i do an intro, outlining both the historians and very generally, the various interpretations / arguments, and then in the body address AT LEAST two areas of debate and AT LEAST two historians in synthesis, but with the view of providing detail on the point of interest. you have an hour-- you could (and should if you want to maximise marks) probably address more than 2 historians if possible, and it's probably also wise to have a theory base for the related arguments. in the conclusion i reinforce the poles of the debate and state (which would have been mentioned in the introduction) my own conclusion / interpretation of events. the markers are looking for your own insights as well as a regurgitation of everything you've leaned.
but then that's just me, and i will probably fail everything.
The demands of the case study part of the examination is ridiculous, coupled with the fact that we aren't taught how to answer the question but rather just bombarded with booklet after booklet of information from which we are meant to deduce some sort of outstanding conclusion. (gee, that's a long sentence!)
History Extension is completely ruining my appreciation of history.... and that saddens me. I mean, i realise a large part of the course is based on independent learning, but in addition to the amount of modern history work there is... the amount of wide reading expected for the course is too much for the limited time we have....it's hard enough to cover all the content let alone have to research so mny different interpretations. if we were just studying the subject on its own it would be another story.
Yeah i agree with you Tenax,
I do Modern and Ancient hist, as well the Ext on top of it, and its just too much to take in at times.
Ahhh i had my trial today, and just how i expected, i screwed up the case study It was just too much to remember, maybe i will be a little more prepared for now for the hsc exam.