How to use own knowledge when evaluating interpretations in an AQA A level History section A response?

Well, hello there and welcome to another thrilling episode of the History Rocks podcast. I just want to first start by saluting you all. Thank you so much for tuning in. We have exceeded over 2,000 listens and this is truly tremendous. I feel like the better the hues of the history virtual world and that's very exciting to me. I am glad that we are helping you all en route to your A grades in history and I hope you tuning for more of our wisdom and little nuggets. Thank you. So I was going to start today's podcast with a good chooder England based joke. But then I thought, well, all the good ones are gone. Oh, I do get it? Arrogant? Oh, I know. I know there's always someone that's the last person to pick up on that. I'm glad you like it though. I'm glad you like it. Well, guys, today I'm going to focus on an aspect of the interpretations paper here, actually. I'm going to go back to how to handle the extracts in the section A of Paper 1. If you listened to my last podcast, I went through how to structure it and I know many of you have found that particularly helpful. Prior to that, we looked at how to identify facts from arguments made in an extract. And today I want to really just focus on for a moment because it's generally not done well. I want to focus upon how to use your own knowledge when you tackling these extracts. Okay. So tune in because I think this will really help you. A few points I want to make first of all though before we really get into the detail of this. Number one, when you're discussing an extract, try and avoid things like extract A mentions or extract B also states because what that suggests is that you're describing the extract. You're just describing what it's saying rather than identifying the big arguments within the extract. So it'd be better to say something like extract A claims or extract B argues. The main argument of extract A is this. Okay. That demonstrates it's a good signal to whoever's marking it that you have identified what the core arguments are within the extract. Okay. Another thing I want to mention then is that when you're using own knowledge, you're using an own knowledge to support or challenge what the extract is saying, not to contextualize a point or just describe what you know. Don't think that you're going to be picking up marks by just putting in lots of your own knowledge here. Okay. That's not going to happen. In order to get into the level four, level five, we're after some kind of substantiated evaluation of the claims, the arguments within the extract. So you should be using own knowledge to either support or challenge the arguments within the extract. Note arguments not facts in the extract as well. The next thing I want to say then is when you're using own knowledge, it doesn't have to be long. I've seen some answers that I just reams and reams and reams of own knowledge before they may go onto the next main argument within the extract. It does not have to be that long. And in fact, you know, this is a breadth paper. We're not expecting reams of detail here. So for this, look for maybe a couple of examples. Yeah. Couple of really nice juicy, precise examples that you can use then to underpin the point that you're making to explain why the argument in the extract is convincing or not. The next thing I want to say then is don't crowbar in no knowledge that has nothing to do with the extract. So if the extract is talking about the impact of soviet industrial policy, why then would you go on to discuss, I don't know, foreign policy? It doesn't link. It's not off the same issue. So don't try and talk about something that's completely unrelated to what's in the extract. And equally, don't go into this whole thing about a mission. This is something I've mentioned before. Okay. Don't start discussing what the extract doesn't mention because you're not going to pick up any points for that either. You're just wasting time. Another big point then is that there's no need for any kind of contextual introductions. I've seen a few of these as well in the responses that I've had a look at from my own students for instance. And they have this nice little introduction start discussing everything and then they go into extract day. Not necessary. Again, you're just wasting time with that. There's no need for introductions and conclusions in this. So just get straight in. Okay. Get straight in. So let's have a look at a couple of examples. I've got a couple of examples that I'm just going to read to you. One uses the evidence well because it uses the evidence to support or challenge something an argument that's been put forward in the extract and it tries to evaluate it. So it's trying to explain why or why not it's convincing. Okay. The other example though is, as you'll see, pulls out the right thing in the extract but then goes into a bit of a narrative, a bit of description without really linking it well to the extract at all. So note, with this first example, which is a good example, note the kind of language that they use in it and how they link the evidence to the extract. Okay. So it states here that furthermore, extract A's claim that workers displayed an unprecedented labour heroism, unity, organisation and selflessness in response to the soviet industrial policy is again unconvincing. This claim therefore suggests that the impact of soviet industrial policy was the mobilisation of the workers. Evidence to suggest that the workers were, were not mobilised is, oh, I can't remember I can't read my own handwriting there, evidence to suggest that the workers were, were not mobilised but rather forced was through the use of Stalin's harsh labour laws against staps and teism, the use of capital punishment, the imposition of a 12-hour day. Therefore the more convincing approach suggests that the workers were not mobilised as their impact of the soviet industrial policy but were forced. Okay. So you can see they've picked out something in the extract, this claim that the labourers have sort of just mobilised themselves because they're working hard for the good of the country, that's what it's suggesting. Then they're countering that, they're saying it's not convincing and they're bringing in some examples of harsh policies really to force the workers to work hard. So long banning holidays, 12-hour days, capital punishment, harsh fines, all of that sort of stuff, demonstrates that they were forced to do what they were doing. And then it goes back then to make a judgement, therefore it suggests that it wasn't this but it was this, that argument's not convincing, this one is. So you can see what we're doing here there, okay. You can see that you're trying to use your evidence to really support a challenge what that extract is saying. Yeah. And look how closely it's linked, look how it uses phrases such as evidence to support this would include. All right. Evidence instead suggests that the workers were not particularly mobilised or they were only mobilised for the use of harsh labour laws. Yeah. That phrase, evidence to support this would include, there is evidence to support this claim in extract day. There's plenty of evidence to challenge the claim in extract B. Do you see what I mean here? So that, you need that kind of like linking phrase before you go into your evidence. And then once you brought your evidence in, go back then to make a judgement as to whether the extract is convincing or not. Yeah. But there's no getting around the fact that that is really linking appropriate, irrelevant evidence to the extract and to the question. The question in this case is about the impact of saving industrial policy. So contrast that then with something that would say something like this, extract A states that the workers displayed unity, organisation and selflessness. Workers lived in very poor conditions in the USSR, some lived in crowded accommodation, they coped with shortages of food such as meat and milk and holidays were banned. This shows that so being industrial policy was not working. It's not quite, first of all it's not identified what the argument is. Second of all, the evidence that's been put forward, they're not really demonstrating how that supports or challenges the argument in the extract either. And notice there's no evaluation in that. Right? So I'll pick up some marks, but it's not, it's not going to end to level four. It's quite easy to get into level three. It's harder to get into level four. So you know, think about the phrases then that you were using. Think about the type of evidence then that you were using. And think about how you're using your evidence to support or challenge what the extract is saying. Right, I'm going to leave it there for this afternoon. It's a beautiful summer outside. The sun is blazing so I'm going to go outside and have a coffee and carry on with my mock marking. I wish you all the best and I'll speak to you soon. Take care.