GOGOGOHAHAHA Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I wrote a history essay and scored only 7 out of 20.The biggest difficulty is to write 'IN DEPTH' analysis.What is the definition of IB-History (SL)style regarding In Depth Analysis?Thank you very much~ Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alefal Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Hey there!What was the question given to you?Let's say your question was "To what extent was the Reichstag fire of 1933 the key to Hitler's consolidation of power?" This kind of questions asks you to compare the element described in the question, here the Reichstag fire, to any other elements that could explain the same consequence, here Hitler's consolidation of power. What you first want to do is to go through why the Reichstag fire was the most important event for Hitler's consolidation. For instance, you could point at the fact that the fire resulted in the Reichstag Decree, it allowed Hitler to pass the Enabling Act, that the communist party was banned, etc.. What is important is that you should not just mention it, but explain what it meant and how that affected the course of events. The communist party was banned - how did that affect Hitler's consolidation? What did the Enabling Act essentially mean, and how did that allow Hitler to consolidate his power? After you've done that, pointing out and explaining these elements, move on to elements that would counter these arguments. Franz von Papen made Hindenburg appoint Hitler as Chancellor, although Hitler lost the elections. The Reichstag fire was not the essential event because... Explain your points, not just mention them. Finally, conclusion. Evaluate the arguments you've come up with and take a stand based on that. "Yes, the Reichstag fire was an important event leading to Hitler's consolidation of power, but von Papen's call was erroneous and allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place." Explain why this stand is logical, and justify this. 2 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GirlwiththeBlueBox Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 My teacher gave me tips on how to score high on a history paper 2/3 essay. To guarantee at least a 12 (a 93):-Answers are clearly focused responses to the demands of the question-Relevant in-depth historical knowledge is applied as evidence. Critical commentary indicates some in-depth understanding but is not consistent throughout.-Events are placed in their historical context. There is a sound understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast-There may be awareness and some evaluation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. These are used to supplement, in a relevant manner, the arguments presented.-Answers are well-structured using evidence to support relevant historical arguments. Synthesis is present but not always effectively or consistently integrated. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alefal Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Half Blood Princess, Isn't that the criteria for 13-15 marks? Although it is good to have the criteria, one should aim for the best marks possible, not somewhere in the middle. By the way, GOGOGO, have you asked your teacher what he/she thinks you can improve on? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GirlwiththeBlueBox Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Half Blood Princess,Isn't that the criteria for 13-15 marks? Although it is good to have the criteria, one should aim for the best marks possible, not somewhere in the middle.By the way, GOGOGO, have you asked your teacher what he/she thinks you can improve on?Not according to my teacher. I gave them the criteria for a 12 because it's really really really hard to get a 20 given the time frame. But since you asked so nicely ( ) I'll post the criteria for a 20. I do agree with you about asking the teacher what to improve on. -Answers are clearly focused responses, showing a high degree of awareness of the demands of the question. Where appropriate, answers may challenge the question successfully.-In-depth and accurate historical knowledge is applied consistently and convincingly to support critical commentary. In addition, answers may reveal a high level of conceptual ability.-Events are placed in their historical context. There is a clear understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.-There may be evaluation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. This evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer to support and supplement the argument. In addition, an awareness of the reasons for circumstances that produced differing and often conflicting historical interpretations is present.-Answers are well structured and clearly expressed, using evidence to support relevant, balanced and well-focused arguments. Synthesis is highly developed, with knowledge and critical commentary fully and effectively integrated. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOGOGOHAHAHA Posted September 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Dear HBP,thank you very much. I see the significance of analysis and explanation as well as concentration and organization. It seems that History is more of a well-rounded thing. Thank you very much indeed!Hey there!What was the question given to you?Let's say your question was "To what extent was the Reichstag fire of 1933 the key to Hitler's consolidation of power?" This kind of questions asks you to compare the element described in the question, here the Reichstag fire, to any other elements that could explain the same consequence, here Hitler's consolidation of power.What you first want to do is to go through why the Reichstag fire was the most important event for Hitler's consolidation. For instance, you could point at the fact that the fire resulted in the Reichstag Decree, it allowed Hitler to pass the Enabling Act, that the communist party was banned, etc.. What is important is that you should not just mention it, but explain what it meant and how that affected the course of events. The communist party was banned - how did that affect Hitler's consolidation? What did the Enabling Act essentially mean, and how did that allow Hitler to consolidate his power?After you've done that, pointing out and explaining these elements, move on to elements that would counter these arguments. Franz von Papen made Hindenburg appoint Hitler as Chancellor, although Hitler lost the elections. The Reichstag fire was not the essential event because... Explain your points, not just mention them.Finally, conclusion. Evaluate the arguments you've come up with and take a stand based on that. "Yes, the Reichstag fire was an important event leading to Hitler's consolidation of power, but von Papen's call was erroneous and allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place." Explain why this stand is logical, and justify this.Very appreciate it! This is exact what I need~! It is wonderful to see a vivid example of , really, 'analyzing' by IB standard, and I am working hard aiming toward it. You word has been more than helpful and way more than I had expected.Half Blood Princess,Isn't that the criteria for 13-15 marks? Although it is good to have the criteria, one should aim for the best marks possible, not somewhere in the middle.By the way, GOGOGO, have you asked your teacher what he/she thinks you can improve on?My teacher simply says that I really need to 'have my points backed up ' and 'explain thing' instead of just mention them. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.