How to write A Level History essays | Structure | Argument | Introduction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 окт 2024
- Find resources for A Level History: www.historyrev...
To enquire about private tuition and resources go to: www.gfagantuto...
Detailed explanation by a History teacher on how to structure, write and approach A LEVEL HISTORY essays. Focused on the 25 mark essay and exemplified with Nazi Germany questions.
Watch my series on the Nazi Terror State to find out more on the content for these essays!
#alevel #history #alevelhistory #examtechnique #nazigermany #essay #revision #historyrevision
as someone who didn't do history gcse this is surprisingly helpful
Excellent video. Clear and concise just like I hope my essay will be after watching this!
Great! So glad it can help! :)
Hi, you mentioned we should critique a historian for our introduction. Do you know any websites that are good with finding historians that comment on certain historical events or websites useful for this.
Thank you so much for this video
can we please get an essay sample especially for the main body paragraphs
to understand your structure please. it would be helpful to go through a essay but thank you for the support especially since I'm still struggling to find a good structure since I've just started year 12
Yes I will try and create something like this for you! Good idea, thank you for the input.
Hi, thank you so so much for these videos! They have really helped to make how to approach history clear in my head (better late than never :) I'm currently writing essay plans using the factors structure (so useful ah!) and was just wondering how to put in evidence for the 'synthesis' paragraph, when you're combining factors you've already used evidence for? I can state the link between the factors but that's currently all I've got for that paragraph... thank you and hope that makes some sense! :)
very informative🤐
Thank you this is so good!
Amazing video
Can I use this structure for Edexcel history?
05:40 I am still confused why you need to write about oranges when the statement is clear: " The apples are the main ingredient of an apple pie."?
The statement is clear, correct, and it is imperative to respond to the question throughout with your language and linking. However, to get above 16/25 you must show a ‘well balanced’ ‘analytical’ argument. This would not be possible without exploring an opposing factor, or critiquing the factor in the question. In addition, you may not (and perhaps never) agree with the statement in the question…a metaphor in this case would be far more like ‘the most popular juice is made from oranges’ - the questions are written to provoke debate, not as fact. Hope this helps.
@@HistoryRevisionSuccess Thank you for your reply. I really appreciate it. Call me dumb or a horrible troll :), but I am still confused.
I am getting your point that there is a need to be critical, analytical and always ready to qualify your conclusions. But I am still struggling to see why I need to introduce another, arbitrary factor in order to explore limitations of the factor in question. If I wanted my students to discuss more than one factor I could easily make it clear in my essay question/statement: “Please, critically discuss two of the most effective methods Hitler used to build his terror state focusing on their mutual relationship.” If I wanted to provoke my students, I would use more provocative language like: “Propaganda was the most popular method/the only method … . “ If we expect students to present a clear and well-structured argument, it is important to start with a clear and well-structured question. I am afraid that a lot of students might get low marks because they might misinterpret the question.
This is, for example, how I understood the statement about Nazi propaganda. The statement is descriptive in nature so all I have to do is to show to what extent this really took place. (Here I am thinking of historical fact-checking and imagine how future historians might be dealing with today's misinformation trying to examine different statements like: “ The 2020 elections were rigged” or Biden’s recent statement on the withdrawal from Afghanistan: “The extraordinary success of this mission was due to the incredible skill, bravery, and selfless courage of the United States military and our diplomats and intelligence professionals.“ )
This is how I see it: there are only two claims that I really need to examine to what extent they are true: 1. Hitler used propaganda extensively and 2. propaganda helped with building a terror state. As for the first claim, I could discuss the use of propaganda in Nazi politics, arts, media, schools and workplaces etc, critically examining its uses, pervasiveness, effectiveness and reception. Regarding the second claim, I would have to show its strengths and weaknesses in making people comply. (Here, I could use your point that propaganda’s effect had a waning effect over time and that it was not “scary” enough to build a terror nation. )
I kind of imagine my main argument in the introduction to be something like this:
The statement in question seems to be true to a certain extent. Although it is possible to argue that Hitler’s use of propaganda appeared to be extraordinarily pervasive, if not invasive, in nature overreaching into almost every aspect of German life experience throughout the Nazi years, its effectiveness didn’t seem to remain the same. Its unprecedented scale, and overly emotional and repetitive messaging seemed to produce great effects on the public early on but later those effects appeared to wane and decline badly when the hard realities of war started to hit the German nation.
To conclude my essay, I would say something like: propaganda was certainly the main method to raise morale and spread ideology but because of its limitations, on its own, it couldn't produce the “fear” factor needed to build a terror nation .
I feel that I have enough data to critically and analytically examine the validity of the claim in question without adding extra complexity of examining another arbitrary claim not in question about “terror”.
(Btw. terror is not even a method. Policing, spying, surveillance, public executions, torturing are examples of methods that produce terror. Propaganda produces high morale; overpolicing produces terror. We are looking at cause and effect. )
I am sorry if I sound too critical. I am just confused.
This is a generic structure to approach AQA a level questions, with specific relevance to what THAT exam board wants and looks for in the mark scheme. Of course in reality you can craft arguments in whatever way you choose however a generic code to follow simplifies it and makes it accessible to students. You must provide balance, on the one hand propaganda was effective, on the other it was not and this other factor worked better. That is the purpose of the structure. As a qualified teacher with five years experience in this course, I have found this to work for students across the grade spectrum in order to give a tangible structure to approach any question with.
As I explain in the video one approach is factor based, another is an argument based journey. Unfortunately, at A level, this is what is required, whilst it may seem more intellectually appropriate to write an extended answer. Furthermore, for this syllabus terror is referred to by the exam board textbook as a method by which the Nazis controlled Germany. This is information that from my experience has helped my students gain confidence and higher marks, it’s an advisory video you do not need to follow it if you do not want to.
@@HistoryRevisionSuccess So I am guessing it is best for everybody’s convenience that students learn this code by heart and apply it to make it easier for teachers and the examiners to tick boxes. First sentence: copy the statement; second sentence: add another random factor; third sentence: quote random historians, … .
I wonder if the other factor is completely random or it is prescribed as well, just like the whole code. I am asking because I could argue that such aggressive propaganda wouldn’t have worked without very strict censorship. In fact, can propaganda work if people are allowed full freedom of expression? I am asking because in a proper argument you have to provide a claim and justify your claim. I am not sure you have explained why you chose “terror” over other methods used in terror state building. I guess this generic code tells you that you don’t need to justify your choice as long as the choice is one of the prescribed ones.
Actually, terror is a political policy, not a single method. It is a policy that can employ a number of violent, repressive methods.
Thank you very much. I am trying to help my daughter but I see that I still have a problem: on one hand, it is easy to follow the simplistic code, on the other hand, the code lacks the essential elements of the argument and, thus, will not be very helpful in real life or at uni. A claim + another claim + historian's claim is not an argument; a claim + premises is an argument.
what sort of information would you use regarding resistance to self surveillance under hitler?
Could you do videos on A level stuarts content?
I can try! Make sure you are subscribed so you will be notified if I get one done :)
❤
6:46