Can anyone please explain or provide a detailed explanation regarding how exactly I should be analysing a source in Modern?
hey hey Chloe! Excellent question
Modern markers are pedantic AF, so its really important to have a strong structure when analysing a source.
The number one, most important thing is to start with a JUDGEMENT. To what extent is the source useful? That is the question after all! However, a big thing that people get caught up in is the
to what extent part. See that is a super key part of the question - it is not asking you if the source is useful or not, therefore "Source A is useful" or "Source is not useful" just doesn't cut it. NESA will never give you a useless source, however they can give you a source that is less useful than others, so buzzwords like
highly,
limited,
partially are super super super important!
But how do you make that judgement? Well you need to consider three things - content,
perspective, and
reliability. I underlined the last two because they are the most important + you should be underlining them in your responses
Content: How useful is the content? Does it provide a detailed explanation of the events/issues in question? Does it cover a wide area of information or does it only cover a small aspect of it? These will all impact the usefulness of the source
You want to write about maybe 1-2 sentences on this - any more than that and you are probably drifting too far away from the Source.
Perspective: VERY VERY VERY important that you discuss this, and discuss this explicitly as it is part of the question. That is why I suggest underlining the word perspective, so as to make sure that the marker doesn't miss that you have covered it. Perspective covers these sorts of questions; Who produced the source? Was it an individual or a group? How are they related to the events? Did they take part or are they writing about it years later (or both in the case of a memoir!)? Why did they produce the source? Do they have any particular reason to discuss the events in a particular way - ideology, political agenda, personal agenda/prejudice? Is their perspective unique/specific - female, solider, king etc. The answer to the these questions will have a particular impact on the usefulness of the source as well, HOWEVER remember that just because a source may appear "biased" (hate that word - better to use terms like underlying ideology, political agenda or personal prejudice/agenda), doesn't mean that it isn't useful. E.g. A propaganda poster is very clearly a biased source, however it is still super useful to a historian - and that leads us onto reliability. (also you probably want to spend about 2-3 sentences on this!)
Reliability: This is where the bulk of your analysis should be! And like perspective, you should underline reliability within your responses, because it is part of the question, and you want to make sure that the marker doesn't think that you have skipped over it. Like when assessing overall usefulness, you need to make an overall judgement as to whether the source is reliable or not, using buzzwords. When analysing the source's reliability, we want to conduct 3 reliability tests. The first two can we whatever you want, e.g.; Was the source produced in close proximity to the events in question? Was it produced by someone who was involved? Was it produced to be published? Is it an extract (therefore incomplete)? In the case of a photograph, was it taken with a wide angle or narrow angle, or was it obviously staged? If it is a secondary source (ie a historians text) is it the product of extensive research and a peer reviewal process? etc. etc. The third reliability test that you will want to do is a
cross-reference of content. This is where you use your own knowledge of the content or other sources in your repertoire to back up the content of the source - for e.g. do the facts that the historian presents in the source corroborate with the facts that you have learnt? or can we assert that the propaganda poster encouraging men to enlist in the british army was effective in achieving its aims due to enlistment statistics from the time? For the most part, the 10 marker requires a lot less integration of your own knowledge throughout the response, so it is a good idea to pack as much as you can into this cross reference of content, to make sure that the markers are given no opportunity to question the depth of your understanding - try and get stats and detail outside of the textbook, that one one else will be using
Again like before, remember that sources that may appear "biased" aren't always unreliable, because we can break up reliability into two things - factual reliability and reliability as evidence. So just because a source may be factually unreliable - eg. a propaganda poster - it can still be a reliable piece of evidence for attitudes at the time, aims of the producer etc. etc.
Once you have covered everything above - it is time to round of and conclude your work with that source. Restate your judgement upon the usefulness of the source (and maybe, if you have time you can suggest other sources that will work well to expand the historians knowledge). Then hey presto! You're finished with source A, and now you just need to repeat the process above for source B
(Never intergrate them, deal with the two sources separately - this isn't english
)
Obviously when it comes to the shorter answer responses you will not need to be going as in depth, this is the structure of a 10 marker. When it comes to the shorter ones, depending on the length just make sure that you are integrating content from the source, and relating your own knowledge back to it.
Hope this helps! Let me know if you're confused with anything
Susie
Home
Help
Search
Login
