History Question Plz (2 Viewers)

[4jess7lov]

for the first personality 10 mark question normally you are meant to talk about their life....but this question talked about background and context. i do speer so i talked abtout his origins and his context like under nazis but i didnt rly talk about his life in great detail like positions he held etc this was rly badly done because i thought the question didnt want that...i didnt say talk of his life...it said talk of context and background....wat do people think? did u approach this part a question differently than normal...what did you think the q wanted us to do?????????????

 

[lawrence.h]

I didn't really know what to do with this one. Because all I knew was Speer's positions as architect of the Reich and as munitions minister. I isn't really know about his personal background so I probably screwed that section pretty bad...
If you talked about intimate details of his life, like what his wife's name was (I couldn't remember in the exam) maybe you could have done well.
Honestly, I wasn't sure what to put either, so I talked about how Speer needed work in the historical context of the great depression so decided to join the Nazi party (among other reasons which I mentioned)

 

[4jess7lov]

anyone?

 

[nirvanafreak02]

my teacher (head marker history past 6 years) said you had to mention his entire life regardless of the question

 

[4jess7lov]

my teacher (head marker history past 6 years) said you had to mention his entire life regardless of the question

thats stupid. you have to answer the question....not just blindly do a prepared answer. i think thats wrong what she said

 

[Lordie]

My teacher told us the same thing. She's been teaching and marking Modern History for 25 years. It wants a description of the person's life. The context basically refers to what was occurring in that person's life, which you should basically make reference to anyway if you're describing their life...

Example, Sun Yat-Sen. His life was based around toppling the corrupt Qing dynasty. The context is that China wanted change, and Sun was the catalyst for such a change.

So I wrote about my personality, as I was told to do, in chronological order, making reference to what was occuring at the time.

That should be what is needed to get the marks.

 

[4jess7lov]

My teacher told us the same thing. She's been teaching and marking Modern History for 25 years. It wants a description of the person's life. The context basically refers to what was occurring in that person's life, which you should basically make reference to anyway if you're describing their life...

Example, Sun Yat-Sen. His life was based around toppling the corrupt Qing dynasty. The context is that China wanted change, and Sun was the catalyst for such a change.

So I wrote about my personality, as I was told to do, in chronological order, making reference to what was occuring at the time.

That should be what is needed to get the marks.

surly u have to focus on the q tho..the q said his background and context...context does not mean what speer did..it means the society around him...im sure they dont want just a listing of events his whole life through the questuion....the actual asks for context and background>?>????

 

[nirvanafreak02]

surly u have to focus on the q tho..the q said his background and context...context does not mean what speer did..it means the society around him...im sure they dont want just a listing of events his whole life through the questuion....the actual asks for context and background>?>????

actually it's exactly what they want
recount of the person's life, hence easy marks

 

[knots&crosses]

I did the same thing as you 4jesslove. At first i was shocked that they would ask it, and got frustrated, but i just summarised the time of nazi power in germany, ocassionally refering to speers roles. Though, I am now not sure, considering the above people teachers said to refer to positions, I could have done that much better... Anyway, the whole paper was a bit of a blur, and i was very unhappy with the personality and studies in peace and conflict...

 

[4jess7lov]

dam im rly bummbed....i didnt know the q wanted just listing of his life...i thought it wanted an assesment of speer's society it was in..as in "histoerical context"..i missed out so much stuff i knew

 

[cem]

As someone who marks this section of the paper a simple listing of events with no attempt to answer the question will get about 6/10 going on past papers.

We do want you to address the question and this is someone harder than past years that have leant themselves to a simple 'jog trot' (as my Senior Marker on Personalities calls it) through their lives.

We had the same problem a couple of years ago with the Background and Rise to Prominence question where we looked for events that covered that but were a bit liberal in the definition of Rise to Prominence and didn't just look for the dot points in the syllabus.

 

[lucidassembly]

I think both the 'personal background' and 'historical context' are pretty much integrated with a discussion of the individual's life already.

In regards to personal background, I took that as Trotsky's early life, development of beliefs, early political work (eg school in Odessa, son of two Jewish farm owners, etc).

With historical context, I think that was especially integrated already. By discussing what the individual did within their life, you're also demonstrating knowledge about the time period in which the person lived. For example, if you say that Trotsky had a crucial role in the Civil War, then the fact that you've mentioned and described the existence of a civil war should constitute 'historical context'.

I don't think you had to explicitly refer to the exact two phrases within the question, as long as your answer discussed them both.

Would that still be classified as answering the question cem?

Here's hoping

 

[cem]

I think both the 'personal background' and 'historical context' are pretty much integrated with a discussion of the individual's life already.

In regards to personal background, I took that as Trotsky's early life, development of beliefs, early political work (eg school in Odessa, son of two Jewish farm owners, etc).

With historical context, I think that was especially integrated already. By discussing what the individual did within their life, you're also demonstrating knowledge about the time period in which the person lived. For example, if you say that Trotsky had a crucial role in the Civil War, then the fact that you've mentioned and described the existence of a civil war should constitute 'historical context'.

I don't think you had to explicitly refer to the exact two phrases within the question, as long as your answer discussed them both.

Would that still be classified as answering the question cem?

Here's hoping

That is how I would interpret it.

The problem over the years has been that some students just basically say things like 'Speer joined the Nazi Party' rather than saying 'in the period of the Great Depression Speer joined the Nazi Party'.

One is a statement of fact - the other puts it into an historical context.

Referring to the terms historical context and background isn't needed at all and I am sorry if anyone thought my earlier post did. What I meant was more the way it is in the example - put the event of the person's life into the historcal context of the period e.g. Leni made films for the Nazis as the Nazi Party was controlling the film production so if she didn't she wouldn't be making films at all in the 1930s - puts her making films in Germany in the 1930s into a context that explains why she made the films she did.

 

[lucidassembly]

Thanks so much for clearing that up I'm a little less stressed now.

 

[Dis Amrahs]

Yeh my understanding was that with question one, the focus should be on his 'rise to power'. I tried to get the basic outline of his life with with the approach saying things like 'The lack of familial warmth' (Van der Vat) while he was growing up in Manheim and stuff like his conservative tutelage under Tessenow from 23 - 27 kind of laid the way for his joining the Nazi party. Little things like that. After he joined up, i reckon the 'context' stuff is pretty self explanatory.

 

[mynameisemma]

I think I talked about Albert Speer's life and how historical events had an impact on it - eg. the Great Depression made his early life as an architect difficult due to a lack of Commissions, and that Speer designed the May Day celebrations and Nuremberg rally after the Nazi's gained power. And then the War had a huge impact on his job (i.e. he got better ones after Todt died) and Germany losing the war obviously had a bit of an impact...

It is all a bit of a blur... hope I answered it right!

 

[4jess7lov]

dam i answered it totoally wrong...theres like 6 marks gone i think

 

[fallenstar]

dam i answered it totoally wrong...theres like 6 marks gone i think

I wouldn't worry. My Modern teacher who has been a marker said that you had to answer the question - not re-interpret it as a trot-through of your personality's life from the day they were born. I did Mikhail Gorbachev. The Q was a reflection of the syllabus:

2 Background
– family background and education ---> Context: Stalinism;
– early roles within the Communist Party --> Context: School years - joined Komsomol;
– technocrat --> Agricultural background; expertise gained as part of rural community--> Red Banner of Labour

It did NOT ask for rise to prominence or evaluation/significance, which are two totally separate elements of the syllabus.
If you mentioned the key elements of your personality's background and related them to a historical context (in this case, Stalinism) then you would be fine, definitely.

 

[Aristotles]

My Teacher also after the exam said you had to talk about his entire life, I started from his birth day to his death in the 80's. Also added he published 2 books after he finished his 20 year sentence

 

[fallenstar]

My Teacher also after the exam said you had to talk about his entire life, I started from his birth day to his death in the 80's. Also added he published 2 books after he finished his 20 year sentence

If the Q wanted that, it would have asked for it. It was not explicitly stated.
Refer to the syllabus: it is divided into 4 components; personal background, historical context, rise to prominence and evaluation.
Last year they asked for rise to prominence, I think. Each year the focus shifts in accordance with the Q. Otherwise every year they would get the same responses. In this case, we needed to put emphasis on context and personal background - childhood experiences, family life and education (in Gorbachev's case).
Teachers must be divided over it. Our Modern History dept, who have all been markers the last few years, agree that you didn't need to go over the person's whole life. Oh well, the BOS will decide, anyway.