Sooo the trial exams are a term away, and our teacher hasn't gone through how to write an essay for extension - should I be worried, because I AM!!!
Hey there,
History Extension essays, I would describe it as, a mix between an English essay and a Modern History essay, in the sense that, your essays should be structured thematically but still contains the analysis of sources within your paragraphs.
We'll start with the introduction:
- First sentence is your overall judgement in regards to the question
- Your introduction needs to mention the source you're analysing (e.g. This idea is explored in Source A, which is...")
- Be sure to explain the points you will be explaining throughout your essay. Usually I dedicate one sentence per point and because I usually do 3 body paragraphs, that's 3 sentences
- You should also mention a few sources you will be analysing throughout your essay. What historians or works will you be using? This is something I'd probably include towards the end of the introduction
So here is an example of an introduction I wrote for the 2014 HSC exam:
With the notion of truth remaining ambiguous throughout the decades, the purpose of history is no longer to search for an exact truth. This is due to the varying philosophies in regards to truth, resulting in conflicting perspectives and different versions of the past. Source A, an excerpt from David Hackett Fischer’s ‘Historians; Fallacies: Towards a Logic of Historical Thought’, explores the notion of truth as Fischer deliberates over ‘the impossible object (being) a quest for the whole truth.’ This is due to how a historian’s context critically influences the way they present history, impacting their selection of evidence and interpretation of evidence, compromising their ability to relay the truth. As a result, post-structuralist ideologies has had a significant impact on the way historiographers perceive history. Even if a historian were to reach some level of truth, it is greatly dependent on the questions they sought to answer and the evidence that provides them ‘the kinds of answers which are sought.’ On one hand, historians attempt to reach the truth by rigorous, empirical research- ranging from a conservative approach to exploring ‘people’s history.’ On the other hand, the politicisation of history has revealed a new purpose as various versions of the past has been used to support a historian’s political agenda. Thus, the truth has become an ambiguous term where various versions of the truth has emerged, thus, reaching the truth is no longer the ultimate goal
The structure of your essay should be FRAMED BY YOUR SOURCE. A lot of teachers sometimes ask students to structure their essays chronologically (e.g. 1 paragraph on Herodotus, 1 paragraph on Thucydides, 1 paragraph on Ranke etc) but HSC markers do not like that. If you look at your marking rubric, it says that it should be structured logically and your source needs to be interwoven in your essay. As a result, using the source to frame your essay gives a clear indication to the markers that you're directly engaging with the source. Once you've annotated your source, use the points raised in the source to structure your essay. The way I'd structure a paragraph would be:
- First sentence is an assessment of the point that the source explored. Sometimes I'd even quote directly from the source as my first sentence and then include my opinion on this
- Use this quote as a jumping point to explore what point the other raises AND THEN proceed to include your opinion
- Back up your opinion by using different sources (i.e. the different historians you've explored). I usually use 2-3 examples but make sure to analyse it in-depth
- Just like I said with the structure, don't group all your historians (e.g. grouping Herodotus and Thucydides because they're from a similar time period). Show links between the historians you're analysing. For example, when I explored post-modernism, I analysed how Herodotus' methodology is similar to post-modernist ideology even though he's not considered post-modernist and linked it to Hayden White
So here is an example of a paragraph I wrote for the 2014 HSC exam:
The development of post-structuralism has had a significant impact on the way historiographers respond to historiographical issues such as the inescapable nature of the historian’s context, thus resulting in the rejection of history as merely fiction. This is reflected in Source A where Fischer states ‘the idea that a historian can operate without the aid of preconceived questions… prejudices, presumptions, or general presuppositions of any kind is a false belief.’ As a result, these preconceptions can either impact their selection and interpretation of evidence, thus limiting their ability to reach ultimate truth. Jewish-American historian Deborah Lipstadt reflects this notion as her methodology in researching Holocaust deniers has prompted the discussion of Jewish nationalism due to her refusal to interact with Holocaust deniers. As a result, her presentation of this topic remains limited and subjective due to her reliance on preconceived notions of the Holocaust as a result of the heavy influence of Jewish activism. Historiographical issues such as inescapable context has therefore made it difficult for historians to discover the truth due to the historian’s clouded judgement. These issues have significantly impacted the development of post-structuralist ideologies. Historiographers such as Hayden White has described history to be a ‘coherent and ordered representation of events or developments in sequential time.’ This has resulted in White categorising historians based on their style of writing history, the four narrative structures being: satire, romance, tragedy and comedy. The categorisation of historians in literary genres reflects how language limits historians in reaching the truth due to the changing nature of linguistics. This notion of varying presentations of history as a fictional work of the historian can be traced back to Herodotus, arguably the precursor to postmodernist thinking. His philosophy of the purpose of history being to preserve a memory is reflected by his methodology of interviewing participants of the Persian War. Nevertheless, his philosophy on truth is revealed through the way he narrates the story, including various stories from different eye witnesses, regardless whether the stories were believable or not as Herodotus believed that the audience decides their version of truth. However, it is the the heavy influence of Homeric traditions that has allowed him to become a precursor of post-structuralist thinking due to how his language reflects the fictionalised nature of history White discusses. Thus, the enigmatic nature of truth has allowed historians to re-evaluate the purpose of history due to the inevitability of limitations that can negate the possibility of reaching an exact truth. This reflects how historians have various philosophies in regards to the purpose of history, as seen in the emergence of the democratisation and politicisation of history.
I've covered a lot on the structure of Question 1 (What is History) but the Question 2 component (which is the case study) is a lot simpler. Because everyone does different case studies and Source A is a long source, Source B tends to be very short so your essay structure is a lot simpler. It's also easier to have a "prepared essay", in the sense that the points you tend to raise are very similar. For example, I did Churchill so my Question 2 structure tends to be: context, purpose, methodology. The way you write the intro and paragraphs are essentially the same way I approached What is History essays, but just focusing on Churchill and their sources.
Hope this helps!
Home
Help
Search
Login
