HSC Stuff > HSC Extension History
History Extension Question Thread!
Maraos:
--- Quote from: sudodds on April 29, 2017, 10:07:16 am ---Hey! Okay so I only studied these two very briefly, so take my opinion with a grain of salt (take every opinion with a grain of salt! This is extension! 8))
From what I remember they are probably the most accurate labels to use for both historians. However, remember that labels leave little room for nuance. In my opinion, rather than saying that Keith Windschuttle is an empiricist, say that he follows an empiricist methodology :) In the same way, say that Henry Reynolds adopts a relativist position, rather than just say he is a relativist, because though he does believe (from memory) that the historian's perspective is critical, almost all historians, even relativist historians, use empirical methods to research and create their own works :) This is just a teeny weeny thing, and like, you probably wouldn't be marked down. But its just an extra precaution in case you get a particularly pedantic marker :)
Hope this helps! I'd double check this with your teacher, as again we didn't really cover them extensively last year, but I'm pretty sure this is right :)
For some further readings on their position (other than their books of course!) I found these reviews that may help :)
- Henry Reynolds
- Keith Windschuttle
Susie
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the response! :)
And yeah you're right about labeling the historians. When I asked my teacher what each historian's methodology can be labelled as he did seem a bit hesitant to distinctively place them into a 'category'.
Also thanks for the readings! :)
sudodds:
--- Quote from: Maraos on April 29, 2017, 10:47:37 am ---Thanks for the response! :)
And yeah you're right about labeling the historians. When I asked my teacher what each historian's methodology can be labelled as he did seem a bit hesitant to distinctively place them into a 'category'.
Also thanks for the readings! :)
--- End quote ---
No worries! Yeah your teacher has the right idea :) For example, even defining Von Ranke as an empiricist isn't entirely correct! His famous quote where he said his work would reflect history "as it actually was" was most likely a mistranslation of German :o What many believe he actually said was "as it essentially was" - which means something entirely different!
Maraos:
Hello again
I've got a question regarding how to answer the 'what is history' question. My friend told me (who is in the other ext history class) that the best way to answer the question is to begin each paragraph/argument with a quote from the stimulus/source and then discuss historians/debates that are related to that section of the source.
I haven't done any past papers yet and I'm kind of worried about this exam (on Thursday). Would this be an okay way to approach the question?
Also I know this question has already being answered before and the info you provided was great ;D However im just wondering if this would be an acceptable way also
Thanks! ;D
sudodds:
--- Quote from: Maraos on May 01, 2017, 01:45:27 am ---Hello again
I've got a question regarding how to answer the 'what is history' question. My friend told me (who is in the other ext history class) that the best way to answer the question is to begin each paragraph/argument with a quote from the stimulus/source and then discuss historians/debates that are related to that section of the source.
I haven't done any past papers yet and I'm kind of worried about this exam (on Thursday). Would this be an okay way to approach the question?
Also I know this question has already being answered before and the info you provided was great ;D However im just wondering if this would be an acceptable way also
Thanks! ;D
--- End quote ---
Hey hey!
I love that your school has enough students for TWO classes! We just scraped 4 students in my year haha :P
That would be a great way to structure your response! Reason being it means that you are making sure that your arguments are constructed around the source, which is key in history extension - if you don't integrate the source enough then you are in serious trouble! I would probably shy away from making them your topic sentence - that should be your own judgement. However I almost always included a quote from the source in my explanation of judgement directly after! So for example lets say if I was doing a question on "to what extent can history be objective", the beginning of my paragraph could look like this:
Historical objectivity is unattainable, as due to the extensive brevity of historical archives it is impossible for a historical producer to have studied all relevant material. As suggested in Source A, "a historian can only know something about something," as in order to write history, historical producers must specialise, principally by forming a question of enquiry that denotes significance to one particular aspect of a chosen historical field.
In terms of moving on from there, its imperative that you are discussing historians (and historiographers!)/debates relevant to that section, however make sure that you go further than discussion and analyse. Why does that historian present a particular view? What are his/her methodologies when constructing history? How do historiographical concepts such as post modernism, social history, popular history, empiricism etc. fit in? It's not enough to just write a "he said, she said." You have to demonstrate that you understand the why's and how, and even more importantly that you develop your own voice! YOUR own opinion needs to be there somewhere (if you want to test out your own voice please try out this thread! Perfect study before your exam and also severely neglected :( )
Hope this helps!
Susie
Maraos:
--- Quote from: sudodds on May 01, 2017, 09:51:09 am ---Hey hey!
I love that your school has enough students for TWO classes! We just scraped 4 students in my year haha :P
That would be a great way to structure your response! Reason being it means that you are making sure that your arguments are constructed around the source, which is key in history extension - if you don't integrate the source enough then you are in serious trouble! I would probably shy away from making them your topic sentence - that should be your own judgement. However I almost always included a quote from the source in my explanation of judgement directly after! So for example lets say if I was doing a question on "to what extent can history be objective", the beginning of my paragraph could look like this:
Historical objectivity is unattainable, as due to the extensive brevity of historical archives it is impossible for a historical producer to have studied all relevant material. As suggested in Source A, "a historian can only know something about something," as in order to write history, historical producers must specialise, principally by forming a question of enquiry that denotes significance to one particular aspect of a chosen historical field.
In terms of moving on from there, its imperative that you are discussing historians (and historiographers!)/debates relevant to that section, however make sure that you go further than discussion and analyse. Why does that historian present a particular view? What are his/her methodologies when constructing history? How do historiographical concepts such as post modernism, social history, popular history, empiricism etc. fit in? It's not enough to just write a "he said, she said." You have to demonstrate that you understand the why's and how, and even more importantly that you develop your own voice! YOUR own opinion needs to be there somewhere (if you want to test out your own voice please try out this thread! Perfect study before your exam and also severely neglected :( )
Hope this helps!
Susie
--- End quote ---
Thanks so much! :D
That thread you made seems like a great idea! I'll post some of my opinions on there.
Also, we only have 2 classes with 3 people per class so 6 in total haha, sounds impressive though :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version