Modern History 2020 HSC exam pack

Students should: 

• read the question carefully to ensure that they do not miss important components of the question
• have a clear understanding of key words in the question and recognise the intent of the question and its requirements
• use the first page of the answer booklet for an extended response to develop a plan to assist in the logical sequencing of information
• engage with what the question is asking rather than presenting a pre-prepared response
• relate to the question throughout the response rather than just at the beginning
• sustain their judgements, where appropriate, throughout the response with a clear connection to the question
• use relevant evidence and interpretation to support your response where appropriate
• read the rubric directing them to demonstrate historical knowledge beyond what is provided in the sources
• communicate ideas and information using relevant historical terms and concepts appropriately
• present a sustained, logical and cohesive response that addresses the question
• review their response to ensure that it addresses question requirements. 

Questions 1–2

In better responses, students were able to:

• provide specific examples related to Japan’s ambitions, for example, Japan sought natural resources, building space and trade to support their industry following the Great Depression
• integrate the Question 2 source in offering a clear explanation of why the League of Nations lacked authority, for example, the inaction over Japan’s invasion of Manchuria
• demonstrate a clear understanding of source A in relation to the question.

Areas for students to improve include:

• avoiding generalised responses, for example, Japan wanted power
• avoiding the repetition of large portions of the source. Select key aspects of the source to integrate in order to support their argument
• including historical information relevant to the League of Nation’s lack of authority.

Question 3

In better responses, students were able to:

• make a clear judgement about the value AND limitations of sources in relation to the question
• address both the nature and content of the source
• support the response with reference to key phrases from the source and specific historical information.

Areas for students to improve include:

• providing a balanced discussion on the value and limitations of the sources
• being more specific about the limitations of a source, for example, a source recorded fifty years after an event has the limitations of hindsight and memory as it is a child’s memory
• ensuring that the response clearly engages with the question.

Question 4

In better responses, students were able to:

• effectively use their own historical knowledge and provide an integrated response about the consolidation of Nazi power in the period 1933-34
• provide a wide range of reasons not mentioned in the sources to support their judgement, for example, Hindenburg’s death resulting in the combining of offices; the lack of opposition allowed for the consolidation of Nazi power; Oath of Loyalty; Night of the Long Knives
• structure their responses to provide a clear explanation.

Areas for students to improve include:

• not relying solely on the sources provided for their response
• ensuring that their historical knowledge is about consolidation in the period given in the question and not generalised information about Nazi power or the Nazi rise to power
• selecting key phrases rather than paraphrasing large portions of the source.

In better responses, students were able to:

• demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the question
• address the question with a clear judgement and provide an argument reflecting an in-depth engagement with the issue(s) raised in the question
• show an understanding of the relevant key features, terms and concepts and effectively integrate them into their response
• support their judgement with extensive, accurate and relevant historical knowledge
• develop a cohesive response that maintains a comprehensive understanding throughout the question.

Areas for students to improve include:

• avoiding narrative and descriptive responses that recount events rather than produce a sustained argument
• attempting to integrate their own interpretation of the question rather than simply restating the question at the end of each paragraph
• providing explicit and relevant historical detail to support their argument
• recognising that the syllabus does not require use of historian’s views and some weaker responses tried unsuccessfully to mask their lack of understanding by making references to historiography rather than focusing on the question
• understanding the syllabus for each aspect of the national study to avoid including irrelevant material in relation to the question
• making informed conclusions and judgements based on the evidence.

Question 13 – Conflict in Indochina 1954–1979

In better responses, students were able to:

• make a clear and definitive judgement as to the extent communism influenced US policy towards Indochina (a)
• make strong links between the communism and US policy in Indochina by using a sophisticated and sustained argument (a)
• provide extensive historical knowledge as evidence to explicitly support the argument (a) and (b)
• articulate a range of reasons for the communist victory in Cambodia AND Laos and make value judgements as to their importance in achieving victory (b)
• demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the reasons for communist victories by expressing the reasons in a sophisticated manner (b). Areas for students to improve include:
• making sure they keep to the time period stated in the question, that is, up to 1964 (a)
• avoiding simply giving a narrative of the events in in Indochina without linking them to the influence of communism (a)
• addressing the countries stated in the question, Cambodia and Laos, and not focussing on Vietnam (b)
• avoiding a long, unstructured narrative of the events in Laos and Cambodia that do not address the reasons for communist victories (b).

Question 14 – Conflict in the Pacific 1937–1951

In better responses, students were able to:

• make a judgement that allied strategies were significant in combating Japanese aggression within the context of the broader conflict, for example, making a judgement about the strategy of code breaking/MAGIC in shaping the course of the Battle of Midway and the ensuing impact on the Japanese forces (a)
• demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the way Allied occupation developed over time depending on the goals of the Allies, for example, the demilitarisation phase, restoration of Japan, encroaching Cold War concerns in Asia (b)
• present a response that employs a range of extensive historical knowledge and evidence that supports their argument, for example, taking note of the array of impacts allied strategies had on curtailing Japanese aggression or in the actions that occurred under Allied occupation (a) and (b)
• present an argument that was relevant to the time period in question rather than include events that preceded or succeeded it (a) and (b).

Areas for students to improve include:

• the ability to discern that Allied strategies are distinct from key battles, for example, Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal, but can often be a significant feature that contributes to the outcome of these events (a)
• make clear and direct justifications between the Allied aims and how successful they were at achieving them rather than just explaining what happened under Allied occupation (b)
• making sustained and supported judgements throughout the response that are more than generalised links back to the question. This includes being able to clearly express a level of significance of allied strategies and/or other factors, rather than explaining each factor in isolation or a level of success in regard to the achievement of occupation aims (a) and (b)
• conveying their point in a manner that uses evidence to support the idea rather than describing or narrating events/ factors. Historical knowledge needs to be specific rather than generalised (a) and (b).

Question 15 – Conflict in Europe 1935–1945

In better responses, students were able to:

• detail Germany’s foreign policy aims and make clear judgements as to whether these were achieved by 1939 (a)
• support their judgement with sophisticated arguments which are sustained throughout the well-structured response (a) and (b)
• demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the Battle of Stalingrad and the European campaign in relationship to other factors/theatres and the contribution of this campaign to the outcome of the war (b)
• provide extensive and accurate historical knowledge as evidence to explicitly support the argument (a) and (b).

Areas for students to improve include:

• avoiding giving a long narrative of the events in Germany between 1935-1939 without linking the detail to foreign policy and whether it was achieved (a)
• keeping to the time period outlined in the question and not detail the events post-1939 such as the Holocaust and Operation Barbarossa (a)
• avoiding a narrative on the different battles of the European war and ensure they devote a fair amount of the response to Stalingrad and the Russian campaign (b)
• providing explicit and relevant historical detail to support their argument (a) and (b).

Question 16 – The Cold War 1945–1991

In better responses, students were able to:

• clearly identify all key crisis relevant to the question and draw comprehensive links to how these shaped superpower relations (a)
• provide extensive, specific and accurate detail when discussing both the crisis and its impact (a)
• provide the appropriate balance between those crises which are considered to be the ‘survey’ in the syllabus, and those which are the ‘focus of study’, giving greater attention to the latter (a)
• make sophisticated links between not only these crises and the immediate changes in the relationship between the superpowers but link these changes to the broader Cold War topic, including other crises (a)
• provide a comprehensive discussion of both Détente as well as the events which lead to the end of the Cold War (b)
• make clear and sophisticated links between how Détente shapes the period between its end in 1979 and the end of the Cold War (b)
• provide extensive and accurate historical evidence in supporting an evaluation that is coherent and sustained throughout the whole extended response (b).

Areas for students to improve include:

• ensuring there is a clear familiarity with what the syllabus considers to be the relevant crisis (a)
• ensuring all evidence discussed is accurate and relevant to the time period stated in the question (a)
• ensuring that the crisis is linked to the impact on superpower relationships, rather than merely providing a narrative of the crisis (a)
• providing accurate and relevant evidence (b)
• if arguing that détente contributed very little to the end of the Cold War, students must argue how or why this is the case, rather than dismissing this key focus of the question, or merely describing détente and not linking it to the events thereafter at all (b)
• ensuring that the end of the Cold War and the factors which contributed to it are explored more fully, regardless of whether these are linked to détente or not (b).

Question 17 – Conflict in the Gulf 1980–2011

In better responses, students were able to:

• address the question with a coherent response that demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of role regionalism played in increasing tension and conflict in the Gulf (a)
• convey specific attempts at peacemaking and nation building in the period 2003-2011 with a clear judgement in reference to the potential success of these actions (b)
• integrate specific detail from relevant events and factors as evidence of understanding rather than presenting a description or narrative of the course (a) and (b).

Areas for students to improve include:

• clarifying what regionalism means within the context of the conflict, not only identifying but making a judgement of how it may have contributed to the development of conflict in the Gulf to 2003 (a)
• presenting an argument that is relevant to the time period in question rather than including events that preceded or succeeded it (a) and (b)
• presenting their points with a judgement rather than a description or narration of events/ factors. Historical knowledge needs to be specific rather than generalised (a) and (b).

Question 18 – The Arab-Israeli Conflict 1948–1996

In better responses, students were able to:

• demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of how the Yom Kippur War and its consequences, especially in the period between 1973 and the Camp David agreement (a)
• link the consequences of the Camp David accords to other factors such as, Israeli invasion of Lebanon, increased settlement activity in the Occupied Territories, which would in turn lead to an openness to peace negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis in 1992-1993 (a)
• link the Yom Kippur War to attempts at peace beyond just the period up to Camp David, both directly and indirectly, including the Peace Process which was catalysed by the Intifada (a)
• demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of nationalism and how it manifested itself differently for the Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs more broadly, while at the same time recognising the common elements of each such as, undermining attempts at peace (b)
• draw upon a broad range of examples from across the topic, including the emergence of Pan-Arab nationalism in the 1950s, right through to the role of nationalism in undermining the peace process in the 1990s (b).

Areas for students to improve include:

• ensuring an explicit link between attempts at peacemaking (or otherwise) and the Yom Kippur War (a)
• ensuring all evidence is detailed, accurate and relevant to the question (a)
• ensuring that evidence is used to support the argument by explaining how the Yom Kippur War shaped attempts at peace making, either directly or indirectly. For example, a consequence of the Camp David accords which itself was a consequence of the Yom Kippur (a).
• avoiding generalised and simplistic discussion about the impact of nationalism (b)
• linking nationalism to specific movements, people, political parties and groups which encapsulate the manifestation of nationalism (b)
• ensuring evidence is detailed, relevant and accurate (b)
• ensuring evidence is linked back to the question and used to support the argument (b).

Questions 19–24(a)

In better responses, students were able to:

• identify and include specific and explicit historical details that were relevant to the questions
• express their ideas in a concise and logical way.

Areas for students to improve include:

• ensuring their historical knowledge is targeted to the question and not generalised
• being more concise in their response
• making every sentence relevant to the question.

Questions 19–24(b)

In better responses, students were able to:

• make clear and logical explanatory links between the various historical concepts in the question, for example, the impact AND South African government AND increasing use of terror
• integrate references to the source to support the explanation
• use explicit, specific and detailed historical information to support the explanation
• effectively use a range of relevant terms and concepts within their response.

Areas for students to improve include:

• signposting when the source is being used either by saying “Source J states…” or putting it in brackets at the end of the sentence (Source J)
• ensuring responses are not too reliant on the historical detail in the source but also use their own relevant historical knowledge
• using knowledge to explain rather than describing what occurred
• organising their ideas before they start so they can write in a more logical way.

Questions 19–24(c)

In better responses, students were able to:

• provide an effective and logical evaluation which addressed the breadth of issues raised by the question, for example, to what extent AND international factors AND contributed to the end of Apartheid
• present their point of view in a persuasive way
• organise their ideas into paragraphs each of which contained a range relevant of supporting historical detail
• effectively integrate a range of relevant historical terms and concepts.

Areas for students to improve include:

• planning the response before writing so that there is a logical progression of ideas which relate to the central judgement being made
• making sure historical detail is used to support the judgement not describing what occurred
• structuring the response into paragraphs which group similar historical ideas and clearly support the overall judgement.