If you are currently doing your GCSEs - what do you think? What would you like to study? What would improve GCSE History?
However, I'm really interested to know what students of today feel.
I am currently in Year 11 [GCSEs in June], following the Edexcel Syllabus, studying:
*The Rise and Fall of the Communist State: The Soviet Union, 1928 - 1991
*Superpower Relations, 1945 - 1990
and
*The War to End Wars, 1914 - 1919
*The World at War, 1938 - 1945
--
This is the end of my second year in the British Education System, as previously, my schooling had always been in French [despite having lived between Britain and the USA].
In the French System, the History taught is
generally about France and her victories. Early on, you also study Islam and the Ancient Egyptians...all with a heavy French input. There is nothing wrong with it, but I never much enjoyed it.
After having switched [so at the beginning of Year 10], I dreaded History, because I thought that it would be much of the same thing. It was also quite a new approach to the subject as in the French System, History and Geography are taught as one subject, and I didn't quite know what to expect. I think that the British System is great in the way that History and Geography are taught separately.
I was also extremely surprised and interested once we began the course. It was so different in its focus, in the way questions should be tackled, and also in subject matter. I had never studied Modern World History, and consequently, knew surprisingly little about it. There is not one aspect of my course that I have found dull or uninteresting, and I have particularly enjoyed studying the Cold War.
I now
love Modern World History, and am keen to read further into it by myself, which I doubt would have been the case had I never been introduced to it. I think that it is fascinating to study at GCSE, and a great way to get motivated students interested in the subject. Additionally, schools could perhaps also introduce several course options? However, I do understand that this possibilty greatly depends on the size of the school and amount of staff. - I can't complain though, for GCSE, I have been completely satisfied in that respect.
At the end of Year 10, we were given the option to drop a few subjects, and one of the options was History. I was stunned at the amount of people who dropped it. There are now only about 30 of us across the year who study History, and I imagine that the reason for this is the amount of work and knowledge required in order to acheive a successful grade. All subjects require work and effort, good grades don't fall from the sky, but I feel as though History is particularly challenging. However, contrarily to others, I felt that it was more important to keep a subject I was interested in, as opposed to what would be easier, since I would therefore be more encouraged to make an effort. I also agree with James in that the introduction of tiers into GCSE History would be more profitable for less able students, [and those who do not opt to take History purely though fear of not being able to get a good grade].
In History, there is
tremendous amount to know - in my mock, I felt extraordinarily stressed [more so than in other exams] and very pressed for time. At some stages, I had to put my pen down for a few minutes because I couldn't think straight and because the room had started to spin. It wasn't due to the fact that exams are stressful, because, on the contrary, maybe I wasn't stressed enough. There is just so much to know, and so much to write down in such a short space of time, especially for Paper 1, which I find to be the more heavily-weighted and difficult? paper.
A slot of 2 hours is allocated for Paper 1 and a 1 and half hour slot for Paper 2 [which is source-based]. I think that either, there is not enough time allocated, or the sheer amount of questions and what there is to write is a bit [or extremely] 'off-putting'.
For Paper 1, 2 questions in 2 hours, where
Total for part a] = 20 marks
Total for part b] = 25 marks
Paper 2, 2 questions on each of the wars, where the whole question is worth 30 marks.
Quite frankly, Paper 1 scares me.
Perhaps the time should be broken up? To make the load
seem less cumbersome? In one sitting: one question in one hour? So instead of Paper 1 being taken in one sitting, there could be two?
Maybe there are reasons for the current 'set-up' of the papers, such as exam-scheduling, but I sure find it a lot to handle, and know that others sitting the same exam agree.
I don't know, just a few ideas, perhaps similar to those above, but that's my input.
Edited by lex, 17 May 2004 - 07:04 PM.
