What exactly are we marked on in History essays?

[TykeDragon]

Okay, I've been searching through the forum desperately looking for tips on how to up marks in essays, as I prepare for my Yr 13 mocks, and attempt to prove I can get a 6 and maybe a level 7. (got a 5 in year 12, but predicted a level 6.)

I have good knowledge of historical events and facts. I also believe I can analyse them well - perhaps I could be more in depth, and provide more synthesis from factor to factor, and I would say I follow an argument throughout my essay, although perhaps I could make it more clear what my thesis is, and why I included the point I just did, THROUGHOUT my essay.

However, I cannot seem to get more than 12 marks. I've had a few 13s, and two 14s throughout my time doing IB. It's true to say that my Yr 12 SL component teacher was overly harsh and did make everyone significantly lower than other teachers felt they deserved (I often got 10 and 11 from him, and in fact got a 9 from him in my Yr 12 mock, when I thought it was a good essay! He also moderated someone from another class who initially was awarded 16/20 down to about 12.) however the point still stands that I feel unconfident about achieving 13s/14s+. It frustrates me that marks 16-20 seem to never be awarded, and it has never been explained to me how and why these mark bands are seemingly impossible to achieve.

So how do we ENSURE that our essay is at least 12/20, and why does it seem that 15/16+ cannot be achieved? How can we put knowledge, analysis and some historiography into an essay and still come back with a level 5? Is there criteria i am missing such as being marked down for contractions/informal language as we would be marked down in english, or if we do not name-drop any Historians? (Bearing in mind my history teacher constantly reassures our class that namedropping is not required to achieve Level 7.)

If anybody could help me out here, and explain how exactly to satisfy criteria other than giving advice about planning essays/writing style and revising dates etc, I would greatly appreciate it!

[alefal]

Hi again, TykeDragon!

First of all, it is hard to know what you can improve on without reading your essays. Have you read the subject guide, and have you understood the criteria? Have you asked your teacher - if not specifically about your own essays, what is needed for getting a 16/20?

My history teacher emphasises that an essay comparing different aspects of a case would be the better way to go in most cases. For instance, consider the question "'To what extent was the Reischtag fire vital in Hitler's consolidation of power?" I'm not sure how much you know about this topic, but if you have gone through it in class, take a break now and think about how you'd write the essay.

What I'd do, is to first discuss the Reischtag fire and its importance in Hitler's consolidation of power. It allowed Hitler to pass the enabling act and make communism illegal. The first part of my essay would argue for that this is the most important event.

After I've used some time on this, I would then turn to the other side, and point at von Papen's policy of appeasement and him convincing President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. Without this, Hitler would not been a Chancellor, not in 1933. Now, when discussing this, it might be clever to also mention that, without being too counterfactual, that it is possible that Hitler would win the next election due to popular vote. Remember that Hitler was quite popular, and a very good speaker. However, the crisis could also have been diminished by that time. This would show that you're reflected and have an understanding of the issue. Then, I'd move on to discuss, for instance, Hitler's charisma. He was a very good speaker, it was his speaking gifts that allowed him to become the party leader back in the beginning of the 1920s. He was able to convince, and his speeches were very popular. Also, the Beerhall Putch in 1923, although it failed, allowed Hitler to broaden his audience - now the whole nation knew about him and his party. Furthermore, if we go even further back in time, the Versailles Treaty and the economic strains it had on Germany was undoubtedly a very important treaty, which all of Germany opposed, and Hitler opposed this strongly. You know, the politicians in the Weimar Republic also opposed the Versailles Treaty, but they did very little about it. Hitler promised he'd abolish it. The economic crisis in the 1920s, and after the crash of Wall Street in particular, also favoured Hitler and his party.

On the basis of this, I'd conclude that, although the Reischtag fire was important, other events has proven vital in Hitler's way to power, and, in the absence of these, Hitler would never been in power in the first place. The Reischtag Fire was thus not that important in the big picture.

Now, in an actual essay, I'd probably focus more on events that directly relate to his consolidation of power, and not so much on his road to power, but I suppose you get the idea. In short - introduce, go through what supports the claim, then the evidence that does not support it, conclude. Also, always refer to time when feasible. Doesn't have to be a specific date or even a specific year, but always use time references like 'in early 1936' or 'in the beginning of the 1920s.' If possible, also discuss other interpretations and approaches. Furthermore, apply the PEE (Point, Example, Explain) technique. Come with a point ('Hitler is bad'), come with an example ('He killed a lot of jews') and then explain the example ('killing jews is bad').

Other than that, there's no trick to it. If your teacher is too strict, ask for a second opinion from another history teacher. Keep your essay relevant to your question, do your analysis, conclude, don't assume things too much (avoid this by not asserting things - 'some claim that the Reischtag fire was started by the Nazis' instead of 'the Reischtag fire was started by the Nazis'), use time references often (my history teacher says, at least, that if we write six lines without any references to time whatsoever, we should stop and think whether it is time to use a new one or not).

I usually score 16-19 out of 20 in my essays by doing what I've written here. Keep in mind that I assume you're not talking about a Paper 1 essay, in which you have to refer to both the sources given and your own knowledge.

Hope this helps somewhat, at least.

[TykeDragon]

16-19? That's mad, I wish I was scoring that! And it's not even that I'm an academically weak student, I just don't understand how to tackle history. What you've been saying here is quite interesting though, and from what I can see, you seem to stress the importance of structure. Do you place events thematically or chronologically? To me it even seems somewhat like an informal philosophy essay... I score highly in philosophy (6/7) by making it flow with point, counter, shoot down the counter to defend my thesis. (although the obvious difference is the use of pronouns and personal input in philosophy essays.) I often do fear that my essays seem somewhat narrative - for my Yr 12 P3 mock I wrote about the unification of germany and my teacher circled a whole paragraph about frankfurt parliament and olmutz that i threw in to show knowledge, criticising it as too narrative.

So basically more analysis (signposting and making it obvious that that is what I am doing) and counter arguments, developing and defending a thesis throughout is what I need? Also, would you say that it is more important to pick out the most relevant, important and 'obvious' historical knowledge and have lots of analysis on this, as opposed to proving we know and can try to link every single event that ever happened to the title?

Thanks for your reply, and yes it was helpful.

[alefal]

Structure, as I've understood it, is equally as important as actually analysing the evidence you have. As I can see, the five main reoccurring things in the criteria are structure, historical context, knowledge, the answer itself and evaluation of different approaches and interpretations. I would argue for that, if you have a good analysis, you'd have no big issues with the historical context, evaluation of other approaches/interpretations and showing your own knowledge. If you have an good structure, analysis will more often than not come by itself (for instance, by using the comparative structure I outlined in my previous post).

Whether I place events thematically or chronologically depends on the question and my train of thought at the moment. I usually divide things into what supports the claim and what does not support the claim, but within these categories I alternate between placing events chronologically and thematically.

I have no experience with philosophy, so I can't really say if there's any similarities or not. However, the way you describe it makes me believe it's quite similar.

Never write anything just to show knowledge. First of all, you are running the risk that it's not really relevant to the question (especially if you're stressed out during a test), and secondly because, as you obviously experienced, it usually becomes more narrative than anything else. However, if you want to prove something with the information, explain why it is relevant, and how it proves your point. For instance, in my example with the Reischtag fire, I could argue that Hitler's charisma was relevant to that very question because, although not directly related to his consolidation of power, it allowed him to consolidate the power in his party, which, in turn, allowed him to be appointed Chancellor. It was with this gift he gained support in the general population. Let's assume my point is that the Reischtag fire was not important - how does his charisma prove that? Well, had he not possessed this gift, he would never had been appointed Chancellor, left alone being a party leader. This would be a counterargument in itself against the claim that the Reischtag fire was vital, which the question from my example was presenting.

As I said, keep everything you write in your essay relevant to the question. If your excellent information about something is not completely relevant, don't use it - or explain briefly in your essay why it is relevant and more about how it supports either side. You won't gain anything from writing something that is considered as interesting information if it is irrelevant. You won't lose any points, but you won't gain anything either. Rather, spend your time on the more 'obvious' events. For instance, in the Reischtag fire question, it should be obvious for any student to mention the results of the fire, such as the enabling act. Equally as obvious is discussing the thoughts of appeasement by von Papen. Although it's obvious, it does not make it uninteresting. Rather, one should focus on these events instead of other events that are marginally relevant, and analyse the events in further depth.

A tip: Use words like firstly, secondly, finally, evidently, moreover,furthermore, however, although, nonetheless, etc. They will help you develop a proper analysis, and will give your essay some structure.

An example:

'This proves that X is important, as it allowed the person to assume the role as dictator. Furthermore, the people were disallowed to do whatever they wanted. However, it must be said that Y also had an effect on that person's life. Although X was important in one aspect, Historian M asserts that Y is the most important when one assesses the aspects of A and B. Firstly, Y allowed the person to draw the lines between P and Q, and thus endorsing aspect A; and secondly, aspect B was a direct result of Y. This argumentation is somewhat flawed, however, as it does not consider Z.'

You see how they aid the analysis and structure?

[TykeDragon]

Yeah I see, thanks for your explanations. History is marked positively though, right? So I won't LOSE marks for slip ups or putting irrelevant material in? Although I can understand it is still a waste of your extremely limited time to write a load of narrative you don't need.

So this comes back to the criteria - is there a criteria based on structure, expression, or how relevant your material is?? Because you seem to be referring to specific criteria which is what I am wondering, because if it exists I do not know it. I've heard the general things like 8-10 marks, essay is like this... 15-17 marks, essay is like this... but is there a specific criteria? For example in Philosophy we get marked out of 5 on our knowledge, 5 on our expression, 10 on our personal input and relevant examples, and 10 on analysis. Similarly, for english we get marked out of 5 on 5 things: knowledge, response to question, literary devices, structure, language.

[alefal]

Luckily, we don't lose points in History. If we did, I wouldn't have scored as high as I have!

There are criteria for History essays, and you can find them in the subject guide. However, instead of organising the points into different categories (like structure, content, language, knowledge, etc..) it lists the criteria for the different markbands. For instance, when it comes to structure, 'there is a clear attempt to structure answers either chronologically or thematically' applies for the markband 10-12 whereas 'answers are well structured and clearly expressed, using evidence to support relevant, balanced and focused historical arguments' applies for markband 16-20. There are similar criteria for the evaluation of different approaches and interpretations, historical context, knowledge and the relevance and focus of the answer. For paper 2, the descriptions of the markbands start at page 72 of the subject guide. If you don't have it, you can find it here: http://blogs.4j.lane.edu/yamada/files/2009/09/IB-HOTA-Guide.pdf

[TykeDragon]

Thanks mate, very helpful and informative! And successfully answered my question. Thanks for that I can guess you're doing Route 2 / European history too, so if you want to talk about any aspect of the syllabus I'm sure we can take that to PM! What are you predicted in your subjects? And your uni plans?