ken Webb, or any other textbook writer for that manner, no matter how good the quote may be. The quote is "perfect" because the purpose of the textbook is to "perfectly" relate to your study/the syllabus - it's not an interesting perspective or view that you can analyse, it's just a summary of what you need to know to pass the specific syllabus requirements. He's not a historian, not an academic, and tbh, I'd avoid Ken Webb in general anyway, his textbooks are pretty crap imo - they don't go through the syllabus clearly, most of my students who use him find themselves very confused later on, and the exercises within the textbook are pretty useless (again, this is all my opinion). If you want to a good textbook, try Bruce Dennett's 'Key Features of Modern History' (however still don't quote Dennett - he's just a much better textbook writer).