2009 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre – History Extension
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in History Extension. It contains comments on candidate 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 which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of History Extension.
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
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’.
The best responses for both Questions 1 and 2 were sophisticated in their understanding of the historiographical issues and clear in their analysis of the question. They supported their arguments with relevant evidence. It is important that candidates are aware of the work of a range of historians so that they can select and use the most appropriate material. The analysis of the question itself is critical. Some candidates relied on prepared answers based on questions from previous years. Such responses cannot gain high marks.
An understanding of the development of history and of the historiographical concepts is essential for a critical evaluation of the Source in Question 1, and it should also inform the response to the issue of Question 2. In better responses, candidates constructed an informed argument that demonstrated critical judgement. Sophisticated and critical thinking in the context of historiography was evident in candidates’ knowledge both of historians and their Case Study, and in their application of it to the issue of the particular question. To gain higher marks, it was essential for candidates to engage with the Source in Question 1 and the stem quotation in Question 2.
Examination questions are drawn from a range of areas throughout the syllabus, not from past examination papers. Candidates should therefore base their preparation only on syllabus content. It should not be assumed that the style of question used in 2009 will be repeated in 2010. The best preparation for this examination is to develop the skills of analysis and argument, of being prepared to make critical judgements, and to support these with an informed understanding of the debates in history.
Candidates should ensure that they allocate equal 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 in the examination to analyse each question, to identify the focus issue, and to plan a structured and logical argument.
Section I
Question 1
Better responses made well-supported critical judgements of the issues raised in the Source. They also evaluated the methodology of the sources that they used in their argument, doing more than simply identifying and describing different historians’ approaches to the construction and recording of history over time. Selecting issues from the Source and evaluating these in detail, rather than trying to cover all issues briefly, ensured a better quality response.
Not all sources are equally useful as evidence for the argument being developed. Candidates are reminded that it is important to prepare a range and variety of sources so that they can select the most appropriate to the specific question. It is also important to read the historian’s work, not merely quotations from his or her writing. These sources should be considered within a conceptual, rather than chronological, framework. It is important that the evaluation of sources be integrated into the framework analysis of the Source itself.
Weaker responses described rather than evaluated the viewpoints in the Source and did not deal with the most appropriate of their own sources. Many of these responses were prepared answers that included discussion of sources that were not always linked to the focus of the question nor integrated with the viewpoints presented in the Source. Candidates are reminded that it is better to engage with the issues in the Source itself and integrate their own sources into this framework, not the other way round.
Section II
Question 2
Responses that engaged with the question and evaluated the Case Study in the light of the quotation dealt critically with the issue of changing interpretations in history. Prepared answers that gave descriptive surveys of historians’ perspectives could not provide an insightful, critical and sophisticated judgement of the statement as it applied to the selected areas of debate.
In the 2009 examination, responses covered almost all of the Case Studies represented in the syllabus. The two most popular Case Studies in each area were:
- Ancient
- Tacitus
- Thucydides
- Medieval and Early Modern
- Elizabeth
- Crusades
- Modern
- JFK
- Appeasement
- Australian
- Convict Women
- Origins of the First Australians
Although the question was generic in nature, it required a sustained, sophisticated and critical assessment of why and how interpretations of the past change over time. The quotation provided a clear discriminator because it required candidates to apply the statement to at least one area of debate in their chosen Case Study. Candidates needed to engage with the statement and integrate their analysis into the substance of their response.
Better responses drew on the work of a range of historians from a significant time period and made insightful observations about the ongoing nature of the debates. These responses evaluated how and why interpretations of history change over time, and provided a consideration of the historian’s methodology as well as his or her purpose and context.
Candidates are reminded that studying a limited range of historians restricts the possibility of their developing an argument that would allow them to critically judge changing historical interpretation. Responses that were developed around the context, methodologies and perspectives of a range of historians dealt effectively with the focus of this question. Weaker responses tended to describe the different viewpoints of the historians rather than critically evaluate how and why their interpretations changed. Use of a single source or textbook-style summary of the debate restricts the candidate’s response to a survey-style narrative and does not allow them to engage with the specific issues of the question.
Debates within Case Studies should not be constructed from sensationalist media-type coverage of issues in the Study. Weaker responses, 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.
It is 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’. Case Studies such as Appeasement and the Tacitean View of the Early Principate, which both resemble former 3 Unit options, must be studied from this historiographical perspective.
2009939
NSW Government