Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

History HL question

Recommended Posts

So a lot of people on this board have mentioned the need to analyze and incorporating critical commentaries of important events/dictatorships in the paper 2 and 3 essays. Some have also suggested challenging the question and introducing multiple interpretations of historical events, as well as different historical perspectives and historians.

I was wondering if anyone could give me pointers as to how analysis of historical events/perspectives is done. Is it similar to the IA? I've just been memorizing information as of now, and I guess that wasn't the right approach to get a 6 or 7. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a lot of people on this board have mentioned the need to analyze and incorporating critical commentaries of important events/dictatorships in the paper 2 and 3 essays. Some have also suggested challenging the question and introducing multiple interpretations of historical events, as well as different historical perspectives and historians.

I was wondering if anyone could give me pointers as to how analysis of historical events/perspectives is done. Is it similar to the IA? I've just been memorizing information as of now, and I guess that wasn't the right approach to get a 6 or 7. Thanks.

When I want to discuss multiple interpretations usually I just insert the different interpretation in where it's relevant, followed by a brief summary of the interpretation, why some people would say that, and then I give my opinion. Sometimes it works to put it in towards the end or in the conclusion. It kind of depends on what the question is and what you've said before that. It's not a MAJOR part of your essay and shouldn't be, but don't underestimate it's importance (especially if you want those top marks). If I challenge the question it's usually done in the concluding paragraph. For example I did one essay with the question "Why did it take so long to unify Italy?" I talked about the reasons why and in the conclusion stated that yes Italy was unified as a political entity, but was not unified internally and therefore it was not really "unified," even today. No more than a few good sentences are necessary, unless you're doing a lengthy challenge to the question, in which case you should integrate it into the body paragraphs.

It's kind of like the IA in a sense, but if you're referring to Part C not really so. If you mean by Part D where you can consider other interpretations, then yes it's kind of like that.

If you have any more questions on specifics or something just send a PM, I'll try to answer back as quick as possible.

:)

Edited by Emy Glau-ski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...