Tips about history ext (1 Viewer)

[haony98]

So, I'm in yr 11 now, and I thinking in doing History ext for yr12, I looked at the syllabus and it seems to be very interesting , but i don't understand the major project thing, i mean what we have to do and can i do a project about any topic in history or what.

can someone explain it to me?

thanx

 

[BandSixFix]

From what I know currently - you have to talk about history and its evolution. eg. how approaches / feelings towards a particular aspect of history has changed etc. Need lots of historiography.

 

[Nailgun]

So, I'm in yr 11 now, and I thinking in doing History ext for yr12, I looked at the syllabus and it seems to be very interesting , but i don't understand the major project thing, i mean what we have to do and can i do a project about any topic in history or what.

can someone explain it to me?

thanx

It's not exactly a project on history, but historiography. Historiography is basically the study of the study of history (as opposed to the study of history i.e. what a typical historian does) and forms the basis of History Extension. In other words, it's kinda like meta-history.
For example, take a fairly bog-standard topic, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It's not about arguing whether the bombings were necessary or even justifiable - this is essentially immaterial to the project.
The project is not about analysing what historians have to say about Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but why they are saying what they are saying. So you analyse context, their methodology, beliefs, the purpose of their history, their ideology and come to a conclusion about why they have such an opinion.

Take Historian A, who believes that H/N were a genocidal terrorist attack. What A actually thinks is irrelevant, but why he thinks this is very relevant. On further analysis, you see he has a Japanese grandfather, or he is pacifistic, or whatever and thus make the argument that this is why he thinks that.

You can analyse a change in historical perception, perhaps you make the argument that H/N is viewed more favorably today than it was 50 years ago, due to the influences of the Cold War on historians, or post-modernism, or whatever.


We're basically operating on three levels here

1. What actually happened - this is basic content stuff, basically yr9-10 level (and in ancient I think)
2. What you/historians think about what happened - this is the critical analysis you do in essays at a 2U history level (particularly in modern), where you use historians to support an argument you devise
3. Why historians think what they think about what happened - this is the historiographical analysis that forms the core of the history extension course, its no longer about what happened, but the perception of what happened in history and why this perception exists as it does

 

[BLIT2014]

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...ei=nVLdVsJqhLPQBMuXueAN#imgrc=QTS9gusvBnYQ7M:


Ignore

 

[chiddyfield]

The 'What is History' topic is also really interesting, in my opinion, in the sense that it has heavy basis on philosophy in the learning process. If you're into that, jump on it.

In the exams though, it is pretty much just analysing contextual influences and biases.

For the elective topic my school always chose Stonehenge because it's so boring that nobody does it and the markers often don't know it in depth because of that reason. Interestingly enough though, I managed to convince my CATHOLIC school to choose the topic of the 'historicity of Jesus Christ'. I'm excited to see how it goes.

 

[Nailgun]

The 'What is History' topic is also really interesting, in my opinion, in the sense that it has heavy basis on philosophy in the learning process. If you're into that, jump on it.

In the exams though, it is pretty much just analysing contextual influences and biases.

For the elective topic my school always chose Stonehenge because it's so boring that nobody does it and the markers often don't know it in depth because of that reason. Interestingly enough though, I managed to convince my CATHOLIC school to choose the topic of the 'historicity of Jesus Christ'. I'm excited to see how it goes.

You'd hope that your teacher is willing to approach it in a critical fashion though otherwise...lel

 

[D94]

For the elective topic my school always chose Stonehenge because it's so boring that nobody does it and the markers often don't know it in depth because of that reason.

Which is a good approach. We had 2 options, Rome and Elizabeth. Rome, being a lesser known topic, did better overall than Elizabeth. The topics that are not known in depth by the markers seem to do better since they can't fall back on their own critical view to affect their marking of your response.

Although personally I would have preferred to have done the Historicity of Jesus Christ since I was interested in that more than Rome and Elizabeth.

 

[Absolutezero]

http://i.imgur.com/Di3uvdM.jpg

 

[Rosemaryy]

Hi There!
History EXT is a really great subject to do-The major work essentially consists of an investigation or 'discussion' (what im doing) on pretty much any topic of history (ancient or modern) with a focus on HOW it has been portrayed in hsitory (Historiography). So it could be a controversy, discussion on conflicting ideas, a historical debate and many more. Your teacher will definitley go through all the options for things you can do, but it is really worthwhile and great-All the best! x

 

[chiddyfield]

You'd hope that your teacher is willing to approach it in a critical fashion though otherwise...lel

My teacher is a young progressive that has basically reformed the entire history department at my school. He's very secular and it took some convincing for them to allow him to do it.

If anything, I think he's going to be more critical than a state teacher would be because he and his students have been inundated with catholic BS for years lol. I'll keep you updated though

 

[chiddyfield]

Which is a good approach. We had 2 options, Rome and Elizabeth. Rome, being a lesser known topic, did better overall than Elizabeth. The topics that are not known in depth by the markers seem to do better since they can't fall back on their own critical view to affect their marking of your response.

Although personally I would have preferred to have done the Historicity of Jesus Christ since I was interested in that more than Rome and Elizabeth.

Yeah, I agree. Half of the class do the subject for the marks, the other half do it for the philosophy. The latter are the higher performers, and I firmly believe that it's more important to get things out of humanities classes than to just do them for the marks.

Either way, It'll be an awesome topic and will strengthen my criticisms of Bede