How many quotes? (1 Viewer)

[mc88]

What would you say would be the minimum amount of quotes that you'd need per essay, and do these quotes have to be from historians or can they be from people actually involved?

 

[zaqwerty]

I'd say about 4 or 5 quotes in an essay, but explain why they are important and show how they provide a point of view about the issue (after all, the whole point of including quotes is to explore historiography).

Quotes from actual personalities in the time period are helpful and give your answer credibility. I'd suggest about 1 or 2 quotes per essay, but I'd aim for a solid 3.

Remember, quotes are a form of evidence, but they are not the only form. For example, you may say: "Detente was a period of eased tensions between the US and the USSR during the Cold War", however, a good essay uses examples as evidence, i.e.: "Detente was a period of eased tensions between the US and the USSR during the Cold War as evidenced by the introduction of the SALT I and SALT II Treaties".

I hope I've helped

 

[Ademir]

I don't think you absolutely NEED quotes as long as youre able to elaborate/evaluate/explain what the person is saying, though a few quotes per essay would probably look cool to the marker.

I'd do it for historians and people involved.

Obviously though, using quotes means you're not showing your own understanding in that particular area so if you do use them you have to remember to briefly show your understanding of what the quote is actually saying.

ie.

"Germany's lost lands will be regained through armed struggle". This quote clearly demonstrates that Hitler had aggressive intentions in the East which made war inevitable...

you get the point

 

[zaqwerty]

I don't think you absolutely NEED quotes as long as youre able to elaborate/evaluate/explain what the person is saying, though a few quotes per essay would probably look cool to the marker.

I'd do it for historians and people involved.

Obviously though, using quotes means you're not showing your own understanding in that particular area so if you do use them you have to remember to briefly show your understanding of what the quote is actually saying.

ie.

"Germany's lost lands will be regained through armed struggle". This quote clearly demonstrates that Hitler had aggressive intentions in the East which made war inevitable...

you get the point

I think it's also important to include something like:

"Germany is a nice country" (Painter, D). This quote displays a left-wing approach to the study of Germany and demonstrates that Hitler had aggressive intentions in the East which made war inevitable. This view is valid because .... use examples...etc.

[I know absolutely nothing about Germany, clearly ]

 

[mc88]

Our teacher never really went through this with us, and the only test we did it in was our trial in which I just used quotes from the actual people I was writing about.

I just said things like 'Ho Chi Minh beleived that he had the support of the entirety of Vietnam and that their determination would be enough to ensure victory, remarking "The Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom and peace. But in the face of United States aggression they have risen up, united as one man.""

I honestly haven't got a clue about how I should be writing these things though. I can remember some legislation of the Apartheid system and include this as much as I can in my essays. I've never been that good at dates though .

What sort of things should I include for historiography for WWI? Actually, what constitute historiography? (gee, now I'm getting nervous).

 

[historykidd]

Our teacher never really went through this with us, and the only test we did it in was our trial in which I just used quotes from the actual people I was writing about.

I just said things like 'Ho Chi Minh beleived that he had the support of the entirety of Vietnam and that their determination would be enough to ensure victory, remarking "The Vietnamese people deeply love independence, freedom and peace. But in the face of United States aggression they have risen up, united as one man.""

I honestly haven't got a clue about how I should be writing these things though. I can remember some legislation of the Apartheid system and include this as much as I can in my essays. I've never been that good at dates though .

What sort of things should I include for historiography for WWI? Actually, what constitute historiography? (gee, now I'm getting nervous).

WWI isn't a necessity. But if you were really interested you could look up actual authors such as Winter, Lyn Macdonald, Alan Clark (who is pretty good to use it seems), Barbra Tuchman, Correlli Barnett, Gary Sheffield (another good one), Robert Massie etc

Most of their debates centre around why the war begun and Haig v Anti-Haig but there is some very useful and thought-provoking ideas about technology in the war and the nature of trench warfare that could boost the sophistication of your response.

 

[mc88]

So what's more important, to have lots of quotes/specific peices of information, or to show an understanding of the history itself.

If you do an essay with no quotes, only a few dates etc., but you show an understanding, is it still possible to get good marks?

 

[Ademir]

Ok - I'm slightly shocked that your teacher never went through historiography with you. I'd suggest it's not possible to get FULL marks without using it. Historiography adds a level of debate to history which lets you show the marker that you understand there is more than one point of view on an issue.

Zaqwerty had the right idea with the way he was evaluating that quote. Explaining a particular point of view by another historian, then judging how reliable it is, and comparing against other historians' viewpoints is vital, especially if you get an evaluate/assess question and in the personality studies section. But in theory, it should be used in all sections except perhaps WW1.

Without using it, it's probably possible to get good, even very good marks. But it makes the difference between a 21/25 and 24/25.

I'd say quotes are less improtant than historiography. Quotes can be used to add to your discussion, but in the end, they are just regurgitating something you've memorised (I'd still use them a few times throughout the essay though).

In some questions, like last years 15 mark personality question, I'd imagine you'd get poor marks without using historiography.

In short: get historiography in order for your HSC if you're aiming for the top marks.

 

[cem]

Ok - I'm slightly shocked that your teacher never went through historiography with you. I'd suggest it's not possible to get FULL marks without using it. Historiography adds a level of debate to history which lets you show the marker that you understand there is more than one point of view on an issue.

Zaqwerty had the right idea with the way he was evaluating that quote. Explaining a particular point of view by another historian, then judging how reliable it is, and comparing against other historians' viewpoints is vital, especially if you get an evaluate/assess question and in the personality studies section. But in theory, it should be used in all sections except perhaps WW1.

Without using it, it's probably possible to get good, even very good marks. But it makes the difference between a 21/25 and 24/25.

I'd say quotes are less improtant than historiography. Quotes can be used to add to your discussion, but in the end, they are just regurgitating something you've memorised (I'd still use them a few times throughout the essay though).

In some questions, like last years 15 mark personality question, I'd imagine you'd get poor marks without using historiography.

In short: get historiography in order for your HSC if you're aiming for the top marks.

As an HSC Modern History marker, who marks the personalities but has marked other sections as well, particularly WWI I think I can answer this question.

1. Quotes are not essential. What is needed is to show that you actually understand the arguments and issues. You don't even need to name historians to get full marks. I have often given full marks to students who say things like -

"One school of historians argues that Leni Riefenstahl was clearly an active and knowing participant in Hitler's propaganda machine, while other argue that she was an artist using her craft in a time where she had little control".

What this quote indicates is that the student clearly understands the two different perspectives. Depending on how well they then build on that argument they could easily get full marks.

Be very careful that you don't get a list of 'quotes' or historians that you are going to use and then find that you can't really relate them to the question asked. Prepared answers really stand out particularly when a quote is really irrelevant but one that people (often from the same school) just use it because their teacher said they should.

In WWI knowing historians isn't necessary at all.

Historiography is directly involved in WWI where you have to use given sources and then assess them.

In the rest of the paper implied historiography is accepted (unlike Ancient History where the terminology in the syllabus includes specific reference to historians the Modern History syllabus doesn't).

Don't get too worried about this. As my SM regularly says - remember these kids are writing a first draft essay in 45 minutes.

 

[bellinda]

ok the way our teacher went threw it is you need historical perspectives for most sections..

but that you don’t necessarily need to qoute them.. u can say Historian "A" believes ... and just give the idea of what the historian is saying...

its a good idea to give a few direct quotes like 3 or 4 but make them short!!!


you need an historical perspective either a quote or an historians opinion for every “body” paragraph of your essays..



well that’s what Lisa said anyway.. lol..



ps the person above me is a marker so go there way!!!! lol

 

[cem]

ok the way our teacher went threw it is you need historical perspectives for most sections..

but that you don’t necessarily need to qoute them.. u can say Historian "A" believes ... and just give the idea of what the historian is saying...

its a good idea to give a few direct quotes like 3 or 4 but make them short!!!


you need an historical perspective either a quote or an historians opinion for every “body” paragraph of your essays..



well that’s what Lisa said anyway.. lol..



ps the person above me is a marker so go there way!!!! lol

That is right - the differeing perspectives and interpretations are needed without necessarily getting the names or actual quotes correct isn't.

e.g. if you have two differing interpretations but mix up the historians you won't be penalised as the markers will simply ignore the names and mark on the interpretations.

 

[mc88]

So cem as long as I demonstrate that I understand that there is more than one way history can be interpreted I can still get good marks? Even in the National Studies and International Studies in Peace and Conflict questions?

For instance, if I say "while some historians have noted the intricacy and elaborate nature of the apartheid system, many have noted that it's flaws lay in the work done by it's architects..." and that counts as historiography?

Also, we did the first Indochina war in the preliminary, so I often try to draw comparisons between the French and Americans specifically if the question is on tactics and strategies. Is this something that demonstrates a level of understanding, or something that should be avoided?

 

[kloudsurfer]

That is right - the differeing perspectives and interpretations are needed without necessarily getting the names or actual quotes correct isn't.

e.g. if you have two differing interpretations but mix up the historians you won't be penalised as the markers will simply ignore the names and mark on the interpretations.

Oh thank goodness! I always have a bunch of names and quotes, but cant remember which belongs to what historian...

 

[mc88]

Here's the bottom line.

I have no historian quotes. I've never been told to put sources in my essays, nor have I been told that you need to evaluate different perspectives. All my teacher has told me to do is to put a few quotes in there when discussing the events.

These are the types of quotes that I used:

-"We believe that the world, too, can destroy apartheid, firstly by striking at the economy of South Africa."
Oliver Tambo

- “There is no place for the Bantu in the European Community above the level of forms of labour” Verwoerd Minister for Native Affairs.

- “If South Africa has to choose between being poor and white and rich and multiracial it must choose white.”
Verwoerd Minister for Native Affairs.

Have I been tought wrongly?

This is really starting to freak me out a bit. Cem would it be possible for me to type up one of my essays from the trial and send it to you for you to take a look at?

 

[cem]

Here's the bottom line.

I have no historian quotes. I've never been told to put sources in my essays, nor have I been told that you need to evaluate different perspectives. All my teacher has told me to do is to put a few quotes in there when discussing the events.

These are the types of quotes that I used:

-"We believe that the world, too, can destroy apartheid, firstly by striking at the economy of South Africa."
Oliver Tambo

- “There is no place for the Bantu in the European Community above the level of forms of labour” Verwoerd Minister for Native Affairs.

- “If South Africa has to choose between being poor and white and rich and multiracial it must choose white.”
Verwoerd Minister for Native Affairs.

Have I been tought wrongly?

This is really starting to freak me out a bit. Cem would it be possible for me to type up one of my essays from the trial and send it to you for you to take a look at?

There is nothing wrong with what you have been taught.

I teach my kids to go a bit further by explaining who the person was making the comment and why that should therefore be relevant not just stating that they were the Minister for Native Affairs but what that means and what that person's background was e.g. an Afrikaneer who strongly believed in the supremacy of white people over black people said .....

I don't know a lot about South Africa but sure send me your essay and I will tell you what I think about it.

That is why I joined this board - to help kids with Modern History as I teach and mark that subject.

What you should have though is a broad view of modern ideas about the period being studies such as what differences are there in the thinking of people who wrote about South Africa in the during and post Apartheid periods. Have you only read your textbook or did your teacher give you other articles or notes? If so who wrote these notes and articles.

If you don't know the names or the ideas I suggest you take a quick look at the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid and at the bottom there is a list of references and links.

From that list you will see that some were written during the Aparthied period and others later. Read a few of the links to get an idea of the differing views. If some of the names ring a bell then you know when they were writing and so can say things like Davenport writing in the 1970s during the Aparthied period was of the opinion that.... or even those white historians who wrote during the Apartheid period were clearly of the opinion that.... while black historians disagreed (nb these are made up examples only off the top of my head - don't use this). An alternative would be something about those writing from within South Africa to those writing about SA from outside etc.

Don't worry - knowing that there are different interpretations is all that you need to know and your quotes are fine - just add a point or two about the writer of the quote at this stage.

 

[cem]

So cem as long as I demonstrate that I understand that there is more than one way history can be interpreted I can still get good marks? Even in the National Studies and International Studies in Peace and Conflict questions?

For instance, if I say "while some historians have noted the intricacy and elaborate nature of the apartheid system, many have noted that it's flaws lay in the work done by it's architects..." and that counts as historiography?

Also, we did the first Indochina war in the preliminary, so I often try to draw comparisons between the French and Americans specifically if the question is on tactics and strategies. Is this something that demonstrates a level of understanding, or something that should be avoided?

What you are doing is fine.

 

[mc88]

What you are doing is fine.

Is that true of all areas or just the personality studies?

So basically as long as I show some dates, put in a couple of quotes and say why they're important, that's all I need?

I'm sorry if I'm getting repetitive, but this has sort of freaked me out a bit and I just want to be positive before I get in the exam while I still have some time to fix things.

 

[Aplus]

What would you say would be the minimum amount of quotes that you'd need per essay, and do these quotes have to be from historians or can they be from people actually involved?

It would depend on the content and length of the essay, not to mention time frame if you're sitting an examination.

 

[mc88]

The bottom line is - I have zip from historians and have wasted good study days these holidays trying to find something for them. My Modern History teacher told us to find our own quotes half way through this year and I've been using quotes from people involved, not historians.

It would depend on the content and length of the essay, not to mention time frame if you're sitting an examination.

I just don't want to be limited to a lower band because I don't have "historiography" when I've never really been told what it is...

 

[kloudsurfer]

You are definetly not limited to a low band answer.

The purpose of the historiography is to support your own ideas. It is more important that you present your ideas - historiography is just a way to expand on them. Its better to use your own ideas without historiography than just using historians ideas.

Anyway, yes, historiography does show a level of sophistication and understanding, but l and you wont be 'marked down' for not having it. You can still get band 6 marks with no historiography (forgot all of mine for Russia and somehow got 24 in the trials!), im not sure if you can get 25/25 though?

Cem?