1. Home
  2. HSC
  3. HSC Exams
  4. Pre-2016 HSC exam papers
  5. 2009 HSC Notes from the marking centre
  6. 2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Modern History
Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size

2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – Modern History

Contents

Introduction

This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Modern History. It contains comments on responses to the 2009 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.

This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2009 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents that have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Modern History.

Teachers and students are advised that, in December 2008, the Board of Studies approved changes to the examination specifications and assessment requirements for a number of courses. These changes will be implemented for the 2010 HSC cohort. Information on a course-by-course basis is available on the Board’s website.

General comments

Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating their knowledge, understanding and skills developed through studying the course.

Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper) are a guide to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing far beyond the indicated space may reduce the time available for answering other questions.

Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.

Section I – Core study

Question 1

The majority of candidates handled this question very well. Weaker responses had difficulty taking information from the map and/or misunderstood ‘omitted’.

Question 2

Candidates accessed information from both sources to explain why there was a stalemate on the Western Front by the end of 1914. In weaker responses, candidates did not add extra own knowledge to Source B. Some focused on why the Schlieffen Plan failed and wanted to discuss ‘attempts to break the stalemate’.

Better responses gave a detailed explanation of how the stalemate developed on the Western Front by the end of 1914.

Question 3

The better responses demonstrated an understanding of the key terms (usefulness, reliability and perspective) as well as the focus of the question, ‘the impact of WWI on women’s lives and experiences in Britain’. In weaker responses, candidates struggled with the key terms, particularly ‘perspective’.

Section II – National studies

General comments

Most responses addressed the questions asked and demonstrated sound knowledge and understanding in considerable depth. Better responses presented an analytical response to the issues raised in the question. Although better responses incorporated the use of historiography to enhance their arguments, where this is limited to the naming of historians it does little to enhance the quality of an answer.

Percentage of candidates attempting options

Germany 1918–1939 65%
Russia/Soviet Union 1917–1941 21%
USA 1919–1941 7%
South Africa 1960–1994 2%
China 1927–1949 2%
India/Japan/Australia/Indonesia 3%

Question 5 – Option B: China 1927–1949

  1. Better responses discussed the nature of Maoism and showed how it developed during the march itself. Many responses narrated an outline of the events of the Long March and described the rise of Mao Zedong, which was equated with the consolidation of Maoism. Some responses also discussed the legend of the Long March and its impact on the consolidation of Maoism.
  2. Better responses demonstrated awareness of the different strategies used by the GMD and the CCP against the Japanese and, more importantly, showed relevant reasons why these led to the communist victory in 1949. Weaker responses did not compare the GMD and the CCP and struggled to describe any of the strategies used by them. Most resorted to narration of some events from the war against Japan and did not refer to reasons for the communist victory.

Question 6 – Option C: Germany 1918–1939

  1. Better responses assessed the extent to which the weaknesses of Weimar contributed to the rise of the Nazis. These responses dealt with both the weaknesses of Weimar and how the Nazis were able to capitalise on those weaknesses. Some of these responses dealt well with the weaknesses of Weimar but also examined other factors that allowed the Nazis to rise to power.

    Weaker responses tended to narrate. They outlined the weaknesses of Weimar in some detail. However, they failed to analyse the extent to which these weaknesses were responsible for the rise of the Nazis.

  2. Better responses differentiated between terror, propaganda and repression and assessed the impact of each on different groups in society. Weaker responses tended to outline examples of terror and/or propaganda and/or repression, but failed to assess the impact of these. Some responses focused on propaganda without demonstrating a clear understanding of terror or repression. Again, weaker responses tended to narrate rather than assess the impact of these factors on society.

Question 10 – Option G: Russia and the Soviet Union 1917–1941

  1. Better answers spent a substantial part of their response analysing Lenin’s leadership and the extent to which different aspects of this leadership were responsible for the consolidation of power. These responses also discussed other factors that led to consolidation and compared the significance of each of these factors to Lenin’s contribution. Weaker responses tended to provide a narrative about the consolidation of power. Some responses included pre-November 1917 material that was not made relevant to the question.
  2. Excellent responses analysed different aspects of totalitarianism in Stalinist Russia and made judgements about each. Better answers tended to acknowledge different degrees of totalitarianism at different stages between 1928 and 1941. Weaker responses tended to provide a narrative of totalitarian aspects of Stalinism without offering a judgement.

Question 11 – Option H: South Africa 1960–1994

  1. Better responses contained more specific information about both Biko and the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM) and were able to make judgements about the relative importance of both in the growth of resistance. Other factors such as the role of Nelson Mandela and the ANC were also mentioned by way of comparison. Weaker responses focused on ‘resistance’ rather than on Steve Biko and the BCM. When they did deal with Biko and the BCM, they narrated some events from his life and described some features of the BCM.
  2. Better responses described international sanctions in more detail and then evaluated them against domestic resistance in an integrated way. These responses supported a conclusion about the relative importance of international factors in the final collapse of apartheid. Weaker responses had some idea of an international reaction against apartheid and most were able to list one or two specific sanctions, for example sporting, cultural or economic boycotts. However, there was little attempt to evaluate the importance of these sanctions in relation to other factors.

Question 12 – Option I: USA 1919–1941

  1. Better responses made a judgement about the importance of the factors involved, covering the whole of the 1920s. Weaker responses identified the relevant social tensions but tended to narrate rather than account for these tensions. Weaker responses also tended not to cover the whole time period.
  2. Better responses made a judgement about the extent to which social and economic problems were caused by the Depression and solved by the New Deal. Some responses covered the second New Deal as well. Weaker responses tended to describe aspects of the New Deal and/or social and/or economic problems related to the Great Depression, rather than make a judgement about the solution offered by the New Deal.

Section III – Personalities in the twentieth century

Question 13

General comments

Some quality responses went into an analysis of some depth in part (a) when all that was required was a description. There were very few timelines or lists in part (a), with most candidates presenting a prose description.

There were many quite sophisticated responses to part (b), incorporating a clear judgement about the statement and using the views of historians to support an argument. All candidates should be reminded that it is essential to respond to the statement if there is one in the question. Better answers integrated such a response into a well-supported discussion.

Candidates are reminded that two parts of the question do require clearly identified separate responses.

The personalities most commonly written about were:

Albert Speer 33%
Leni Riefenstahl 24%
Leon Trotsky 17%
Ho Chi Minh 6%
Mikhail Gorbachev 4%
Nelson Mandela 2%
J Edgar Hoover 2%
Yasser Arafat 2%
Douglas MacArthur 2%

Specific comments

Albert Speer
  1. Better responses linked the various events in Speer’s life up to 1981. Weaker responses tended to provide a simple narrative of some events in Speer’s life without significant detail.
  2. Better responses engaged with the statement and established a clear argument which was then sustained throughout the discussion. These arguments presented various perspectives but the common factor was their ability to articulate a view and then support it with a range of historical evidence. Historiography was also used effectively in some of the better responses. In some responses, there was a tendency to take a simplistic view of the statement and equate Speer’s actions to what was going on around him. Such responses relied heavily on a narrative of Speer’s life, sometimes including a qualifying statement for an introduction or conclusion.
Leni Riefenstahl
  1. Better responses outlined the major events in Leni Riefenstahl’s life, demonstrating both relevant and accurate knowledge. Average responses tended to focus almost exclusively on her life during the Nazi period. Weaker responses tended to provide an outline that lacked any detail.
  2. Better answers responded to the statement given in the question in relation to Riefenstahl, sometimes incorporating elements of historical debate relevant to the statement. Some responses at the middle level simply provided a chronological account of Riefenstahl’s life with a simplistic attempt to relate the statement to the question in the conclusion. Weaker responses appeared to be prepared answers with minimal reference to the question set.
Leon Trotsky
  1. Better responses gave a detailed and well-structured outline of the life of Trotsky. The major events of his life were explored with some depth and the range of years was comprehensive. Historical information which was provided was accurate and relevant. Some average responses, while still providing the comprehensive range of years, lacked the depth of detail or structure required for these top band responses. Other responses in this average range limited their coverage of the outline of Trotsky’s life by generalising either the earlier or later years. Weaker responses tended to produce a list of events which lacked any detail, depth or range. Candidates need to pay attention to answering the specific question on the paper and not present a prepared answer based on the previous year’s question.
  2. Better responses addressed the statement, and then clarified their judgement, while applying it to Trotsky. The clarity of the judgments was limited only by the ability to link historical fact and events and use them as supporting evidence. Candidates could take whatever position they liked with the statement, and better responses argued a variety of judgements in a sustained and logical fashion. The question did not require historiography to achieve a top range mark but when historians were used they were appropriately linked to the argument. Many of the mid-range responses presented a prepared evaluation of Trotsky with an address to the statement only in the introduction and/or conclusion. These responses sometimes used historians with little relevance to the development of an argument. The weakest responses presented a descriptive narrative of the life of Trotsky.
Ho Chi Minh
  1. Better responses comprehensively covered the whole life of Ho Chi Minh. Weaker responses omitted significant sections of Ho’s life or had very limited detail. This section of the question required well-structured, descriptive detail. It was not necessary to include historiography.
  2. Better responses clearly unpacked the statement and the question and offered a well-supported judgement, sometimes making effective use of historiography. Some responses, however, focused on whether Ho was a communist or nationalist, suggesting a prepared answer. Weaker responses simply rewrote much of what had been presented in part (a), failed to address the statement or failed to present a well-supported judgement.
Mikhail Gorbachev
  1. Better responses addressed Gorbachev’s entire life in outline. These responses were detailed and well-structured. Average responses tended to focus on segments only of Gorbachev’s life. Sometimes responses began with good detail and structure but lost focus and declined into a simple listing of events. The weaker responses had serious omissions and presented only a very generalised outline with very limited use of historical information.
  2. This question required students to respond to the statement given in the question in relation to Gorbachev. Better responses were able to do this, sometimes effectively incorporating elements of historians’ debate relevant to the statement. Some responses at the middle level simply provided a chronological account of Gorbachev’s life with a simplistic attempt to relate to the question in the conclusion. This question required a judgement about the statement, supported by a sustained, logical and well-structured discussion.
Nelson Mandela
  1. Better responses presented a detailed, well-structured outline of Mandela’s life. Most responses demonstrated good knowledge of Mandela’s personal background and the relevant details of his life. Weaker responses tended to provide only a limited outline, omitting many of the significant events.
  2. Better responses made a clear judgement about the statement, with most explaining that Mandela was a product of his times, which were dominated by unofficial and later official apartheid. These responses effectively integrated issues raised by the statement. However, very few responses referred to the views of historians and the historiography of Mandela. Weaker responses tended to repeat the story of Mandela’s life.

Section IV – International studies in peace and conflict

Percentage of candidates attempting options

Conflict in Indochina 1954–1979 32%
Conflict in Europe 1935–1945 25%
The Cold War 1945–1991 23%
Conflict in the Pacific 1937–1951 8.5%
Arab–Israeli Conflict 1948–1996 8%
Anglo-Irish Relations 1968–1998 3%
The United Nations as Peacekeeper 1946–2001 .5%

Specific comments

Question 15 – Option B: Conflict in Europe 1935–1945

  1. Better responses addressed the question with a sophisticated and sustained evaluation of appeasement as a cause for the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939. These responses supported their arguments with accurate and detailed historical evidence, linking appeasement to aggressive dictatorships, failure of the League of Nations and collective security. Weaker responses provided a description or narrative of the events leading up to the outbreak of World War II. Sometimes these weaker responses failed to address appeasement at all.
  2. The better responses presented a sophisticated and sustained argument to assess the significance of the conflict in North Africa to Allied victory in the European war. These responses linked the importance of the North African conflict to future key developments in the war. Factors such as Allied morale, key resources and the Suez Canal were discussed in some detail. Weaker responses either provided a narrative of the events in North Africa or a prepared response on the reason for Allied victory in the European war.

Question 16 – Option C: Conflict in Indochina 1954–1979

  1. The best responses offered a sophisticated answer which kept going back to the question, linking developments up to 1964 with the specifics of the Geneva Peace Agreement. Most students were familiar with the main terms of the Agreement. However, there was often an imbalance between North and South, with most students far more familiar with the South than the North. Better responses linked growing American influence and the development of the NLF with the Geneva Peace Agreement. Weaker responses merely narrated events from 1954 to 1964.
  2. The best responses provided a clear link between the anti-war movements and the communist victory, and sustained this throughout the answer. However, many responses explained the growth of the anti-war movement but did not show how it directly affected government policy or communist behaviour. Weaker responses merely narrated the growth of the anti-war movement or wrote a prepared response on the reasons for the communist victory.

Question 17 – Option D: Conflict in the Pacific 1937–1951

  1. Better responses clearly addressed to what extent Japanese nationalism led to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. These responses presented a sustained and sophisticated argument which defined and explained the force of Japanese nationalism and linked it to militarism, nationalism and expansionism. Argument was supported with detailed, relevant and accurate historical information and dealt with the role of Japanese nationalism substantially before addressing other factors. These responses often argued the complicity of the US and its role as a competing power in the Pacific. Weaker responses tended to provide a largely narrative account of events leading to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In these answers, the role of nationalism may have been superficially addressed but other factors became the focus of the response. Weaker responses sometimes presented prepared ‘reasons for US entry into the war’.
  2. Better responses provided a sustained evaluation of the statement, ‘the US had no option but to use the atomic bomb in 1945’. These responses clearly supported or disagreed with the statement and then provided a detailed analysis of the options available. Sophisticated responses considered both sides of the argument, especially analysing Truman’s motives and the role of the USSR. Historiography, where used purposefully, assisted the better evaluations. Weaker responses often adopted one perspective or took a simple, moralistic stance. Weaker responses also tended to narrate events from the origin of the bomb to Hiroshima and lacked evaluation.

Question 18 – Option E: Arab–Israeli Conflict 1948–1996

  1. Candidates needed a comprehensive knowledge of the period to make the link between the event and its consequences. The better responses assessed the consequences of the 1967 war by providing a broad range of results. These responses used historiography effectively and addressed the question in a sustained and sophisticated manner. Weaker responses narrated the events of the 1967 war and the nature of the conflict but failed to assess the consequences for Arab–Israeli relations. Middle-range responses attempted a sound argument but tended to lapse into narration rather than sustain an assessment of consequences.
  2. Most candidates described changes to the aims and methods of the PLO. However, weaker responses tended to present a narrative response outlining the history of the PLO rather than accounting for the changes in their aims and methods. The broad period, 1964–1996, required detailed knowledge of the PLO and some responses did not demonstrate this. The better responses presented a sustained account of the change of direction in PLO policy and linked these changes to historic events. These responses covered the entire period, from the PLO’s inception to later day peace talks by providing an in-depth analysis of the politics on a regional and international level.

Question 19 – Option F: The Cold War 1945–1991

  1. Better responses focused on the nature of the emerging differences and categorised them as economic and political. They provided some detailed historical information, starting with the Berlin Blockade. These responses supported their argument by referring to the differing reactions to the crisis and often used historiography effectively. Weaker responses tended to describe the origins of communism and then compare this to democracy. Many of these responses also narrated the events such as the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences. Overall, many candidates struggled to address effectively the ‘to what extent’ component of the question.
  2. Better responses addressed the question with a sophisticated and sustained assessment of the role of the arms race in maintaining Cold War tensions. These responses incorporated accurate and detailed historical evidence to support their argument. They successfully analysed growing tensions between superpowers while also dealing with the period of détente, and linked these to the arms race. Weaker responses simply narrated events from 1949 and or dealt with specific crises. These responses did not address the arms race as the focus of the question.

2010045

Print this page Reduce font size Increase font size