The 2009 Trial HSC for History Ext (1 Viewer)

[Therewego]

Can't find any threads on this, so I thought I'd make one.

The trials as I'm sure everyone knows are really really close, and I for one haven't started study for history extension yet mainly out of a lack of knowing how to.

I don't really have any notes, because our teacher doesn't give us any, and we only briefly covered the what is history topic and the historicity of Jesus Christ.

In short, I'm probably screwed, and any advice would be awesome.

So how are you/did you/do you plan to study for the trials?

Thanks in advance...

 

[nail]

Do a couple of past papers and read the BoS syllabus and handouts. There is a source book of readings that you need to read http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/history_ext_readings.pdf
good luck!

 

[eriito]

Invest in a textbook. Open it. Read it.

 

[Therewego]

Thanks nail,

Just about the book of readings...how important is it?

Our teacher downplays its importance and pretty much says not to worry about it too much.

Bad idea?

 

[el gwapo]

it's not the bible/torah/koran... but it is good to know about 2-3 historians there for reference.

studying for history extension is simple:

know a lot of historians, and their ways of writing history then write about it. Name dropping has never been so crucial

 

[Kujah]

There is hardly any textbook that would be useful at all in History Extension. The only 'textbook' that would contradict this above statement would be Warren's 'History and the Historians'.

Know a few historians in depth, practise deconstructing your sources time and time again, learn how to weave in these statements/quotes throughout your essay and know where you stand!

Simply name-dropping and not going into elaboration will only get you so far! So do know a wide variety of historians over time and from different historical thoughts.

 

[Therewego]

Awesome thanks guys so what I gather for this is,

Know a few historians (3-4?) really well as well as what "school" they are from (empiricism, marxism etc.)

Know where I stand and what my own opinion is regarding how they've formulated these opinions.

Well I hope so...
Thanks again

 

[mellyjane]

My teacher, who is an experienced HSC amrker says text books are the devil of hsc. There is no number of historians you need to know - but put it this way, the more you know the easier it was. For example, we had a source on the roe of popular history, and we had to say if this was our uderstanding of the role of history. For that, you had to know stuff about popular history, and about the serious historians, e.g von ranke, elton, carr and i also wrote about the prgoress of history, so i inlucded the classics, the bede gibbons and marxists. I backed it up by addressing historigrapghical issues - e.g the Reynolds vs windshuttle debate very briefly, and obviously all of this had to come back to the bloody source.
So thats just an idea.

whatever you do, if your aiming high, dont use textbooks. THE HSC MARKING CENTRE SAYS IF YOU QUOTE A SECONDSRY SOURCE OR OPINION INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL HISTORIAN YOU WILL BE PENALISED

good luck

 

[0hNivlek]

My teacher said remember to provide a judgement, be critical and always include postmodernist historians.

 

[myonlyhope90]

Studying for HSC History Extension...

In relation to text books, the best one I will recommend is Ken Webb's Extension History: The Historians (2006). It provides an overview that is easy to understand in relation to the first section of the course "What is History?". Besides Webb, I'm a personal Warren fan.

The Book of Readings isn't all that important. It's original purpose was for teachers who didn't have access to a wide range of sources that covered the issues in historiography. If your teacher has discussed historians/periods of historiography in detail with you, you'll be fine. When I did Extension last year, I only looked at ONE extract from the readings.

One thing I am dead set against for History Extension is doing past papers. You may tell me I'm wrong, but according to the 2008 Marking Notes students are tending to rely too much on prepared answers to past questions. You're at a disadvantage if you do. I quote from the notes themselves:

"Questions are drawn from a range of areas within the syllabus. The syllabus and not past examination papers should therefore be the basis for the preparation of candidates for this examination" (pp. 4)

It goes on further:

"The best preparation for this examination consists in developing the skills of an analysis and argument, of being prepared to make critical judgments and to support these with an informed understanding of the debates in history" (pp. 4)

Therefore the best preparation I suggest is to structure notes around the syllabus questions, which apply to both sections of the course.

These questions are:

• What are the historical debates?
• Who are the historians?
• What are the aims and purposes of history?
• How has history been constructed and recorded over time?
• Why have approaches to history changed over time?

I would say study 4 historians from four different periods of historiography (i.e. Classical, Christian, Enlightenment, Post-Modern, etc.). Plus a historical debate, try something original like Reynolds and Windschuttle, rather than Elton and Carr. I'm sure markers are sick of seeing their names.

MellyJane, I fail to understand what you mean by "THE HSC MARKING CENTRE SAYS IF YOU QUOTE A SECONDSRY SOURCE OR OPINION INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL HISTORIAN YOU WILL BE PENALISED"? Most "historians" writings are secondary themselves, if not tertiary sources.

As for the historicity of Jesus Christ, I unfortunately can't help you (although I think it would be an interesting topic to have done).

Remember History Extension isn't supposed to be easy.

Hope that helps!

 

[roar84eighty]

ken webb's extension history book is shit

edit: i lol'd at the irony in the author's comments in the chapter 'post-modernism, relativism, deconstructionism...' when he states: "at the outset, I would like to make it clear that what follows is not presented as the definitive, last word on post-modernist historical writing"

 

[spazamataz]

I am making summaries of all the historians that we have covered in class.
My teacher says that the source book of readings is kind of insignificant.
We have like a million textbooks, but we don't really use them at all.
For the case study bit im just making a summary of the debates that took place, and summarising each historian under the major questions.

Oh yeah, i think Ken Webb's book is pretty useful just to look at, but you need to take notes from other places as well.

Eh.. i still think i will be screwed for this, but oh well.

 

[luridlysteph14]

MellyJane, I fail to understand what you mean by "THE HSC MARKING CENTRE SAYS IF YOU QUOTE A SECONDSRY SOURCE OR OPINION INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL HISTORIAN YOU WILL BE PENALISED"? Most "historians" writings are secondary themselves, if not tertiary sources.

I think what Mellyjane means, on the topic of using the 'prescribed' textbooks, is that if you were to quote (Webb) or (Warren) on history it would be less reputable than the 'primary' writings of Carr, Herodotus or von Ranke.

In the Marking Notes (available from the BOS next to the papers) they say that learning from a textbook really isn't enough, that you need sources from the historians to support your view, rather than just 'Webb says about Herodotus...'

But yes, you're correct in saying that the historians' works are also secondary sources. The irony really does come into play with von Ranke.

Ah, crap. I still feel so screwed for this exam.