Source Analysis Tips and Tricks to get a Band 6

[pughg16]

And...further to the above (I meant to add it in but pressed post too quickly ) I love PRU!! She is truly the best way to go ....and also very easy to make a plan for....
In a table, have P, R, and U across the top, and the sources down the side....this makes it a lot clearer to plan for. Not very genius or original, but just to help anyone whose struggling and feels like they need an easy plan! 

[sudodds]

Sudodds, your breaking down of reliability is awesome...into factual and as evidence.
I'm thinking that an exxample of how to distinguish would be with propaganda, if the question was about  "how propaganda was used..." I could say that the contents of the propaganda would be unreliable as a source of informantion, however as a source of evidence as to how propaganda was used, it is highly reliable...
That is just made up, so would sound clearly when talking about a particular source, but is that what you are meaning by breaking it down into two types of reliability?

Yes that is exactly what I mean (though I didn't come up with it haha, Bruce Dennett who wrote the syllabus did!), propaganda is probably the best example.
However be wary about saying unreliable and reliable in the same sentence, because even though you are correct, if the markers not careful they may look at that and just assume you're sitting on the fence. So maybe say this instead:

Though as the source is a piece of propaganda the veracity of the source is limited, overall the source would be highly reliable as evidence of the use of propaganda in regards to blah blah etc etc.

That way you're saying the same thing, but don't look like you are sitting on the fence. The word "overall" is really good when making a differentiated judgement

[olr1999]

Hi! The multiple choice questions in the source sections are normlly tricky and you really have to think about it carefully. Are there any tricks to getting through these more easily? Thanks!

[sudodds]

Hi! The multiple choice questions in the source sections are normlly tricky and you really have to think about it carefully. Are there any tricks to getting through these more easily? Thanks!

They're hard because they try to trick you - particularly in regards to the wording of questions. Often an answer seems obvious, but people forget that the MC is still source based, not just general knowledge, so sometimes the source may contradict what you have been taught to believe. So basically my biggest tip would be to take your time, read over the source carefully, and read the question really carefully, find the answer that is the most correct in regards to the source, not just the correct answer in general.

Also, just doing practice MC will help a heap because you can start to get used to those types of trick questions, and sense how they normally appear

Hope this helps! Good luck 

[olr1999]

They're hard because they try to trick you - particularly in regards to the wording of questions. Often an answer seems obvious, but people forget that the MC is still source based, not just general knowledge, so sometimes the source may contradict what you have been taught to believe. So basically my biggest tip would be to take your time, read over the source carefully, and read the question really carefully, find the answer that is the most correct in regards to the source, not just the correct answer in general.

Also, just doing practice MC will help a heap because you can start to get used to those types of trick questions, and sense how they normally appear

Hope this helps! Good luck 

Thankyou!

[f_tan]

Just wondering for the source and own knowledge questions, is it okay to put in quotes from primary sources or is it not necessary?

[jakesilove]

Just wondering for the source and own knowledge questions, is it okay to put in quotes from primary sources or is it not necessary?

It's definitely okay! Basically, if there is relevant information you can put in to impress the marker, then do it. No need to go overboard; 50 statistics for a 3 marker is clearly overkill. However, primary source quotes and other specific, accurate, relevant and detailed examples are the perfect way to ensure you get full marks in a short response question

[olr1999]

Can the fact that a source is unreliable in some aspects add to its usefulness? E.g for a British Propaganda Poster that villifies Germans, can the fact that it is inaccurately depicting Germans make it more useful because it shows the extent that the British Government went to make the people hate Germans?

[jakesilove]

Can the fact that a source is unreliable in some aspects add to its usefulness? E.g for a British Propaganda Poster that villifies Germans, can the fact that it is inaccurately depicting Germans make it more useful because it shows the extent that the British Government went to make the people hate Germans?

Absolutely, you've hit the nail on the head. The real question is; useful for what?
If a question asks about usefulness for historians studying the homefront, propaganda is a great descriptor of the general feeling etc. as well as the Governments stance. However, if the question asked about usefulness for historians studying the Western Front, a propaganda source probably isn't particularly helpful

[JeffChiang]

Hey that's pretty good!

This was of extreme reliability and astronomically useful in helping to develop a cohesive source analysis response (lol  )
Well, as an extra acronym, I COMB the CAT (content, origin, motive, bias, completeness, audience, tone). I take PRU (perspective, reliability and usefulness) as a given because it's in the question and you HAVE TO mention it. 
Thank you comrades

[Jay_]

Hi!

I was reading through the Modern History ATAR Notes Textbook (it's great, I love it), but I just have some questions that need a little extra explaining, if that's okay?

I was just a little confused at the part about cross-referencing and reliability tests, I've never done that before, and my teacher hasn't taught me (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing..) but yeah, can anyone please explain it a little? I don't really understands what it is/ why it's done or why it's needed in the source analysis. Thank you so much! 

[sudodds]

Hi!

I was reading through the Modern History ATAR Notes Textbook (it's great, I love it), but I just have some questions that need a little extra explaining, if that's okay?

I was just a little confused at the part about cross-referencing and reliability tests, I've never done that before, and my teacher hasn't taught me (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing..) but yeah, can anyone please explain it a little? I don't really understands what it is/ why it's done or why it's needed in the source analysis. Thank you so much! 

Woohoo! So glad you like it 
The question will always ask you to discuss reliability, so it's pretty important Its one of the ways that you are asked to assess the usefulness of the source, and is definitely something that the markers will be looking for (so much so that I recommend you underline reliability [and perspective which is the other thing you have to discuss!] whenever you mention it). However, it's not enough to just say a source is highly/partially reliable, you have to demonstrate why. That is the whole point of an analysis, and to do that we must employ reliability tests (at least 2, but 3 is ideal). You don't need to go into too much detail with these, just mention some that are applicable to your judgement + the source.

Examples of reliability tests:
- Was is produced in close proximity to the events in question?
- Was it produced by someone close to the event/had a stake within an outcome?
- Is the perspective neutral or is it clouded by ideology/political agenda? (note that this one is really only applicable for factual reliability, as even if an ideology is present it can still be reliable as evidence)
- Was it written for a public or private audience? Was it written to be viewed at all? (eg. with a diary we can assume that it is reliable because why would someone lie to themselves? yes yes extension students I know that this isn't always true but just go with it for modern
- Has it been heavily researched/peer reviewed (important in regards to historian extracts)?

Etc. etc.

Now for the first 1-2 reliability tests you can pick whatever ones you want from the list above (there are also tonnes more, this is just a brief selection of some of the most common), but for the final test you should always do a cross reference of content, as this is one of the areas within your response where you can demonstrate your amazing knowledge of the course. Now what I mean by that is that you use your own knowledge of the course to back up the evidence presented in the source to assert it's high/partial/limited reliability. So for example, if your source was a historian extract about how British soldiers attitudes towards the war at the beginning were really enthusiastic, you could back this up through your own knowledge of recruitment statistics at the time to verify the information and thus assert it's high reliability etc etc. OR you could also use your knowledge of another source relevant to the one in question, such as a diary entry or a letter from a soldier at the time, which corroborates the information presented within the extract (these are just examples, there would be many other ways to do it also )

So, using the example of the historians text (i don't have a particular example in mind i just made it up for demonstrative purposes), you could write something like this for reliability:

Though the source was not written in close proximity to the events in question, it can still be said that Source A is highly reliable, as by nature a historian's text is the product of extensive research and a peer reviewal process. Along with this, as the contents of Source A can be corroborated by recruitment statistics from the time, which demonstrate that the highest recruitment numbers were recorded during the first two months of the war (over 760 000 men), the veracity and high factual reliability of the source is further evident.

I hope this helps!! Please let us know if there is anything you still don't understand/we can help you with

[sophiemacpherso]

Should we attempt to integrate our own knowledge into source analysis responses? Or just leave it for the "Using your own knowledge" questions?

[jakesilove]

Should we attempt to integrate our own knowledge into source analysis responses? Or just leave it for the "Using your own knowledge" questions?

Personally, I would always take up any excuse to show your own knowledge. For instance, if a source is dated as November 1917, you could say something like 'this source shows _____, which is an interesting take given the other events going on simultaneously, such as ______". Throw in names, dates and maybe even quotes, but never go off topic to do so. If your own knowledge will genuinely help to interpret sources (maybe you know information about the author? Maybe a piece of information in the source is wrong?) then definitely go ahead!

[sudodds]

Should we attempt to integrate our own knowledge into source analysis responses? Or just leave it for the "Using your own knowledge" questions?

Just to add a tad onto what Jake said, though the 10 marker required comparatively less own knowledge than say the 5-8 marker, it is still imperative that it is there during your brief explanation of content near the start, and cross reference of content during the reliability section

Integrating own knowledge in other sections is A okay, just make sure (as Jake said) that you don't go overboard. Remember that the question isn't on the content but how the source demonstrates the content, so make sure that any own knowledge that you intergrate is directly related, and further enhances your judgement upon the usefulness of the source, rather than just including it for details sake