[Cyfer]

Hi i've done a search round the forums and on the web and i already know a significant deal about living conditions in the Industrial Revolution and changes in the working conditions and migration from rural to urban etc... but this is for my exam so i would like to make sure i know absolutely everything in preparation for my exam.

I'm also a bit worried about my source structure and own knowledge structure, last year for my end of year my teacher said my source question answer was so good that it would be an A* in GCSE but that was my amazing old teacher (now left) and my new teacher hasn't told us anything about structure and i can't really remember anything apart frrom PEE (and i saw PEEL and SWIPE here) so i'm a bit worried.

~Cyfer

[MrJohnDClare]

As reagrds the standard of living, you need to be aware that there has been a huge debate among economic historians about whether the standard of living got better during the Industrial Revolution, or worse.
Google "Standard of living debate" and chase the relevant links, especially this one and this one.

As for sourcework questions, structure them like this:
1. In a first section, study the CONTENT of the source to answer the question (for instance, of you are asked about a source's reliability, compare what it says against your knowledge of the facts).
2. In a second section, use the PROVENANCE (author and date) to answer the question (e.g., in the same reliability question, you would look at who wrote it, how reliable he was, how well-placed to know what he was talking about, how likely to be telling the truth).
3. Finish with a conclusion which sums up the case, and then judges the source (as reuqired by the question - how reliable, how useful etc.), introducing a completely new point-plus-fact (which you have 'saved up to use) to 'clinch' your argument.

[Cyfer]

The thing is, I'm not sure if she wants me to go far enough into the future and discuss how the Industrial Revolution actually made England a better place for the long run or if she just wants me to keep it in that time area and stay focused on the negatives, not the future positives. So far we have not done anything on these future positives but i think I'll take the risk since this test won't decide if i can pick history as a GCSE.

Oh and thanks for the structure but i'm afraid i won't be able to go terribly in depth. I've only got about 35mins to do it all.

[Cyfer]

I think I'll structure my answer depending on how exactly the question is structured. If it wants me to talk about living standards than I'll talk about poverty, cramped housing and all the other million little things but if the question is on how the standard of living improved than I launch into my answer using information i have learnt frorm that extrremely interesting debate you have shown me, from an optimist's point of view (that's what i have decided to place myself as so far unless someone convinces me) but also including the pessimistic arguement, factors not incorporated and the such.

Once again, thanks for showing me that great debate. I was thinking of not doing history for GCSE due to there being no option for medieval/renaissance period but that debate might have just convinced me ^^

~Cyfer

[MrJohnDClare]

Sounds like a way forward.

if you have any doubts when you get the question, don;t hesitate to get back to us.

I really enjoyed the debate when I was in 6th form, and it's really exciting because you can go down to your local library and find out the corresponding facts about your own area, and then localise the debate to your home town.

[MrJohnDClare]

Sounds like a way forward.

if you have any doubts when you get the question, don;t hesitate to get back to us.

I really enjoyed the debate when I was in 6th form, and it's really exciting because you can go down to your local library and find out the corresponding facts about your own area, and then localise the debate to your home town.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Oct 6 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

Sounds like a way forward.

if you have any doubts when you get the question, don;t hesitate to get back to us.

I really enjoyed the debate when I was in 6th form, and it's really exciting because you can go down to your local library and find out the corresponding facts about your own area, and then localise the debate to your home town.

I'll ask about the question but i won't be able to ask about it when i get it since that will be in the exam....

What interests me in these kind of matters is the scale and complexity.

[Cyfer]

Hi, this wasn't for my exam by in my textbook there were a bunch of source questiosn and my teacher asked me to look at them and judge their reliability (she had absolutely nothing to set me as i had done the work, extension than second extension) but i was quite astonished at what I saw. There was a text which was fairly common, stating how the Industrial Revolution had affected workers etc etc. But what surprised me was the it did not have the name of the author, it just said 'written by a historian in 2001'. This deeply troubles me since i can't really go TOO much in depth with this! This worries me a lot

Thinking about this for about 5 minutes i summarized that to create an in depth analysis of a source you need to know the following things:
1) Who it was written by. Exact name so you can research further in what type of life he lead, date of birth and date of death, arguments and political/historical meetings that he attended and which side he supported. What books has he written and what general view he takes.

2) Time. So up to a month of a year if possible so you can research in depth at what most people believed in those times for example there have been times of optimist and pessimist 'uprisings?' during the course of history in the Standard of Living Debate. So the time period can affect hugely since most people will be affected by the majority of people and curb their views while overs will react and go against the flow just because it is their nature. A good historian would be neutral, although this is moderately hard to find.

3) Where it was written. Different areas can affect different views as stated in the psychological effect above with mass or reverse action.


So these three points. These can split up into many other sub categories but that would take me hours to fill up. Anything that I missed?

[Mr. D. Bryant]

Cyfer, on Oct 12 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

Hi, this wasn't for my exam by in my textbook there were a bunch of source questiosn and my teacher asked me to look at them and judge their reliability (she had absolutely nothing to set me as i had done the work, extension than second extension) but i was quite astonished at what I saw. There was a text which was fairly common, stating how the Industrial Revolution had affected workers etc etc. But what surprised me was the it did not have the name of the author, it just said 'written by a historian in 2001'. This deeply troubles me since i can't really go TOO much in depth with this! This worries me a lot

I think we can both agree that you are working at a rather higher level than the majority of your fellow students. So, unless your teacher has access to a lot of advanced extension material, this will probably not be the last time you face this problem. There has been a lot of debate over the years as to whether 'source analysis' has become 'dumbed down', (to use an unpleasant phrase). See, for example, the views of this history teacher in a recent debate in the BBC History magazine.

The textbook will be written at a level assumed to be suitable for the majority of pupils, rightly or wrongly. So, many of them will be struggling with such concepts as what historians actually do, and what value secondary sources have. It might, therefore, be seen as distracting to give the name of the historian, let alone the publication from which this source has been taken from.

However, the good news is that, as an extension exercise this question, including the source with the incomplete provenance, led to you thinking up a really detailed (if not wholly inclusive) list of criteria for source analysis. So it worked, didn't it?

More seriously, though, your post raises important questions about the suitability of some textbooks for some students. And I haven't even got on to looking at your source criteria yet. Sorry.

[MrJohnDClare]

Cyfer, on Oct 12 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

Anything that I missed?

Motive/purpose.

[Cyfer]

Mr. D. Bryant, on Oct 12 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Oct 12 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

Hi, this wasn't for my exam by in my textbook there were a bunch of source questiosn and my teacher asked me to look at them and judge their reliability (she had absolutely nothing to set me as i had done the work, extension than second extension) but i was quite astonished at what I saw. There was a text which was fairly common, stating how the Industrial Revolution had affected workers etc etc. But what surprised me was the it did not have the name of the author, it just said 'written by a historian in 2001'. This deeply troubles me since i can't really go TOO much in depth with this! This worries me a lot

I think we can both agree that you are working at a rather higher level than the majority of your fellow students. So, unless your teacher has access to a lot of advanced extension material, this will probably not be the last time you face this problem. There has been a lot of debate over the years as to whether 'source analysis' has become 'dumbed down', (to use an unpleasant phrase). See, for example, the views of this history teacher in a recent debate in the BBC History magazine.

The textbook will be written at a level assumed to be suitable for the majority of pupils, rightly or wrongly. So, many of them will be struggling with such concepts as what historians actually do, and what value secondary sources have. It might, therefore, be seen as distracting to give the name of the historian, let alone the publication from which this source has been taken from.

However, the good news is that, as an extension exercise this question, including the source with the incomplete provenance, led to you thinking up a really detailed (if not wholly inclusive) list of criteria for source analysis. So it worked, didn't it?

More seriously, though, your post raises important questions about the suitability of some textbooks for some students. And I haven't even got on to looking at your source criteria yet. Sorry.

Thank you for that excellent text and he has outlined exactly what i hate. The national curriculum have 'dumbed down' source questions hugely. Although this may not be the reason I think his argument on why they do this (how they already know it and find it unimportant) is extremely accurate.
Although this extension exercise did work I do not believe that it was meant to do exactly this. My teacher had to think it up on the spot and it was rather rudimentary as the sources were on the exact same double page spread as from which I was doing various questions on.

MrJohnDClare, on Oct 12 2009, 09:53 PM, said:

Cyfer, on Oct 12 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

Anything that I missed?

Motive/purpose.

Sorry I didn't actually miss this out because if I had put motive than i would only have one main point and the three i have outlined would be under sub categories which isn't as clear. My reason for this is that the motive is affected by all the other three points.

[Cyfer]

Arghhh!!!!

Today we received a source question and we had to asses it's reliability (although not resourcefulness). I used your guide (Mr Clare thank you very much) although my teacher took me a level below because i did not use the word 'reliability', although i clearly assessed it's reliability and why it is reliable!!! So instead of being able to get out of a hundred I got lowered to a maximum of 75. This was not an exam but I'm clearly frustrated by this. Was it my, common schoolboy error?

I cannot stand these annoying source questions without real assessment. Over my half term, among other things I will right an in depth assessment of a source, researching all the points I have mentioned! And maybe finally i will get something off my back. Meah~

[MrJohnDClare]

You have to watch the key-word - assess the source's reliability, validity, accuracy, utility... etc.
Although you answer the question in exactly the same STRUCTURE, it is these words that determine the direction of your argument/ explanation.
And yes - your teacher is correct to teach you a salutary lesson; always 'dry stone wall' and give them back the question in the answer.

[Cyfer]

MrJohnDClare, on Oct 14 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

You have to watch the key-word - assess the source's reliability, validity, accuracy, utility... etc.
Although you answer the question in exactly the same STRUCTURE, it is these words that determine the direction of your argument/ explanation.
And yes - your teacher is correct to teach you a salutary lesson; always 'dry stone wall' and give them back the question in the answer.

starting to sound like a science exam ^^.

Thank you for that. I'm pondering whether to focus my attention on the Standard of Living debate or focus my attention on the textbook. I asked my teacher if I could include the Standard of Living debate... she said it would be great but would it be better than the textbook work? (Yes, I am aware that textbook work is average but is it not what the teacher is looking for?)

I'm worrying so much over this! 2 source questions and 2 knowledge questions. When we had 2 hours of time I could only right about 3-4 pages! How am I supposed to do this? I mean, I've practiced for questions where you have to compress information and such but this is just colossal. I'm pondering whether to just go hugely in depth into one source question and one knowledge question and possibly run out of time and receive a bad mark but be aware that I can fulfill greater goals?

Sorry for throwing these emotions at you.

~Cyfer

[MrJohnDClare]

In an exam surely the aim is solely to gain the maximum marks possible?
It's just an exam - it has no value apart from testing your ability to gain the maximum mark possible.
THAT is its sole function.
It has no other reason to exist apart from that.

It is NOT real study.
Real study is to seek after truth.

As for yourself, the only reason to pass the exam is to win the opportunity to go onto a higher stage of study and seek after (hopefully a higher) truth there.

That's the theory, anyway.