WW1 topic: how detailed? (1 Viewer)

[-pari-]

just how extensive should our notes on WW1 be?

i started out with the first few topics spending forever researching and collaborating all relevant data and making notes...then remembered this bit was going to be the source task bit.

but at the same time....i'm getting a bit worried coz there IS an own knowledge section ...and for some things like conscription and recruitment in germany - i only have like....3 dotpoints?!!! whereas for others i have PAGES!

so what if i get a question on conscription and recritment?

which is another thing - with the own knowledge/essay bit of the ww1 section, how specific is the question likely to be?
coz like i said...if they pick recruitment n conscription i'm a tad screwd.

so....how much time engery and sweat should i really be wasting on the ww1 topic...?

 

[ballin]

pari, the own knowledge question you speak of will ask you to incorporate usually two sources also, so in that sense you can kinda bullshit your way through. also, for recruitment and conscription i have some relevant info if you like:

Britain
Recruitment: the NEED for recruitment, role of the London Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, role of Kitchener, reasons for enlistment, recruitment programs and their use of propaganda, eg. initially they appealed to emotions of euphoria and the glory of war, but later on (Post-Somme) they became directed more towards women and getting shaming women to get their husbands to enlist.

Conscription: eventually it became clear that conscription was needed. - The Derby Scheme 1915 - role of Lord Derby in setting up a new national register and asking men to enlist. This failed and was closed by December 1915 and instead, the First Military Service Act was formed, which led on to the Second Military Service Act, May 1916 (all men became liable for service.)

Germany
Recruitment: this is much easier, conscription was already an accepted part of German life for many years, they had a professional army (94 divisions) as well as millions of reservists. Recruitment was not really necessary early on, but nevertheless, the govt. did put the Siege Law into place (July 31 1914) which basically enforced martial law.

Conscription: Like i said, Germany did not need conscription initally, due to the size of their army and the notion of war which swept Europe in 1914. But after the Somme, war weariness kinda took its toll but Germany had such strict controls in place, they could really conscript whoever the hell they wanted.

hope that helps !

 

[kc-ok-la]

take it from me,

begninning of 06 i studied ww1 hardcore, thinking it was major, as time progresses ull realise how minor it is in comparison to your other parts,

a simple overview of ww1 through most study guides is enough, you dont need to know much at all, a few battle names, schelifflan plan, conditions of war, and TINY insight into weaponry and what not and your fine, serisouly, dont spend all your time on it

look at past hsc papers for examples, if your a history student, youll learn you can extract knowledge from texts and pictures without knowing behind it, thats almost it

check out past papers on that part, there all the same, a few source analysis and valid-ity(?) of sources

focus on the other parts that u do later in the year

 

[Bobness]

Yeah despite the lacklustre spelling and abysmal grammar of the above poster i'd be inclined to agree not to be too overwhelmed by WWI as a topic.

Normally there is one assessment based on WWI (very often source-based) and hence a brief overview of all relevant points such as in study guides or even class notes (remember your teacher sets the exam so be on the lookout for what handouts and info s/he provides for you) should be sufficient.

The thing that will separate your response from others however will be HISTORIOGRAPHY. Learn a couple of historians (anne mccallum and ajp taylor spring to mind) and if possible, compare and contrast historian viewpoints on contentious points such as the effectiveness of tactics and technology used in breaking stalemate and voila you're done!

For the whole year i don't think i would have done more than 10hrs of study on the ww1 topic. I know some people who never studied at all and just used the sources to their advantage. The best preparation however is of course wide reading of historical material and understanding how to present your arguments according to the terms of the syllabus so get started.

 

[-pari-]

i had a feeling i'd wasted too much time on WW1. *wince*

 

[Bobness]

Better to do too much than too little. Just use most effectively what you have already learnt and ace the exam. No regrets, besides it's a lesson learnt for next time (i.e. don't burnout more than once haha)

 

[cem]

Yeah despite the lacklustre spelling and abysmal grammar of the above poster i'd be inclined to agree not to be too overwhelmed by WWI as a topic.

Normally there is one assessment based on WWI (very often source-based) and hence a brief overview of all relevant points such as in study guides or even class notes (remember your teacher sets the exam so be on the lookout for what handouts and info s/he provides for you) should be sufficient.

The thing that will separate your response from others however will be HISTORIOGRAPHY. Learn a couple of historians (anne mccallum and ajp taylor spring to mind) and if possible, compare and contrast historian viewpoints on contentious points such as the effectiveness of tactics and technology used in breaking stalemate and voila you're done!

For the whole year i don't think i would have done more than 10hrs of study on the ww1 topic. I know some people who never studied at all and just used the sources to their advantage. The best preparation however is of course wide reading of historical material and understanding how to present your arguments according to the terms of the syllabus so get started.

As someone who marked the Core for over 10 years I can tell you that knowing historians is not needed.

What gets the top marks are those responses who are able to

a) answer the question actually asked (you'd be surprised how many kids simply say what is in the sources and not actually attempt to respond to the question)

b) link their own knowledge to the information in the nominated sources.

The more you are able to write a response to the question and use the nominated sources to support your own knowledge the better your mark will be.

I have frequently awarded 10/10 to students who have not named a single historian and many times the pilot scripts we have used won't use them either.

During the marking process just finished I gave full marks to personality questions to a number of students with no named historians and often gave very low marks to those who had them because they simply named historians, some of whom were obviously made up.

Know enough about the topic that you can respond properly to any question.

The biggest problem with WWI is that many students simply waffle about the sources and add some own knowledge on the general topic but don't attempt the question asked, and there is an actual question there.

 

[-pari-]

^^ much valued opinion

thanks...i'll keep it in mind

 

[Bobness]

As someone who marked the Core for over 10 years I can tell you that knowing historians is not needed.

What gets the top marks are those responses who are able to

a) answer the question actually asked (you'd be surprised how many kids simply say what is in the sources and not actually attempt to respond to the question)

b) link their own knowledge to the information in the nominated sources.

The more you are able to write a response to the question and use the nominated sources to support your own knowledge the better your mark will be.

I have frequently awarded 10/10 to students who have not named a single historian and many times the pilot scripts we have used won't use them either.

During the marking process just finished I gave full marks to personality questions to a number of students with no named historians and often gave very low marks to those who had them because they simply named historians, some of whom were obviously made up.

Know enough about the topic that you can respond properly to any question.

The biggest problem with WWI is that many students simply waffle about the sources and add some own knowledge on the general topic but don't attempt the question asked, and there is an actual question there.

Yep i've spoken to cem before and i'd definitely try to take her advice!

What i wrote was more relevant to my internal school assessments which are what you're dealing with now. Some teachers really like to see that you have some knowledge of historiography, others might just want a quick and concise summary you'll have to look at your own teacher (or whoever marks the work) to see which would be more suited for you.