Speaker

Welcome to the HSC hub presentation for history extension.

This presentation will look at the examination layout materials to bring to the exam and how to be prepared for the history extension exam. Using the 2019 HSC examination for history extension we will look at the structure of the exam and give some advice on how to approach each section. This presentation will take approximately 20 to 25 minutes.

I would like to pay my respect and acknowledge the traditional custodians of all of the lands on which this video is being watched and also pay respect to elders both past and present.

In this video we will look at the exam section by section with some discussion of specific past paper questions and feedback from the marking centre. The key message that we can send you to prepare for your exam is that to prepare well, you need to have a strong grasp of the key content and concepts and you need to spend a lot of time practicing the ways to respond to different types of questions. Cramming or studying just before the exam will not be as effective as a long term study approach, and at the end of the day you need to know a lot about the history extension topics that you've studied to be able to write about them well in an exam setting. So wide reading and engaging with the content deeply is a key to success.

Before your exam day, make sure you download the HSC timetable and highlight all of your exams. The 2020 timetable has already been released and can be found on the NESA website. The history extension exam will be held on day 12, which is Wednesday the fourth of November at 1:50 PM. Make sure that you manage your time and travel so that you can arrive with plenty of time to be seated before your exam begins. Should plan your revision schedule to match up with your exams. Have a regular study routine that you're following to keep up with coursework. Continue to study and revise each of your subjects. However, in the days before the exams, you may need to give a little more emphasis to the exams you'll complete first. As you complete your exams, the time you would have spent on those subjects can then be allocated to exams yet to come.

Get a good night’s sleep before each exam. Late nights will harm your performance. Last minute cramming can be OK, but not at the expense of sleep. Your brain needs time to rest and you'll be able to engage better with the questions if you're not physically and mentally exhausted.

Make sure you eat your breakfast. Studies have shown that adding a healthy high protein breakfast and remaining hydrated will help you improve your exam results on days where you may have an afternoon exam like history extension, a healthy lunch will also help with concentration. Finally, make sure you have all of your equipment ready. Pack it up in a clear pencil case or plastic sleeve the night before so that you aren't rushing and forget something on the morning of the exam.

What can you actually bring into your history extension exam? To start with, you should be writing in black pen. Make sure you bring multiple pens in case one runs out of ink. It's important to use black pens as exam papers are scanned to allow for onscreen marking. Lighter coloured pens may not scan as well and will make reading your response difficult for the marker. For history extension, other useful additional materials you may bring include highlighters to highlight key parts of the questions pencil's, which should be at least two B and a sharpener and a bottle of water in a clear bottle. All of these items can be found relatively cheaply at stationary stores or newsagents or even supermarkets. Don't wait until the last minute to find these items. You should be using them throughout your course. Remember that you're not allowed to borrow equipment during the HSC exam, so it's very important to make sure you have what you need. You should place all of your items in a clear plastic sleeve or pencil case before entering the room.

You can wear your watch to your exams, but once you sit down you'll have to take it off and place it in clear view on your desk. Programmable watches, including smartwatches, will not be allowed into the HSC room. Make sure that you're familiar with the rules and procedures for the HSC exam. These can be found on the NESA website under the rules and procedures guide. Let's take a look at the actual exam. In history extension, the exam consists of two sections,

Section one, constructing history: key questions and section two, constructing history: case studies. You have about 10 minutes to read the paper. During this time you will not be allowed to write. So you should use this time to ensure that you have each of the sections and that there are no pages missing. You should also ensure that you have a copy of the exam paper and any writing booklets that you use for your essays. Any sources being used in the exam will be printed on the pages with the question. The reading time is crucial for the development of your essays. Use the time to read each source carefully and consider how you'll approach the questions. Think about how the source relates to the historiographical issues and debates that you've studied in class and how you can link these altogether in response to the question. Consider how you incorporate your own sources, both ancient and contemporary, if possible in response to the question, this thinking time will help you to develop a strong plan for each essay before you begin writing, which is absolutely essential for success in the history extension exam.

You have two hours of writing time. During this time you have to complete the paper to the best of your ability. You must remain in the examination room for a minimum of one hour and you will not be permitted to leave in the last 30 minutes. This is to minimise disruption at the end of the exam period. Once you leave the exam room, he will not be permitted to re-enter, so we strongly advise that you remain for the duration of the whole exam. History extension is quite a unique subject and the exam is no different. The structure leaves a much more generous amount of time for each question than many of your other exams, and the level of your planning and response should take this into consideration. Use your planning time well and spend time unpacking each question and stimulus source. Your responses will be richer and more meaningful as a result.

Let's take some time to have a look at the requirements and expectations of section one of the history extension exam. This section will be focused on the constructing history: key questions topic from the syllabus and will be assessing your broad knowledge and understanding of relevant issues of historiography. This section is worth 25 marks and you should allow about one hour to complete this section. They will only be one question to answer, and it's expected that you will answer the question in the form of an essay. Make sure that you use the writing booklets provided and ask for extra booklets if you need them. NESA indicates in the syllabus that the expectation for this section is roughly 1000 words or eight writing pages, but this obviously depends on your writing size and style. The section will include at least one source as a stimulus to respond to the question, and it's expected that you'll make clear use of the source or sources in your response. You also need to refer to other sources to support your argument. The number of expected sources will be specified within the question.

Along with demonstrating knowledge and understanding of relevant issues of historiography and using relevant sources to support your argument, the marking criteria for this question also identifies that you'll be assessed on how you present a comprehensive logical and sustained response. The notes from the 2019 marking centre advised that students should take their time to deconstruct the question in order to answer it effectively. One of the great things about history extension exam is that you have more time to plan than in modern or ancient history. For each section you should spend 10 minutes or more thinking and planning your response. This will ensure that when you write your essay, it will be more likely to hit the comprehensive, logical and sustained response aspect that markers are looking for. The general marker centre feedback also identified that being consistent in your argument is a key to success in this section, ensuring that you have a strong thesis, and plan before you begin writing will help with this. They also noted that students need to have a thorough understanding of competing perspectives on historiographical issues to ground their responses in a clear depth of knowledge. Being aware over range of debates and complex issues in the historiographical field will place you well to respond to the range of question types that may appear in this section and allow you to have a diverse and wide ranging suite of other sources to call on to support the argument that you'll make.

Looking at the 2019 exam, let's unpack the question for section one. The question reads "To what extent does historical evidence shape the construction of history? Use sources A and B and at least one other source to support your argument." As mentioned earlier, it's very important that you take the time to deconstruct the question and make a thorough plan before you begin. All of this can be done on the exam writing booklet. Just put a line beneath the planning before you begin writing your response.

Looking at this question, the first thing we can say is that we're looking at aspects from at least two of the key questions from the syllabus. Firstly, the ‘how has history being constructed, recorded and presented over time’ question coming through in the construction of history part of this exam question. The second key question that's being addressed is ‘why have approaches to history changed over time?’ If we think deeply about this exam question, we can see that the two questions and their underlying issues are being combined with the content of the question being an exploration of the way they intersect. This immediately makes it a rich and interesting question to consider as there are so many examples and historians that you could draw upon to elaborate on your argument in response before doing so. However, we need to look at the parameters of the question as well as the directive verbs. What is the question asking you to do exactly, and what restrictions or specifications are being placed on you in the way that you do it? The use of "to what extent" in place of the more traditional directive verbs of analyse or evaluate is actually quite a good thing here, as it gives you clear scope in your thesis to make a strong stand. You need to decide exactly to what extent you think that historical evidence shapes the way that history is constructed - to a great extent, somewhat, not at all. Having this clear in your mind before you begin writing is very important. You also need to ensure that you carefully make note of what the question is asking you to do in regards to sources. This question specifies that you must use both sources A and B and at least one other source to support your argument. This doesn't mean that you can only use one additional source, but it's vital that you use at least one. When using the stimulus sources, be specific in your response and make it clear that you are using the source. Integrate the ideas and content from the source into your response to ensure that your writing is cohesive and strong. Weaker responses in this section will use the sources as an add on.

The notes from the marking centre in 2019 for this particular question noted that in better responses, students directly engaged with the question and provided clear and critical assessment. Students with pre-prepared responses were not able to provide this critical assessment and were encouraged to ensure they approach the question as it stood, rather than trying to manipulate it to suit the response they had bought into the exam. Better responses also showed a clear understanding of how evidence shapes construction of history and not just how historians use evidence. This is a significant distinction and shows the importance of reading the question very carefully, as well as understanding the syllabus. The high-level responses made use of concepts from both of the sources to drive their arguments, and were also able to challenge concepts in the sources to make effective counter arguments. You don't have to agree with the source material. The markers centre also noted that to improve their arguments, student should be sure that they understand the entirety of the sources and not simply isolated phrases as well as maintaining consistent argument throughout their response.

To truly unpacked section one question we need to have a deep look at one of the sources. As an example, please keep in mind that the sources can be read many ways and from many perspectives. For this video I'm presenting one limited analysis of the source at hand and there are many other things that could be pointed out or discussed in relation to the source. You're also free to disagree with my interpretations, such is the wonderful nature of history and historiography. For this video, I've chosen to look at source B from the 2019 section one question, which is an excerpt from a professional lecture series. "The myths will live by: Re-framing history for the 21st century" by Professor Gazelle Burns of Charles Darwin University. The source read as this.

"That the past is always viewed through the lens of the present may seem to be obvious, but if we accept this suggestion, it means that stories of the past are always changing. That is, our present-day values and attitudes inform how we look back and review what has gone before. Moreover, the questions we put to the past invariably shaped by our present 'History,' is, there for a constant conversation with the past. In addition, most historians no longer believe there is a gold standard defined by the source as a measure of superior quality. Of objectivity that ought to be respected and agree that the quest for objectivity is... 'like nailing jelly to the wall'. Moreover, we can never recreate the totality of the past. This is an actual impossibility. We can only work with those pieces that remain while some stories are told, therefore others are silenced. The question of why this is the case (the emphases and repetitions as well as the silence) is has been and is a preoccupation of my generation of historians."

Now, a handy way to begin unpacking a source is to try to think about the overall message that you can draw from the whole. Having a sense of this makes it easier for you to be sure that you're including the whole source and not just a select section of the source. This isn't to say that you can't challenge or disagree with the source or aspects of it. Reading this source in the context of the question, you need to look for discussion of historical evidence and the way that it does or does not shape the construction of history. This source is quite rich in regards to the question with a number of clear links to those issues surrounding evidence and the ways that history is constructed through the evidence at hand.

Beginning with a statement about the way the past is viewed through the lens of the present is interesting because it immediately links us to the question in regards to historical evidence in the way it shapes the construction of history. The first four lines of the source relate to the questions we ask about the past and implicitly the evidence we have from the past. The idea that history is a conversation with the past is a nice nod to the key question around what is history, but could also be a prompt for thinking about history as a product of the evidence available or selected. With the ensuing conversation being a construction.

I think there is an opportunity for some challenge or contention with the statement that most historians no longer believe there is a gold standard of objectivity from many angles, but keeping in mind that the question is asking about historical evidence. This could be an avenue for discussing types of evidence in methodology around scrutiny in the quest to construct history.

The clearest link to the question in this short piece is in the last few lines, with discussion to the notion that creating the totality of the past is not possible, as historians can only work with the pieces that remain. This comes across as an almost natural process in the piece, which is interesting and could form an interesting bouncing off point for exploring the nature of historical evidence and the choices that historians making how and when they access it. There is a neat link to the classic EH Carr analogy about history and fish. Make sure you know that one you never know when it will come in handy, in this line, making it a really nice one to include in your response. I quite like the section in this source in brackets where it says the emphases an repetitions as well as the silences because it really cuts to the core of the issues around the construction of history and the way that historical evidence can shape things. You could make arguments in both the positive and the negative here about the role of historical evidence. As it's a nuanced issue, but I do like the idea of contrast in the way that evidence can impact both the stories that are told and the stories that are left untold.

This has been a very brief and surface level unpacking of this particular source, and if we had more time it could spend hours going over it and debating back and forth about some of the initial observations that I've made here. You won't have that kind of time in the exam, but you do in the preparation phase, so make use of it. The more historiographical sources you engage with deeply and spend time unpacking in this way, the more natural and comfortable it will feel when you sit down to do it in the exam setting. It can be a really great study activity to do with a classmate, as you'll both build your understanding and ability to unpack the sources together, learning with and from one another as you discuss the details and links to other sources.

Moving on to section two of the history extension exam. This section is about the 'constructing history: case studies' topic that you have been studying throughout the year. The structure for this section is very similar to section one in that you'll have one question to respond to that's worth 25 marks and you should allow around one hour to complete the section. The difference is that this section doesn't contain an unseen sources stimulus for your response, although the question may contain a quote that you need to respond to. There is a similar expectation around length of response, however it's important to recognise that it's definitely quality over quantity. If you can make a comprehensive, logical and sustained response that answers the questions and makes a knowledgeable and well supported argument that is the key to success in this section. The question may specify that you need to refer to one or more historical debates from your case study, so make sure you are prepared to respond if this is the case. You may also find that there is a historiographical issue embedded within the question, which would guide your response along with your knowledge of the syllabus. Like section one, you should put aside a reasonable amount of time to fully plan and consider your essay in response to the question to ensure that you engage fully with what the question is asking you.

The marking criteria for this section states that your response will be assessed on how well you, one, demonstrate knowledge and understanding of an appropriate case study, two, engage with the historiography of the areas of debate selected for discussion and three present a comprehensive, logical and sustained response. Similar to section one, it's important that you read deeply and widely in relation to your case study so that you have the capacity to engage clearly with the historiographical debates. In your particular case study. As in section one, you'll need to be able to make and sustain an argument of your own in relation to the question. It's very important that your voice an argument come through clearly instead of simply summarizing the various arguments of relevant historians. The notes from the markers centre in 2019 clearly make a point of ensuring that you don't pre-prepare a response for this section, as responses that clearly engaged with the specifics of the question were much stronger than those that tried to mould their pre-prepared response to fit. They also mentioned that students should be sure to identify the specific area of debate that they were going to discuss and to keep the question in mind throughout the response to ensure the logical and sustained aspects of the criteria were being met.

Let's take a look at the 2019 history extension exam. The question for section two was " how have changing methods of historians shaped interpretations of at least one area of debate in your case study." This question clearly comes from the dash point in the syllabus. The shaping of interpretations, the role of context, methodology, purpose, sources, and form of communication. Breaking the question down into its parts, we can say that the key content of the question is relating to interpretations of one of the areas of debate. In your case study, and specifically the way that the changing methods of historians have affected the shape of those interpretations. The directive verb for this question again moves away from the traditional, critically analyse, evaluate, etc. Instead, we have 'how have' to guide our response, which on the surface may seem quite simplistic. Thinking about the way this is connected to the word 'shaped' in the question, however, we can see that it's highly analytical as you're being asked to consider and unpack the role of methodology in the shaping of historical interpretations. In your case study. Being mindful of the parameters of the question, as always, you should take the time to note what is being required of you in terms of the number of debates. In this case, you only need to explicitly refer to one of the areas of debate in your case study.

In the notes from the 2019 marking centre, the markers noted that students with better responses were able to answer all components of the question with a focus on the historians methods rather than just the case studies, highlighting again the importance of thinking deeply about the question and what it's asking you to focus on before you begin writing. Better responses identified clearly, what methods actually constitutes in regards to the question, including examples such as approaches, new evidence, forms of communication, including writing or films. Engaging with the specifics of the question in this way show that you understand what is being asked and that you're able to directly link your knowledge and understanding to the concepts within the question in front of you. High quality responses extended upon this even further by explaining how purpose, context and perspective influence methodology which shaped interpretations. These responses made perceptive judgments an included effective integration by clearly demonstrating a strong understanding of the changing methods through unpacking and discussion in their essay. It may seem an obvious point, but the better responses were noted as having chosen the most appropriate and relevant historians to support their response. You will no doubt know a whole lot of historians in relation to your case study, and one way to stand out in this section is to make good choices about which historians you draw upon as evidence to support your response.

The marking centre notes from 2019 highlighted that students should have improved on their responses by being more adventurous and confident in exploring different sources. This confidence can come through feeling assured in your understanding, which will develop through wide and sustained reading and knowledge development. They also mentioned some specific areas for improvement in this section, which included knowing historians' methodologies as well as simply the debates and being clear that the question was driving the response, not the debates. Also making sure that the student’s voice, that is their judgment, is made explicit throughout the argument.

This video has been a very brief introduction to the history extension HSC exam and should be used as a starting point only. Your teacher is best place to support you in your preparation for the exam and is in an expert in both the specific topics that you've been learning about and how to teach them to your class. If you have any questions about your exam, your topics in history extension, or where to next have a chat with your teacher about the websites that you can use to help you study or how to access the range of past papers available. Please note that the current history extension syllabus is quite new, so any exams on the NESA website that have dates prior to 2019 will be for the old syllabus, so you should take the advice of your teacher on how to use those papers.

Good luck in your preparation and your exam.

[End of Transcript]