Tips for part b of the personality question? (1 Viewer)

[emilyh95]

I'm unsure how to prepare/respond to the quotes given in part b and was wondering if someone could give me any pointers? I'm studying Trotsky, but general advice would be helpful too.

 

[jenslekman]

just know the syllabus well. for the part b), you develop a thesis and "judgement" on the exam day and just use your knowledge on the syllabus to answer the question. for preparation, i guess you should focus on the "significance and evaluation" dot point when you're studying, and make sure you actually know the significance/evaluation of the events and why they happened (for e.g. because trotsky wanted to pursue idea of permanent revolution?), and not just the events themselves.

 

[Eduard_Khil]

yep that's right, most of the time section b) can be a quote, as shown in the last previous years, in which the question asks for your own personal opinion, as a result for that section, not only do you have to agree or disagree with the statement but you also must justify your answer, now the justify part is based on the content you have learnt about it, and how it supports your argument, remember though although a massive amount of content, of course makes a really good essay, you must link it back to the question, so that it "supports" your argument, otherwise you'd have a lot of content, but your essay would lack argument, which is the very thing you are trying to achieve, thus making it more like a recount of events, rather than an essay

 

[LoveHateSchool]

Think of the qualities and events in Trotsky's life e.g he was a magnetic speaker, his relationship with Lenin etc. I don't do Trotsky, but I assume they'd look at his part in rev and power struggle etc. alot.

 

[cem]

It is important to make sure that you address the quote (if there is one - wasn't last year) and the actual question asked. The biggest areas of weakness for this section are students who ignore one or other of these two aspects of the question or go in with a prepared response that then doesn't address the quote and/or question at all except in the introduction and conclusion.

The other thing that costs students marks are students who give a survey of historiography and again don't do anything with the question asked. Just quoting historians without relating those quotes to the question asked is a useless waste of time - but happens quite a lot in this question.

I am always frustrated at the number of students who don't actually answer the question asked but go on about 'good Nazi - bad Nazi' for Speer for instance when the question is about international/national importance etc.

 

[enoilgam]

It is important to make sure that you address the quote (if there is one - wasn't last year) and the actual question asked. The biggest areas of weakness for this section are students who ignore one or other of these two aspects of the question or go in with a prepared response that then doesn't address the quote and/or question at all except in the introduction and conclusion.

The other thing that costs students marks are students who give a survey of historiography and again don't do anything with the question asked. Just quoting historians without relating those quotes to the question asked is a useless waste of time - but happens quite a lot in this question.

I am always frustrated at the number of students who don't actually answer the question asked but go on about 'good Nazi - bad Nazi' for Speer for instance when the question is about international/national importance etc.

This - your response to this question (and any essay for that matter) needs to address the question. An essay is dedicated to addressing the question DIRECTLY. Some people seem to think they can get away with briefly referencing the question whilst addressing something completely different in their response. This wont get you anywhere either.

 

[gizlurpak]

Are historian quotes essential in part B of personality study?

I sometimes feel as if they're not really required to answer the vast majority of questions, and that when I'm throwing them in, it's because I feel as if that's the expectation. Teacher hasn't been very clear on this, any help would be much appreciated.

I do Trotsky, if that changes anything.

Thanks.

 

[enoilgam]

Are historian quotes essential in part B of personality study?

I sometimes feel as if they're not really required to answer the vast majority of questions, and that when I'm throwing them in, it's because I feel as if that's the expectation. Teacher hasn't been very clear on this, any help would be much appreciated.

I do Trotsky, if that changes anything.

Thanks.

It's not so much quotes, but more historiography. Many people think that quotes = historiography, but in fact quotes are just a component of historiography. You should try to incorperate the views of historians and their interpretation of your personality in the response. HOWEVER, this should be used to support your response.

 

[lpower3]

HAMMER THE QUESTION..

Refer to the quote 4 or 5 times, but DO IT WELL.

 

[jenslekman]

hmmm yes i'm not too sure about historiography either. past hsc marking notes (2011 ones at least) seem to discourage the use of historiography saying that its not "necessary" but then go on to say how they can be "used effectively." if it's "not necessary" for top marks, why bother? and if it can be "effectively" used to attain top marks, why is it "not necessary"? what do the hsc markers want? someone please clarify.

 

[mickk794]

hmmm yes i'm not too sure about historiography either. past hsc marking notes (2011 ones at least) seem to discourage the use of historiography saying that its not "necessary" but then go on to say how they can be "used effectively." if it's "not necessary" for top marks, why bother? and if it can be "effectively" used to attain top marks, why is it "not necessary"? what do the hsc markers want? someone please clarify.

+1

I read that aswell but my teacher said historiography is needed to get full marks.

 

[enoilgam]

Historiography is basically just the study of history. For the personality question, you need to discuss differing interpretations of the person, although you dont need to be specific (i.e. saying "Some historians believe this about Speer" is enough). Specific historiography (i.e. discussing a specific historian and their views i.e. "Dan Van der Vat says this about Speer") is nice and can greatly enhance your response IF USED PROPERLY, although it isnt needed for full marks.

 

[cem]

Last year's question on three events was easily one in which full marks were given for responses without historiography.

There were responses that I read where the student's inclusion of historiography actually hindered the response and cost marks as the student didn't really answer the question asked.

It is certainly possible to get full marks in part b, in most years, without any historiography - rare but possible. If done really well it enhances the response but many times it gets in the way of the response as it seems to be there simply because students believe that they have to have it to get full marks - they don't.

Knowing that there are different points of view is often all that is needed without quotes or naming the historians.

 

[NinaChapps]

Is there a chance Trotsky's life in exile be asked? For part A or B ?

 

[declanbehan]

Is there a chance Trotsky's life in exile be asked? For part A or B ?

it's seems you're the only other person posting on here about Russia and Trotsky

Well it's highly unlikely that they will ask specifically about his exile in A) because the question is usually "describe the rise to prominence" or "explain the significant events" and the question has to work for all personalities.

and for B) it's usually either an analysis of the personality in relation to a quote so I wouldn't stress on his exile!

 

[cem]

Is there a chance Trotsky's life in exile be asked? For part A or B ?

No - because it is a generic question for all of the personalities so it will be a general question like 'rise to prominence' 'historical context' etc for Part a and significance, importance, related to a quote or maybe not (there was no quote last year).

 

[Eg155]

Is there a chance Trotsky's life in exile be asked? For part A or B ?

There is a good opportunity to discuss the significance of Trotsky's life in exile in the personality section.
His development as a polemicist, prolific writer, orator etc...
Although, as said, it won't be explicitly asked as a question.

 

[History 101]

Historiography is basically just the study of history. For the personality question, you need to discuss differing interpretations of the person, although you dont need to be specific (i.e. saying "Some historians believe this about Speer" is enough). Specific historiography (i.e. discussing a specific historian and their views i.e. "Dan Van der Vat says this about Speer") is nice and can greatly enhance your response IF USED PROPERLY, although it isnt needed for full marks.

I feel with this topic it's the most history extension based. So you need to be able to analyse not only the debate but the historians who made those debates - so if you want to achieve those higher marks you should analyse the historians. Also when writing your response for part b) you must have a balanced debate then in your conclusion you have to share your own personal views on the debate. Looking at contextual values also will give you both added knowledge and make your argument more complex in nature.

 

[enoilgam]

I feel with this topic it's the most history extension based. So you need to be able to analyse not only the debate but the historians who made those debates - so if you want to achieve those higher marks you should analyse the historians. Also when writing your response for part b) you must have a balanced debate then in your conclusion you have to share your own personal views on the debate. Looking at contextual values also will give you both added knowledge and make your argument more complex in nature.

I dont think it's necessary, but it can help. As cem said, you just need to know that there are different points of view and what they are - you dont need quotes or even historians.

 

[History 101]

In order to strengthen your argument you would need quotes without a doubt. Not a million but one per idea is good