I thought that we had put this one to bed when we looked at the examples of excellent answers from past HSC papers in class. However, the study day seems to have raised the question again.
I think that the person who told you that historiography was not necessary "at all" was irresponsible. If he did tell you exactly this! They "usually" say that it is "possible" to get full marks without historiography. My answer is that "possible" is different from "probable".
Historiography scares a lot of average kids and quite few teachers too. And they usually say this so that kids don't give up trying. But it shouldn't scare you!
So...
1. Historiography is no substitute for not answering the question well. You must answer the question asked with plenty of deep knowledge of the subject. And yes there are "some" topics that you can answer well without historiography. This is true, and I have marked answers without historiography that have gotten full marks - but very very few.
2. However, there are quite a few questions - especially those involving the influence of Hitler - that you just can't answer "well" without discussing the historiography.
4. The best answers - the straight Band 6 answers: a. answer the question with a well structured argument without any irrelevant information; b. display a deep / expert knowledge of the subject; c. are well expressed; d. use the correct historical terms & names & dates, etc...; and e. uses good historiography to make the argument clearer and more sophisticated.
If the right question pops up - yes you can get full marks without historiography, but sitting and hoping for that question is not a risk that I would be taking.
Thanks for the advice. I think the one piece of advice we were also given is to only use around 4 references to historians and to avoid quoting and paraphrase instead. Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteJust using my common sense, I'd say that paraphrasing makes you look like you know your stuff better, especially when it's accurate and when you've written enough about its significance to your point. Like, full quotations, to me, only prove that you have a very good memory/have nothing better to do than memorise historian's quotes/don't have enough of your own opinion to fill the paper, so you use someone else's.
ReplyDelete