National Studies HISTORIOGRAPHY (1 Viewer)

[Aerath]

Re: makin up historians??

That being said, all of us in any history in my year at Fort Street used to refer to 'Ainsworth' in exams if we couldn't remember the historian. It looked more like a legit source when 20 of us were doing it.

Did the teachers believe it?

 

[Allan vB]

Historians

I was just wondering what people though about using 'textbook' historians, such as S. Dixon, K. Webb etc... Is it wong to quote these guys in exams or should we just use it as our own knolwedge?

I've spoken to many people about this and each seems to have their own opinion, leaving me none the wiser...

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Re: Historians

In short, yes.

 

[Aplus]

Re: Historians

You should quote historians' opinions in order to provide support and credibility for your argument.

 

[sonyaleeisapixi]

Re: Historians

But writers of text books don't really quantify as valid historians, particularly in the eyes of the markers.

Paraphrase things they say but don't quote them as you'd quote Dalleck or Chomsky or someone.

 

[Zephyrio]

Re: Historians

Using historians isn't even specified in the modern history syllabus course. You can get 25/25 for an essay without using them. That is clear, from what my teacher has told me. (He used to mark HSC modern).

However, it is advised that you use some historians to give your argument more depth. You shouldn't be quoting say, Webb, because what he writes is within the realm of what is commonly accepted. Kristallnacht occurred in 1938 - that's within the sphere of common knowledge, and should not need to be referenced in your essay. I.e. you do not need to say something like "Webb says that Auschwitz..."

Contrast this to using historians' quotes (mind you, Webb and etc. are historians - they have degrees, but they're writing for the modern history HSC syllabus, lol), who might say that WWI was primarily caused due to whacky train timetables (as in the case of AJP Taylor. This isn't "accepted" knowledge and would obviously need to be referenced.

 

[Kujah]

Re: Historians

I don't think its generally accepted to quote from textbook writers such as Webb or Dennett or Kiem etc (even though they do have degrees in History). Refer to above post

 

[Zephyrio]

Re: Historians

Stop making me do all the work around here, Kuj. -.-
lol

 

[cem]

Re: Historians

Don't actually quote but paraphrase the work of the historians you are using to back up your argument.

As Ken Webb says in his Conflict in Europe book, being able to use a three line quote only proves that you can memorise a three line quote but being able to paraphrase the historians argument is far better.

In addition we have never been told at marking to treat textbook writers as not being historians. Using a known name to back up your argument is good but it is more important that you understand the issues and can show the different interpretations with or without the names of historians.

I have often given full marks to students with no names in their work at all but rather they have shown an excellent understanding of the issues.

 

[nirvanafreak02]

Re: Historians

I don't think its generally accepted to quote from textbook writers such as Webb or Dennett or Kiem etc (even though they do have degrees in History). Refer to above post

lol dennett should never be quoted
he is a history teacher, NOT a historian
also some of the textbook writers are markers, so when you quote them, particularly when you quote them wrong, it makes you look foolish

 

[cem]

Re: Historians

lol dennett should never be quoted
he is a history teacher, NOT a historian
also some of the textbook writers are markers, so when you quote them, particularly when you quote them wrong, it makes you look foolish

Most History teachers I know regard themselves as Historians as well as we do the research and so on. We just don't make our living from being published but rather from passing on the knowledge of our own regular research.

I do mark and as I have said we are never told to mark someone down for quoting or naming their textbook writer - at least it shows the student has read someone who has done research in order to write the material at a level that can be understood and someone who usually includes the ideas, if not quotes, from the historians that we get named anyway i.e. most kids only learn what these 'non-historians' say an historian has said.

I do find though that most student who use actual quotes tend to have a list of quotes that they are going to use in their essay which they then can't relate properly to the question asked. Many times the same quotes come up in a school meaning that the students have been given a list of quotes by their teacher and that they haven't actually read the work at all.

When you get a student who actually paraphrases the work of an historian rather than simply quotes a few historians given to them by their teacher or from one of the standard textbook they stand out a mile.

 

[nirvanafreak02]

Re: Historians

When you get a student who actually paraphrases the work of an historian rather than simply quotes a few historians given to them by their teacher or from one of the standard textbook they stand out a mile.

so you don't get marked done for doing it wrong
but when you do it right it makes it much much better

now i get why we're told to focus on arguments... it's all making sense ! lol

 

[cem]

Re: Historians

so you don't get marked done for doing it wrong
but when you do it right it makes it much much better

now i get why we're told to focus on arguments... it's all making sense ! lol

You never lose marks for getting it wrong - you only gets marks for getting it right e.g. if you have a four page essay and two pages are completely wrong you get the two correct pages marked but you don't then get marks deducted for the two pages of wrong information.

In Modern History (except for Question 1) it is the argument and the backup to the argument is what gets the marks not just telling the story or stating a series of facts or quotes.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Re: Historians

I do mark and as I have said we are never told to mark someone down for quoting or naming their textbook writer

In Modern History (except for Question 1) it is the argument and the backup to the argument is what gets the marks not just telling the story or stating a series of facts or quotes.

This is exactly the same as in Ancient History, but noone will believe me in that forum. Thanks for reiterating it here.

 

[nirvanafreak02]

Re: Historians

You never lose marks for getting it wrong - you only gets marks for getting it right e.g. if you have a four page essay and two pages are completely wrong you get the two correct pages marked but you don't then get marks deducted for the two pages of wrong information.

In Modern History (except for Question 1) it is the argument and the backup to the argument is what gets the marks not just telling the story or stating a series of facts or quotes.

thank goddness for that since i always forget quotes

 

[lionking1191]

Re: Historians

I don't think its generally accepted to quote from textbook writers such as Webb or Dennett or Kiem etc (even though they do have degrees in History). Refer to above post

yeahl..dennett personally told us not to quote him

 

[Allan vB]

Re: Historians

This turned out to be very useful! Thanks everyone.

 

[Mr G]

Re: Historians

Any historical reference is good, the best ones will be the ones you construct yourself from extended reading, failing that go ahead and use the ones in the little text boxes from your textbook. Own knowledge is great but in the HSC exam paper if you read the dot points at the top of each section telling you what you will be assessed upon you will find the one about using historical sources. In Modern History those historical sources are basically historians.

 

[allyoop]

Re: Germany Historiography- not asking, giving.

marry me.

 

[BlueGiraffe]

Re: Germany Historiography- not asking, giving.

I may be leaving this a little late, but thank you so much