Help
Hey
With the synoptic fast approaching it dawned on me I'm at a loss on how to use sources in my answer.
Should I
a) Use quotes to guide my answer ? Which seems like it could be limiting
b ) Use quotes to open a topic and then expand upon it with my own knowledge eg As source 1 , by soviet finance minister X , states "The soviet union views marshall aid...." this is seen in Y and Z
c)As evidence for a topic already intoduced. EG The soviets feared capitalist expansion , as supported by source 1 in which X states Y
i'm mainly looking for help in section B but any help would be great
thanks
Page 1 of 1
Edexcel Unit 6 Synoptic Cold War
MultiQuote
#2
- Group: Moderating Teacher & Admin
- Posts: 4,674
- Joined: 29-December 03
- Gender:Male
- Location:County Durham
Posted 08 June 2009 - 04:37 PM
Hmmm
As I see it, perhaps all three, at times when it is warranted in your answer.
And also, it's not just quotes - I would suggest that you also need to take account of the tone, content and overall meaning of the sources.
I suspect the best answers will also address along the way the reliability and utility of the sources, taking their provenance and motive into account.
Am I correct in thinking that by 'section B' you mean the question which in the 2007 paper was quesiton 1b, viz.:
'How far do you agree with the view that...'
I think it would really help you to read the markscheme for this question.
What you need to do with this question is to answer it in a thesis-antithesis-synthesis way.
When you are planning, start off as though they had asked you to answer it using ONLY the sources...
First, build your thesis-antithesis-synthesis arguments/points using ONLY the sources. Use the sources exhaustively, in every way you can think of.
Then, add into your plan your own knowledge. In the thesis and antithesis sections of your essay, this will be supportive o contradictory knowledge, and it will be largely in response to the content/tone of the sources. In the final synthesis/conclusion/solution section, however, you will get the chance to use knowledge unrelated to any of the sources to drive your new idea which will solve the apparent dichotomy.
Then write your essay, referring to the sources as appropriate.
Does this help?
As I see it, perhaps all three, at times when it is warranted in your answer.
And also, it's not just quotes - I would suggest that you also need to take account of the tone, content and overall meaning of the sources.
I suspect the best answers will also address along the way the reliability and utility of the sources, taking their provenance and motive into account.
Am I correct in thinking that by 'section B' you mean the question which in the 2007 paper was quesiton 1b, viz.:
'How far do you agree with the view that...'
I think it would really help you to read the markscheme for this question.
Quote
Indicative content
This question enables candidates to address the issues surrounding superpower relationships and, by posing the hypothesis that these were driven by individual superpower leaders, enables candidates to explore alternative interpretations. At lower levels, candidates will start to compare the sources and liink them with their own knowledge and are likely either to support or challenge the given interpretation. Candidates are likely to start with Source 6, from which the given interpretation was taken and will find support for this in Source 4, with its emphasis on the change in US policy that occurred when Kennedy replaced Eisenhower. Support, too, can be found in Source 3 where the Plan and Doctrine are linked to individuals. Challenge to the given view can be found in Source 5 which, unpicked, gives a range of alternative interpretations of what drove superpower relationships. These could be supported by Source 2 which provides an historical explanation (that is itself an interpretation) for the continuity of Russian attitudes to international relations. Candidates will use their own knowledge to develop what they find in the sources and will introduce the idea of alternative interpretations for what drove superpower relations. These could include differing ideologies, contrasting economic systems and / or the existence of atomic weapons and the arms race, for example. At Level 3 and above, the explanation will be developed and infused with recognition that there are different interpretations concerning superpower relations. For levels four and five, candidates will present a sustained argument, recognising the existence of different interpretations about superpower relations and showing an understanding that historians have presented the period in different ways, as exemplified by the sources and reinforced by their own knowledge, and they will engage with the differences of emphasis contained in Sources 4, 5 and 6. In coming to a conclusion, they will marshal the sources to support their own opinion, but will also recognise the existence and merits of alternative views or issues these alternative interpretations present. Use of all the required sources will be expected, as will some sense of the merits of the different arguments that will be supported by appropriate reference to material from outside the sources.
Credit will be given for:
• contextualisation of the sources
• explanation and evaluation of differing views about the issue
• making links and connections between the given material and the candidate’s wider understanding of the issues involved in the debate.
This question enables candidates to address the issues surrounding superpower relationships and, by posing the hypothesis that these were driven by individual superpower leaders, enables candidates to explore alternative interpretations. At lower levels, candidates will start to compare the sources and liink them with their own knowledge and are likely either to support or challenge the given interpretation. Candidates are likely to start with Source 6, from which the given interpretation was taken and will find support for this in Source 4, with its emphasis on the change in US policy that occurred when Kennedy replaced Eisenhower. Support, too, can be found in Source 3 where the Plan and Doctrine are linked to individuals. Challenge to the given view can be found in Source 5 which, unpicked, gives a range of alternative interpretations of what drove superpower relationships. These could be supported by Source 2 which provides an historical explanation (that is itself an interpretation) for the continuity of Russian attitudes to international relations. Candidates will use their own knowledge to develop what they find in the sources and will introduce the idea of alternative interpretations for what drove superpower relations. These could include differing ideologies, contrasting economic systems and / or the existence of atomic weapons and the arms race, for example. At Level 3 and above, the explanation will be developed and infused with recognition that there are different interpretations concerning superpower relations. For levels four and five, candidates will present a sustained argument, recognising the existence of different interpretations about superpower relations and showing an understanding that historians have presented the period in different ways, as exemplified by the sources and reinforced by their own knowledge, and they will engage with the differences of emphasis contained in Sources 4, 5 and 6. In coming to a conclusion, they will marshal the sources to support their own opinion, but will also recognise the existence and merits of alternative views or issues these alternative interpretations present. Use of all the required sources will be expected, as will some sense of the merits of the different arguments that will be supported by appropriate reference to material from outside the sources.
Credit will be given for:
• contextualisation of the sources
• explanation and evaluation of differing views about the issue
• making links and connections between the given material and the candidate’s wider understanding of the issues involved in the debate.
What you need to do with this question is to answer it in a thesis-antithesis-synthesis way.
When you are planning, start off as though they had asked you to answer it using ONLY the sources...
First, build your thesis-antithesis-synthesis arguments/points using ONLY the sources. Use the sources exhaustively, in every way you can think of.
Then, add into your plan your own knowledge. In the thesis and antithesis sections of your essay, this will be supportive o contradictory knowledge, and it will be largely in response to the content/tone of the sources. In the final synthesis/conclusion/solution section, however, you will get the chance to use knowledge unrelated to any of the sources to drive your new idea which will solve the apparent dichotomy.
Then write your essay, referring to the sources as appropriate.
Does this help?
#3
- Group: Student
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 08-June 09
Posted 08 June 2009 - 06:56 PM
MrJohnDClare, on Jun 8 2009, 05:37 PM, said:
Hmmm
As I see it, perhaps all three, at times when it is warranted in your answer.
And also, it's not just quotes - I would suggest that you also need to take account of the tone, content and overall meaning of the sources.
I suspect the best answers will also address along the way the reliability and utility of the sources, taking their provenance and motive into account.
Am I correct in thinking that by 'section B' you mean the question which in the 2007 paper was quesiton 1b, viz.:
'How far do you agree with the view that...'
I think it would really help you to read the markscheme for this question.
What you need to do with this question is to answer it in a thesis-antithesis-synthesis way.
When you are planning, start off as though they had asked you to answer it using ONLY the sources...
First, build your thesis-antithesis-synthesis arguments/points using ONLY the sources. Use the sources exhaustively, in every way you can think of.
Then, add into your plan your own knowledge. In the thesis and antithesis sections of your essay, this will be supportive o contradictory knowledge, and it will be largely in response to the content/tone of the sources. In the final synthesis/conclusion/solution section, however, you will get the chance to use knowledge unrelated to any of the sources to drive your new idea which will solve the apparent dichotomy.
Then write your essay, referring to the sources as appropriate.
Does this help?
As I see it, perhaps all three, at times when it is warranted in your answer.
And also, it's not just quotes - I would suggest that you also need to take account of the tone, content and overall meaning of the sources.
I suspect the best answers will also address along the way the reliability and utility of the sources, taking their provenance and motive into account.
Am I correct in thinking that by 'section B' you mean the question which in the 2007 paper was quesiton 1b, viz.:
'How far do you agree with the view that...'
I think it would really help you to read the markscheme for this question.
Quote
Indicative content
This question enables candidates to address the issues surrounding superpower relationships and, by posing the hypothesis that these were driven by individual superpower leaders, enables candidates to explore alternative interpretations. At lower levels, candidates will start to compare the sources and liink them with their own knowledge and are likely either to support or challenge the given interpretation. Candidates are likely to start with Source 6, from which the given interpretation was taken and will find support for this in Source 4, with its emphasis on the change in US policy that occurred when Kennedy replaced Eisenhower. Support, too, can be found in Source 3 where the Plan and Doctrine are linked to individuals. Challenge to the given view can be found in Source 5 which, unpicked, gives a range of alternative interpretations of what drove superpower relationships. These could be supported by Source 2 which provides an historical explanation (that is itself an interpretation) for the continuity of Russian attitudes to international relations. Candidates will use their own knowledge to develop what they find in the sources and will introduce the idea of alternative interpretations for what drove superpower relations. These could include differing ideologies, contrasting economic systems and / or the existence of atomic weapons and the arms race, for example. At Level 3 and above, the explanation will be developed and infused with recognition that there are different interpretations concerning superpower relations. For levels four and five, candidates will present a sustained argument, recognising the existence of different interpretations about superpower relations and showing an understanding that historians have presented the period in different ways, as exemplified by the sources and reinforced by their own knowledge, and they will engage with the differences of emphasis contained in Sources 4, 5 and 6. In coming to a conclusion, they will marshal the sources to support their own opinion, but will also recognise the existence and merits of alternative views or issues these alternative interpretations present. Use of all the required sources will be expected, as will some sense of the merits of the different arguments that will be supported by appropriate reference to material from outside the sources.
Credit will be given for:
• contextualisation of the sources
• explanation and evaluation of differing views about the issue
• making links and connections between the given material and the candidate’s wider understanding of the issues involved in the debate.
This question enables candidates to address the issues surrounding superpower relationships and, by posing the hypothesis that these were driven by individual superpower leaders, enables candidates to explore alternative interpretations. At lower levels, candidates will start to compare the sources and liink them with their own knowledge and are likely either to support or challenge the given interpretation. Candidates are likely to start with Source 6, from which the given interpretation was taken and will find support for this in Source 4, with its emphasis on the change in US policy that occurred when Kennedy replaced Eisenhower. Support, too, can be found in Source 3 where the Plan and Doctrine are linked to individuals. Challenge to the given view can be found in Source 5 which, unpicked, gives a range of alternative interpretations of what drove superpower relationships. These could be supported by Source 2 which provides an historical explanation (that is itself an interpretation) for the continuity of Russian attitudes to international relations. Candidates will use their own knowledge to develop what they find in the sources and will introduce the idea of alternative interpretations for what drove superpower relations. These could include differing ideologies, contrasting economic systems and / or the existence of atomic weapons and the arms race, for example. At Level 3 and above, the explanation will be developed and infused with recognition that there are different interpretations concerning superpower relations. For levels four and five, candidates will present a sustained argument, recognising the existence of different interpretations about superpower relations and showing an understanding that historians have presented the period in different ways, as exemplified by the sources and reinforced by their own knowledge, and they will engage with the differences of emphasis contained in Sources 4, 5 and 6. In coming to a conclusion, they will marshal the sources to support their own opinion, but will also recognise the existence and merits of alternative views or issues these alternative interpretations present. Use of all the required sources will be expected, as will some sense of the merits of the different arguments that will be supported by appropriate reference to material from outside the sources.
Credit will be given for:
• contextualisation of the sources
• explanation and evaluation of differing views about the issue
• making links and connections between the given material and the candidate’s wider understanding of the issues involved in the debate.
What you need to do with this question is to answer it in a thesis-antithesis-synthesis way.
When you are planning, start off as though they had asked you to answer it using ONLY the sources...
First, build your thesis-antithesis-synthesis arguments/points using ONLY the sources. Use the sources exhaustively, in every way you can think of.
Then, add into your plan your own knowledge. In the thesis and antithesis sections of your essay, this will be supportive o contradictory knowledge, and it will be largely in response to the content/tone of the sources. In the final synthesis/conclusion/solution section, however, you will get the chance to use knowledge unrelated to any of the sources to drive your new idea which will solve the apparent dichotomy.
Then write your essay, referring to the sources as appropriate.
Does this help?
Absoluetly. Thank you.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1