-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
How to approach the personality section of Modern History (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sherlock
- Start date
Strangely enough the comment I wish I could write on students responses every single year at HSC marking for this section is 'ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED'.
It is so annoying to read memorised life stories of the personality for Part A that doesn't simply focus on the question e.g. if asked for three major events in the person's life then discuss THREE events and don't just tell their life story (and what those three major events can be can be determined by you with no penalty - so one student might say 'becoming an architect, getting first commission for Nazi Party and hearing Hitler's speak for the first time' while another student might ignore all of that and begin with becoming 'munitions minister, and then discuss Nuremburg and finish with writing his autobiography' - both students have answered the question and if done well can get full marks but the student who tries to do all of these points would have to write a lot more to get full marks as the coverage of three events would be less detailed in the same amount of words as the first two so please ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED.
For Part B - same thing - ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED and don't think that it is a survey of historiography of the personality. I have read many responses where the students ignore the question completely and simply give a run down of all the historians - prepared answers and poorly taught. Yes include the views of historians - if relevant - last year's question for instance say many responses getting 15/15 with no historians at all, or if they were used they weren't the reason why the students received full marks at all - in other words as markers we don't go saying 'no historiography therefore can't get full marks'. Some years it has been necessary but last year it most certainly wasn't.
Again read the question and focus on that - it is a mini essay so if asked to 'assess the role of the personality nationally or internationally' then choose a few major events/issues (e.g. those I mentioned in the section above) and explain that event and how that influenced either the national or international situation' and make a judgement about the personality e.g. Speer's hearing Hitler speak may not have initially been all that important nationally or internationally but it lead Speer to the Nazis and thus to his role in building Germania and then into the job of war minister which makes it in the final analysis quite important nationally for Germany and also internationally as Speer was able to extend the war.......
The biggest furphy I have seen here and elsewhere is that you can't get high marks on Part B without lots of historians and that is wrong - it depends on the question and I have rarely seen a question where it has been essential at all - and have given full marks every year I have marked the personalities (since 2003) to responses with no historiography and have been frustrated with responses that simply give the survey of the historians and ignore the fact that there is a question to be answered.
If they return to having a quote for Part B then in addition to answering the question it is essential to refer to the quote.
Always plan your response as you would for the 25 markers and include an introduction and a conclusion.
It is so annoying to read memorised life stories of the personality for Part A that doesn't simply focus on the question e.g. if asked for three major events in the person's life then discuss THREE events and don't just tell their life story (and what those three major events can be can be determined by you with no penalty - so one student might say 'becoming an architect, getting first commission for Nazi Party and hearing Hitler's speak for the first time' while another student might ignore all of that and begin with becoming 'munitions minister, and then discuss Nuremburg and finish with writing his autobiography' - both students have answered the question and if done well can get full marks but the student who tries to do all of these points would have to write a lot more to get full marks as the coverage of three events would be less detailed in the same amount of words as the first two so please ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED.
For Part B - same thing - ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED and don't think that it is a survey of historiography of the personality. I have read many responses where the students ignore the question completely and simply give a run down of all the historians - prepared answers and poorly taught. Yes include the views of historians - if relevant - last year's question for instance say many responses getting 15/15 with no historians at all, or if they were used they weren't the reason why the students received full marks at all - in other words as markers we don't go saying 'no historiography therefore can't get full marks'. Some years it has been necessary but last year it most certainly wasn't.
Again read the question and focus on that - it is a mini essay so if asked to 'assess the role of the personality nationally or internationally' then choose a few major events/issues (e.g. those I mentioned in the section above) and explain that event and how that influenced either the national or international situation' and make a judgement about the personality e.g. Speer's hearing Hitler speak may not have initially been all that important nationally or internationally but it lead Speer to the Nazis and thus to his role in building Germania and then into the job of war minister which makes it in the final analysis quite important nationally for Germany and also internationally as Speer was able to extend the war.......
The biggest furphy I have seen here and elsewhere is that you can't get high marks on Part B without lots of historians and that is wrong - it depends on the question and I have rarely seen a question where it has been essential at all - and have given full marks every year I have marked the personalities (since 2003) to responses with no historiography and have been frustrated with responses that simply give the survey of the historians and ignore the fact that there is a question to be answered.
If they return to having a quote for Part B then in addition to answering the question it is essential to refer to the quote.
Always plan your response as you would for the 25 markers and include an introduction and a conclusion.
Obviously, I'm not a HSC marker like cem, but I have marked heaps of these responses over the last few years and hands down the biggest mistake I see with this section is that people dont answer the question (usually because they rattle off a memorised response). Prior to starting the essay, think about the question and whether it applies to your personality. Then come up with a list of reasons supporting that (around 2 - 4) and use that as the basis for the body of your response. You need to refer back to the question and your answer MUST show how your personality fits into the question/quote. Also, historians are NOT essential (take a look at the notes from the marking centre) - some people seem content to just analyse how historians view the personality. This is all very well and good, but if you arent answering the question, then you are limiting yourself in terms of marks.
With regards to Speer, I usually approached question B chronologically. I divided Speer's life into three stages (early life/Hitler's architect, Arms Minister and Nuremberg) and I analysed how Speer fit the quote at each stage. I found this to be a pretty effective quote to most questions, however, some may require a different approach so it's always good to maintain flexibility.
The personality section (specifically part B) has a reputation for being the most difficult part of the paper. I was pretty useless at it, but I did heaps of practice responses and eventually, it became my best section. So keep practicing and get your responses marked by your teacher.
With regards to Speer, I usually approached question B chronologically. I divided Speer's life into three stages (early life/Hitler's architect, Arms Minister and Nuremberg) and I analysed how Speer fit the quote at each stage. I found this to be a pretty effective quote to most questions, however, some may require a different approach so it's always good to maintain flexibility.
The personality section (specifically part B) has a reputation for being the most difficult part of the paper. I was pretty useless at it, but I did heaps of practice responses and eventually, it became my best section. So keep practicing and get your responses marked by your teacher.
