2011 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – History Extension
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 History Extension course. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2011 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 2011 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of History Extension.
General comments
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 that are not included in the glossary may be used, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
It is important that candidates are aware of the work of a range of historians and of historical sources, from ancient to contemporary, so that they can select and use the most appropriate material to support their judgement. The analysis of the question itself is critical. Some candidates relied on prepared answers, assuming that questions would be based on issues previously examined. Such responses cannot be awarded high marks because those candidates have not engaged with the question. It is also important for candidates to have a broad enough knowledge of historians and historical sources and concepts to be able to select the most appropriate evidence for this question.
The best preparation for this examination is to develop the skills of analysis and argument and of making critical judgements, and to support these with an informed understanding of the traditional debates and contemporary issues in history.
Candidates should ensure that they allocate an equal amount of time to both questions. They are reminded that both questions are of equal value, so no advantage is to be gained from allocating more time to either question. They should allow time during the examination to deconstruct and analyse the issues in each source, which they then need to relate to the question itself. This should then form the basis of a structured and logical argument that is supported by relevant evidence.
Section I
Question 1
Candidates are reminded that it is important to prepare a range and variety of sources, including contemporary sources, so that they can select the ones that are most appropriate to the question. These sources should be considered within a conceptual, rather than chronological, framework. It is important that a candidate’s knowledge of sources be integrated into their analysis of the source and of the question itself.
In better responses, candidates identified the key historiographical issues relevant to this source and constructed an informed argument that demonstrated critical judgement. Sophisticated and critical thinking in the context of historiography was evident in candidates’ knowledge of both historians and historical sources, and in their application of it to the issue in the particular question. Candidates made well-supported critical judgements of the pertinent issues raised in the source. They demonstrated a conceptual understanding of the idea of ‘who owns history’ by integrating both their analysis of the source with a relevant evaluation of other appropriate sources. The selection of issues from the source that linked to an evaluation of the question itself ensured a better quality response.
In weaker responses, candidates described aspects of the source rather than identifying and evaluating the key issues relevant to the question itself. Many of these responses were prepared answers that included discussion of sources that were not always relevant or linked to the focus of the question. Candidates are reminded to engage with the issues in the source itself and to integrate their own sources into this framework, rather than the other way around.
Section II
Question 2
It is important that candidates recognise that the quote is not the question.
Use of a single source or textbook-style summary of the debate restricts a candidate’s response to a survey-style narrative and does not allow them to engage with the specific issues of the question. In addition, debates within case studies should not be constructed from sensationalist media-type coverage of issues in the study. It is also important to recognise that the case study must be evaluated in terms of its historiography. All case studies specify the use of ‘recent historiography’ and ‘interpretations’.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated:
- an understanding of the debates within their case study
- the ability to interpret the meaning of the statement from Schama
- the ability to engage with the question by applying both this understanding and interpretation.
In weaker responses, candidates tended to describe the different viewpoints of the historians rather than assessing the relevance of Schama’s statement to the debates. Candidates, especially in the JFK case study, focused on sensational personal issues, limiting the scope of the debate and the evaluation of the historiography of the study. In addition, prepared answers that gave descriptive surveys of historians’ perspectives could not provide an insightful, critical and sophisticated judgement of the question as it applied to the selected areas of debate in the chosen case studies.
NSW Government