Prac exams

[Dejan]

Hello fellow historians, when you start doing prac exams are you going to mark them yourselves or get the teacher to mark it?

[mseleanor]

I got my teacher to mark a few but in all honesty, I don't know how to mark them myself. I mean, do we get marked down for going according to the suggested responses, or will an answer receive full marks because it still shows comprehensive knowledge and analysis?

So personally, I sort of just do the practice exams, read over them and note down any weaknesses I find, and then try to improve in the next.

[Dejan]

Exactly, I don't know how to mark it, what certain aspects of the answer I need to assess, I am most likely will get the teacher to mark it. No you shouldn't at all and a answer will receive full marks if it correctly states the event, the correct year and date, a very comprehensive knowledge (I can't explain what knowledge you need to possess as this varies with different questions) and great analysis. Yeah sounds like a good idea to me . Are you going to VCAA papers and other companies too?

[Dejan]

I don't know how to properly structure my answer

[mseleanor]

Yes I've done VCAA 2011 and 2010 (which is hard! grrr), and done most of Checkpoints which takes the questions from 2005-2009 VCAA  exams so I've been using Insight, HTAV, Engage Education and Alpha History. I'd say HTAV practice exams are the most realistic.

You know, I've found the way people structure answers varies alot, so don't stress yourself out!

Which answer don't you know how to structure?

[Dejan]

All questions really expect the 2 mark one's since I haven't started on practice exams

[mseleanor]

Work through Checkpoints and practice exams varying your structure and you'll start to find something you're comfortable with.

Here's how I do it

Section A Questions 1 & 2 - start with a topic sentence that addresses the question, signpost each point 'firstly, secondly, thirdly' - I order all points chronologically and end with an analytical statement to lead to the next point.

Section A Question 3 + Section B Question 1- analyses of reps.
Question 3c/1c you're using factual knowledge and cause/effect, etc. to contextualise the representation and add your own knowledge to fully answer the question. Write a concise but thorough paragraph making constant references to the representation

Section B Question 2 - An essay. Like English - argument, introduction, contention, paragraphs, topic sentences, conclusion. Use evidence to support your argument like stats, quotes, etc. Structure by Political/Economic/Social or perhaps chronologically.

Hope that helps.

[mseleanor]

OH, forgot about question 3d. This one is sort of hard to structure, I don't even have a set one that I usually use.

I don't paragraph any points in this because I find everything tends to flow so it words out. I acknowledge the strengths in the document, support it with evidence and then suggest what historians do/might agree with the contention or find the representation useful. Then go on to point out the weaknesses in the document, what is left out and why it is the case(e.g. bias of a Soviet historian or a Western Liberal historian), and then discuss what other historians might/do think, focus on etc. Then conclude in evaluating how strong/reliable it really is.

[Dejan]

Work through Checkpoints and practice exams varying your structure and you'll start to find something you're comfortable with.

Here's how I do it

Section A Questions 1 & 2 - start with a topic sentence that addresses the question, signpost each point 'firstly, secondly, thirdly' - I order all points chronologically and end with an analytical statement to lead to the next point.

Section A Question 3 + Section B Question 1- analyses of reps.
Question 3c/1c you're using factual knowledge and cause/effect, etc. to contextualise the representation and add your own knowledge to fully answer the question. Write a concise but thorough paragraph making constant references to the representation

Section B Question 2 - An essay. Like English - argument, introduction, contention, paragraphs, topic sentences, conclusion. Use evidence to support your argument like stats, quotes, etc. Structure by Political/Economic/Social or perhaps chronologically.

Hope that helps.

Yeah that's what I do for Question 1 and 2. Question 3 wow great way to structure the answer. The essay is going to be tricky I guess that's a great way to structure it

[Dejan]

I want A+ but it's going to be really difficult

[mseleanor]

I know what you mean, that's what I'm aiming for too. You can only try your best, and remember it's ranking that counts. So start practice exams to see what you need to improve on and what information you need to look over.

We never know what they'll throw at us, so just remember everyone's in the same boat if you happen to come across a particularly nasty question on the exam. Persevere

[Dejan]

I know what you mean, that's what I'm aiming for too. You can only try your best, and remember it's ranking that counts. So start practice exams to see what you need to improve on and what information you need to look over.

We never know what they'll throw at us, so just remember everyone's in the same boat if you happen to come across a particularly nasty question on the exam. Persevere

Yeah true , I hope for no nasty questions but I have a strong feeling there will be!

[mseleanor]

Me too, especially because they're nearing the final years of the study design.

The 2010 exam I found considerably hard! - speaking from the perspective of doing France Section A and Russia Section B. I'm just hoping it's not like that this year :/

[Dejan]

Yeah the France question on publications is quite difficult to answer :/, the picture question is going to be hard for me, I struggle how to identify the different social classes and types of people and  the rest for France wasn't too diffcult but forget Russia I suck at it

[osgood]

In regards to essay questions again, for questions such as 'To what extent were revolutionary ideals achieved?', what have you all been writing for 'political' ideals?
Up until now, I've just been discussing to what extent the Bolshevik government represented the workers but Checkpoints has a whole speel about soviet republics and whatnot. Is this very pertinent? Did Lenin's ideals differ very dramatically from the collective ideals of the Bolsheviks?