History Extension Question Thread!

[katie,rinos]

Hi!

So I'm totally struggling...I looked over some of the history extension past papers and was blown away.

How do I write like that?

How can I write like that?

Hey,
The exam definitely seemed really hard at first. It’s something that you improve on during the whole year (especially as you learn about more historians/historiography) so don’t worry too much now.

I recently wrote a post on how I planned and wrote history extension essays here!.

In terms of planning for the essays:
For the section one-What is History essay I would start by reading over the source a couple of times. I would then use a highlighter to highlight 3-4 main historiographical points that related to the question. I would write them in my own words and say if I agreed/disagreed. I would link these points to my historians and then number the order in which I wanted to do my paragraphs.

For the case study, I would read the quote and rewrite it in my own words. Choose an area of debate I had studied (by half yearlies, I had only learnt one). And then asked if each of the schools of history reflect this view? And How?

Is there anything else that’s worrying you about the essays?

I feel like I dont know the jargon of this historical world (let alone past and present from all these dead guys).

I was wondering if you have some clear and simple tips to help me break it down?

Would be super grateful for some advice.

In terms of the historical jargon, I found that by reading through readings (of both the textbook/historical work) I began to understand it better throughout the year. My teacher also made a quizlet on some 'What is History' Key terms so I would go through that to make sure I knew them. It included terms like teleology, anachronism, total history, public history,etc. As well as understanding the jargon when reading it, you can use it in your essays as well!

*Also, how would I incorporate better historiography into the major work? Right now my draft sounds like a modern history essay. It has my three points and some quotes with strong arguments but not much historians/theories, etc. Not sure how to integrate 'theory' into my essay on historical figures.

Many thanks, guys!
 

Whats your question for your major? Depends on the question but it needs to be a historiographical topic, so you need to be looking at the historians more then the historical figures/event.
For example, in my essay, I looked at two conflicting historians interpretations on holocaust perpetrator’s motivations. I had paragraphs on the historians context, methodology and how this affected their interpretation (with criticisms).

Hope this helps

[owidjaja]

Hey!
So I'm finalising my preliminary reference list for my Major Work and I just realised that one of my sources was a University Student Newspaper with one of the students reviewing Battlefield 1 through a perspective of a historiographer (i.e. historical accuracy, criticising selection of weapons in the game etc.) Would this be considered as a reliable source of information? ( If you want, you can check out the website.)

[katie,rinos]

Hey!
So I'm finalising my preliminary reference list for my Major Work and I just realised that one of my sources was a University Student Newspaper with one of the students reviewing Battlefield 1 through a perspective of a historiographer (i.e. historical accuracy, criticising selection of weapons in the game etc.) Would this be considered as a reliable source of information? ( If you want, you can check out the website.)

Hey,
I’m not too sure. On one side it is reliable because he seems very well researched and has first-hand experience with the game. Also, because it is written for a Uni magazine you’d expect it to be a reliable article (telling the truth about the historiography of the game). However, we don’t really know anything about the writer such as where he has gotten his information from, his degree or his bias.

It sounds really interesting and has some cool historiographical ideas!
Hope this helps

[owidjaja]

Hey there!
So I'm going through some past papers and I noticed in the question 1 section it mentions something like: 'two other sources.' What does it mean by that?

Thanks in advance.

- Olivia

[katie,rinos]

Hey there!
So I'm going through some past papers and I noticed in the question 1 section it mentions something like: 'two other sources.' What does it mean by that?

Thanks in advance.

- Olivia

When it says sources it is just referring to historians/schools of history. So you'd need to reference at least two different historians in your essay.
Hope this helps

[owidjaja]

When it says sources it is just referring to historians/schools of history. So you'd need to reference at least two different historians in your essay.
Hope this helps

Hmm, now I'm a bit confused. So two different historians consistently throughout the essay or using different historians as an example per paragraph?

For example, point 1: Historians now have a lot of evidence to refer to due to the different forms of evidence, thus indicating the changing nature of evidence.
Examples included in the paragraph: von Ranke vs Herodotus with Ranke only using written documents vs Herodotus' belief in performing history rather than via written works.

And then in the next paragraph, two different historians to support my point.

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused :/

[katie,rinos]

Hmm, now I'm a bit confused. So two different historians consistently throughout the essay or using different historians as an example per paragraph?

For example, point 1: Historians now have a lot of evidence to refer to due to the different forms of evidence, thus indicating the changing nature of evidence.
Examples included in the paragraph: von Ranke vs Herodotus with Ranke only using written documents vs Herodotus' belief in performing history rather than via written works.

And then in the next paragraph, two different historians to support my point.

Sorry, I'm still a bit confused :/

Hey, sorry for the confusion.

It’s at least two historians throughout the whole essay, however I always ended up writing about more (probably around 4). I would use 1 (or sometimes two) different historians as an example for each argument/paragraph. Your example definitely seems valid! However if you wished to you only need to talk about one historian in your next paragraph instead of two.

Hope this helps

[LochNess Monster]

Hi @Katie rinos

Thank you for answering my first 2 questions. You made it really clear, so once more thanks!
(I read your post).

But I still haven't got the 3rd question answered so here it is again, hopefully making more sense?

So my essay is talking about how my 3 chosen historical figures (from Chinese history) have been represented (or potentially misintepreted) by historians.

Essentially through this case study, I'm saying that to a large extent, famous historical figures built upon from traditons and legends have been constructed from previous ideologies and contain the potential to evolve and be characterised into a new era.

Is this ok?

And how can I put historiography theories into it?

[kristieevans]

Hey,

I would really appreciate it if anyone can help, I have an exam on Friday and we were given a practice task. I have been given a source thing and then have been told 'discuss the historiography of 'Battle' (the practice source). In your answer you should make explicit reference to the source.'

I know it won't be the same source in the exam, but how on earth do I answer a question like this??

Help please!!

[katie,rinos]

Hey,

I would really appreciate it if anyone can help, I have an exam on Friday and we were given a practice task. I have been given a source thing and then have been told 'discuss the historiography of 'Battle' (the practice source). In your answer you should make explicit reference to the source.'

I know it won't be the same source in the exam, but how on earth do I answer a question like this??

Help please!!

Hey,

I planned my section one essays by reading over the source a few times and highlighting the main points/arguments that were relevant to the question. I then put those points in my own words and stated if I agreed/disagreed with them. I linked historians to the points and briefly explained why. Number the order of my points and write a thesis statement for my essay (which would be the first sentence of my intro.)

The question is pretty broad so you’d be able to discuss any historiographical issue that comes up. Make sure that your essay has a strong judgement throughout it on the arguments in the source.

Hope this helps! Good luck for your exam!

[Sevdajodat]

Hi,

So i have my half yearlys coming up real soon and i just wanted to ask you how you studied for the subject, and what helped you write a really good essay. Also with the major work, do you have a scaffold of your proposal??


Thanks 

[katie,rinos]

Hi,

So i have my half yearlys coming up real soon and i just wanted to ask you how you studied for the subject

Hey,
Welcome to Atar Notes! 

For studying, I made sure that I was up to date with all of my readings and classwork. I would make tables of the historians (for the What is History section) that answered the questions: Who are the historians, What are the purposes of history, How has history been constructed and recorded over time?, Historian’s Interpretation on their subject, Why have approaches to history changed over time?, What impact has the historian had on historiography? and What are some of the criticisms of this approach?.
I also made flashcards for my historians (in both the case study and What is History) and the key historiographical terms on quizlet that I would go over and test myself on.

I used the History Extension debate thread to be exposed to new debates, test out my perspectives on issues and ‘develop my voice’. I also (more towards trials/HSC) did a lot of essay plans and practise essays on past questions.

what helped you write a really good essay.

For my essays, I made sure that I had at least 10 minutes planning time.
For the section 1 essay, I would plan by: Reading over the source a few times and highlighting the important points that were relevant to the question. I would then write these in my own words and state if I agreed/disagreed with them. Linked historians to each of the points and briefly explained why. Numbered the order of my points and then wrote a thesis statement (that would be the 1st sentence of my intro).
For the section 2 essay: Read the quote ad rewrite in my own words. Choose an area from my case study and ask if the schools of history reflected this view and how.

Make sure that you know the historians/debates really well to support your arguments and have a strong, critical judgement throughout your essay.

I wrote a longer guide here on how I planned and wrote my essays that may be helpful!

Also with the major work, do you have a scaffold of your proposal??

Thanks 

As the major works are marked internally they can vary between schools. Yours may be structured slightly differently to mine.

My proposal had four subheadings and information under them:
Extension proposal
-   The question for my essay and description of the question
-   The syllabus questions it will answer

Description of preliminary research
-   Aims
-   Resources (books, internet,etc.) that I had looked at
-   Places visited (e.g Fisher library, school library)
-   How my question has developed
-   Successes/gaps in the research so far

Enquiry Questions
-   Both historical and historiographical questions that will help you to answer your essay question.

Research Intentions
-   Areas/texts to examine with some specific examples (e.g books, internet, youtube).
-   Where will you go to find them (I included specific libraries such as fisher library, Sydney Jewish museum, local library).
-   Your methodology

Hope this helps!

[owidjaja]

Hey guys,
I'm currently organising my notes on Ranke and one of the sections is comparing the pros and cons of his methodology. Would you say there would be any benefit in relying on archived documents? At the moment, I can only list the negative things about Ranke's methodology.

Thanks in advance!

[katie,rinos]

Hey guys,
I'm currently organising my notes on Ranke and one of the sections is comparing the pros and cons of his methodology. Would you say there would be any benefit in relying on archived documents? At the moment, I can only list the negative things about Ranke's methodology.

Thanks in advance!

Hey,

I think theres a small benefit as through the use of the national archives he had a large focus on primary sources, (written by people there during the event). He also believed that original documentary sources were the best to use. However, by using the Venetian ambassador’s archives, he only used one type of source which focussed on the upperclassman. It could also have led to a distorted perspective if only they were used.

You could also talk about how he demanded objectivity from historians and aimed for a strict source analysis (even though he still had some bias). Even though he has a lot of negatives, the Rankean method is still used to analyse sources today.

Hope this helps!

[prickles]

How do I avoid the process log becoming a diary? How should I write it?