2012 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – History Extension
Contents
- Introduction
- Section I
- Section II
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 2012 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 2012 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.
Stronger responses in this year’s examination reflected candidates’ ability to directly answer questions with clear, sustained arguments supported by detailed and meaningful references to other sources. Candidates need to be able to understand the historians they refer to, in light of the five key questions in the syllabus.
The best preparation for this examination is to develop skills in analysis, argument and making critical judgements, and to support these with an informed understanding of both the traditional debates of historiography and more recent issues in history.
Candidates should allocate an equal amount of time to both questions. Both questions are of equal value, so no advantage is to be gained from allocating more time to either question. Candidates 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 should 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 thematic, 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 the source and the question. They constructed an informed argument that demonstrated critical judgement and understanding of the issues relevant to both the source and the question. Critical analysis of historiography was evident in candidates’ knowledge of both historians and historical sources, and in their application of it to the issue in this particular question. In these better responses, candidates made well-supported critical judgements of the pertinent issues raised in the source. They were able to define popular and academic history and support their definition with traditional and more recent sources. They were also able to form an assessment about the degree to which there is conflict between these two types of history.
In weaker responses, candidates described aspects of the source rather than identifying and evaluating the key issues relevant to the question itself. In many of these responses, candidates used prepared answers that included discussion of sources that were not always relevant or linked to the focus of this question. They did not directly address the question and engage with the issues in the source itself, or integrate their own sources into this framework.
Section II
Question 2
It is important that candidates recognise that the quote is not the question.
In better responses, candidates demonstrated:
- an understanding of the debates within their case study
- the ability to interpret the meaning of the statement from Handlin
- the ability to address the directive ‘to what extent’
- an understanding of the link between the statement by Handlin and the terms of the question.
In better responses, candidates engaged with both the statement and the question. They drew on their knowledge of a range of historians from various time periods and made insightful observations about the ongoing nature of the debates.
In weaker responses, candidates tended to describe the different viewpoints of the historians rather than assessing the impact of the availability of evidence. Prepared answers that gave descriptive surveys of historians’ perspectives did not provide an insightful and critical judgement of this question as it applied to the selected areas of debate in the chosen case studies.
Use of a single source or textbook-style summary of the debate restricted a candidate’s response to a survey-style narrative and did not allow the candidate 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. The case study must be evaluated in terms of its historiography. The use of ‘recent historiography’ and ‘interpretations’ is specified for all case studies.
NSW Government