HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
The Major Work! Tips from a 2016 survivor :)
sudodds:
--- Quote from: olr1999 on July 20, 2017, 05:12:06 pm ---The syllabus says for the synopsis we must 'describe the development of the precise question that provides the focus of the essay.' Does this mean we must talk about how our question has changed and what it started with or am I on totally the wrong track? Thanks!
--- End quote ---
Hmmmm, for me, my synopsis was my introduction! So I just expanded upon what a traditional introduction would look like. I provided an outline for the basis of my question (explaining the concept of the interpenetration of opposites), and then explaining how I would go about answering my question. I personally didn't talk about how my question changed - that was more so reflected throughout my logbook. I have read many synopsis' that detail how you came to your final question however, such as being like "I was intensely interested in ___________, which led me to ___________________", that kinda thing :)
katie,rinos:
--- Quote from: olr1999 on July 20, 2017, 05:12:06 pm ---The syllabus says for the synopsis we must 'describe the development of the precise question that provides the focus of the essay.' Does this mean we must talk about how our question has changed and what it started with or am I on totally the wrong track? Thanks!
--- End quote ---
For mine, I just added a sentence about it in my synopsis which was 'I came to this question after first researching how much the German population knew about the Holocaust, and then realising that thousands of Germans were actively involved in the murder of the Jewish people.' I think that if your going to address it in the synopsis it doesn't really have to be huge.
jadzia26:
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 20, 2017, 07:08:19 pm ---For mine, I just added a sentence about it in my synopsis which was 'I came to this question after first researching how much the German population knew about the Holocaust, and then realising that thousands of Germans were actively involved in the murder of the Jewish people.' I think that if your going to address it in the synopsis it doesn't really have to be huge.
--- End quote ---
My teacher has described the synopsis to us as an overview of your logbook kind of. So showing how you got to your topic and what influenced you I guess, showing your progression towards your final product :)
olr1999:
--- Quote from: sudodds on July 20, 2017, 06:41:14 pm ---Hmmmm, for me, my synopsis was my introduction! So I just expanded upon what a traditional introduction would look like. I provided an outline for the basis of my question (explaining the concept of the interpenetration of opposites), and then explaining how I would go about answering my question. I personally didn't talk about how my question changed - that was more so reflected throughout my logbook. I have read many synopsis' that detail how you came to your final question however, such as being like "I was intensely interested in ___________, which led me to ___________________", that kinda thing :)
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: katie,rinos on July 20, 2017, 07:08:19 pm ---For mine, I just added a sentence about it in my synopsis which was 'I came to this question after first researching how much the German population knew about the Holocaust, and then realising that thousands of Germans were actively involved in the murder of the Jewish people.' I think that if your going to address it in the synopsis it doesn't really have to be huge.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: jadzia26 on July 20, 2017, 07:17:17 pm ---My teacher has described the synopsis to us as an overview of your logbook kind of. So showing how you got to your topic and what influenced you I guess, showing your progression towards your final product :)
--- End quote ---
Awesome, thank you so much!
sudodds:
For future reference, this was my synopsis :)
SpoilerThis essay asks the reader to reflect upon the current state of the Historical Discipline through the lens of Hegelian Maoism, particularly in regards to the dialectical theory of the Interpenetration of Opposites. Within On Contradiction, Mao Tse-Tung explores the law of contradiction as the fundamental basis of dialectical materialist thought, and establishes the basic principle – as influenced by the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin – that all processes will inevitably transform into their opposites, due to the internal contradictions that interplay.
Throughout the essay, it will be argued that the Historical Discipline, from the age of Historical Empiricism to present day, has been experiencing this inevitable transition into its “opposite” – transforming from a discipline where the primary goal was the search for an objective truth (whether that was possible, even then was up for debate by pioneers of historical objectivity) to one that often places historical truth secondary to other aims, or even, according to postmodernists, as an impossibility. This will be argued through analysing the role of the linguistic turn and the introduction of the “bottom-up” approach within the discipline, and how despite expanding History in regards to introducing new ideas, subject areas and audience, they are contributing to History’s inevitable transition through distorting the role and purpose of history, and validating imagination as a legitimate tool of historical enquiry. This essay will examine the consequences of this transition through analysing how these distortions have been exploited by popular historian Bill O’Reilly, whereby despite his “vast carelessness pollut[ing] history and debas[ing] the historian’s craft,” he must still be considered a legitimate historian as the basis of a legitimate historian has been perverted so much that it is now impossible to discern.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version