Historiography essay... order of points??? (1 Viewer)

[arls]

Im just doing a prac essay now... and was a little bit stumped as to something. In what order do your points go? Is a chronological approach the most effective (for example, begin with Heroditus/Thucydides and move onto medieval etc etc ending with post modernism?) Or should it be more of a flow like approach..... (eg paragraphs that seem to flow on better should go back to back no matter what the time period?)

What does everyone think cause im just not sure!

 

[SmokedSalmon]

hey arls, well i called up the advice line and they say doing a chronological approach is ok... but as long as you are placing the historians under 4 groups. I think it was, Classical, Empericists (i.e. Ranke), Relativism and Post Modernism. Checking out the examiners comments from the previous exams wouldn't be a bad idea.
I checked out the past paper answers and they do it chronologically... so um yeah

 

[arls]

Originally posted by SmokedSalmon
hey arls, well i called up the advice line and they say doing a chronological approach is ok... but as long as you are placing the historians under 4 groups. I think it was, Classical, Empericists (i.e. Ranke), Relativism and Post Modernism. Checking out the examiners comments from the previous exams wouldn't be a bad idea.
I checked out the past paper answers and they do it chronologically... so um yeah

Thanks so much! But I've never heard of those four groups.... which is strange because my teacher is really with it!

I wont bombard you with questions about the groups... however tempting it might be! Ill give the advice line a ring this arvo to find out more. thanks again!

 

[psycho_mushy]

I'm stuck...

I only know two historians: Gibbon's and Ranke

and another two from the BOS book of readings...

is that ok? please say yes!

 

[*10#]

sadly no

you really should know lots of historians - not a whole paragraph of info but at least be able to integrate and compare views

for example my essay structure in the trial was
* 1 par - discuss issues of the given source and make links to other historians
* 2 par - discussed one of the classical/ancient historians - herodotus
* 3 par - talked about von Ranke empiricist and linked him to comtemporary empiricist windshuttle
* 4 par - annales school and aims of total history = forerunner of postmodernists becoz of their interdiscinplinary approach also reaction against marxism

- obviously it really depends on the Q as to what historians u use but just showing this as a guide ie you should know at least 4 historians in detail and then refer to others throughout the essay

 

[psycho_mushy]

Originally posted by *10#
sadly no

you really should know lots of historians - not a whole paragraph of info but at least be able to integrate and compare views

for example my essay structure in the trial was
* 1 par - discuss issues of the given source and make links to other historians
* 2 par - discussed one of the classical/ancient historians - herodotus
* 3 par - talked about von Ranke empiricist and linked him to comtemporary empiricist windshuttle
* 4 par - annales school and aims of total history = forerunner of postmodernists becoz of their interdiscinplinary approach also reaction against marxism

- obviously it really depends on the Q as to what historians u use but just showing this as a guide ie you should know at least 4 historians in detail and then refer to others throughout the essay

u said 4 historians in detail... what I described above was 4... but do u mean 4 historians, like normal ones, and another 2 from the BOS of readings?

I'm so confused

 

[*10#]

well do you know the other two from the booklet in detail????

if yes then you will probably be right if your historians are covering broad topics ie not all postmodernists

and then i would just find a couple of other historians and just know a bit og detail on them so you can chuck in a few quotes

im sure you will be fine we still have two days to learn this stuff

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Hey arls,

same here about the four groups. Apparently the HSC markers of the 2002 paper commented about them. look at the markers notes at the www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au

#10*:
What did you get in ur trial btw? And sounds like a great structure. I was going to do the issues of the source in the first paragraph and mention other historians then divulge into my essay as well. Hope the unseen source is not something I don't understand (like in my trial.. berk) otherwise i'm dead meat.

psycho_mushy:
Well knowing 4 historians is fine actually. As long as there is a variety i.e. you got one from the classical group (Herodotus, Thucydides...), one from empericist (Ranke), one from relativism (Becker, Collenger, Vincent, E.H. Carr/Elton I believe are one), and Post modernism/structuralism (Derridar, White, Foucault). So you are prepared for any question they send your way.
By the way... um what do you by normal historians? I thought the historians in the BOS readings were normal...

 

[*10#]

yeah smoked salmon that structure of talking about the source in the first paragraph worked pretty good for me i got 24/25 for my trial so hopefully i can replicate that for wednesday ( crosses fingers )

 

[psycho_mushy]

I"m going to commit suicide if I fail

 

[tink 18]

my teacher places alot of emphasis on us not writing in chronological order. He says that by doing that it looks as though we have written a pre prepared answer and markers frown upon it. So the best way apparently is to answer the question by following the points raised in the source. The first point they raise about historiography if you can discuss it with relation to you sources could be the first point you use. It helps prevent you from losing tract of what your doing and write a flowing essay.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

Sadly enough my teacher did not do that... but many of those band 4 (highest band responses) did the chronological approach and related each of their historians back to the source. So I do not think its that bad. But still you shall stand out tink 18.

 

[tink 18]

i suppose it would be easier to follow the chronological approach, but i think with about two days left before the exam i will stick with what i know.

 

[psycho_mushy]

and commit suicide if u fail

 

[tink 18]

I havent failed any of the essays i have written to date. I am quite used to writting my essays following the source provided, since we have to refer to it because the question asks us to. See if the question asks about the use of sources and in the source the author mentions the debate between Keith Windschuttle and Sir William Deanne then i would discuss the debate between windschuttle and deanne and then quite possibly Herodotos and Thucydides in relation to the use of oral evidence by Herodotos and Thucydides' dislike of Herodotos use of it.

 

[SmokedSalmon]

It is kind of hard to fail essays... I always seem to get 19s from my school and they mark very harshly (being private school and all). Have you psycho mushy?
True true tink 18... but what happens if you do not know the debate between Keith Windschuttle and Sir William Deanne very well? I would be screwed immensely. so i'm sticking with my chronological approach... but ensuring I place the historians I am doing under the 4 categories so it doesn't look like they don't relate to one another.

 

[tink 18]

i think even if i didnt know the windschuttle versus deanne debate very well i think i would be able to still pick up on the oral history part of the debate and still use herodotos and Thucydides.

 

[psycho_mushy]

yeah smoked salmon.... same goes my school..... bloody privates

in public's they mark so easily and fark... that's discrimination!

 

[tink 18]

I go to a public school, but i have never recieved a mark higher than 19 for my essays, some say my teacher marks hard but i dont think so. This is an extension course and high marks are supposed to be hard to achieve. All those people who get full marks all the time i think have teachers who mark easy because your essay have to be practically excellent to get 50/50

 

[SmokedSalmon]

I think it is better if schools mark more harshly because then it pushes you to try harder and perform better for the overall exam.
And considering the HSC marking is fairer, I'm hoping for an over 20 mark in at least one of the sections.