Follow 1 However, I haven't really been adjusting well to the essay writing. I don't entirely understand how to structure the essay in terms of what actually goes into each paragraph. I understand that you need to develop analytical responses whilst having explicit understanding with relevant evidence but it's really difficult to put this all into a paragraph. Also, I get really distracted and it normally takes me ages to write a history essay whereas everyone else completes it within 1 hour.
Scramble for Africa and Britain and the American Colonies Can anyone help me with the content in this as well? I know it's a lot to ask but thank you! Mirandaandcake Follow 6 followers 0 badges Send a private message to Mirandaandcake.
Follow 2 I may be able to help on a few things. Firstly, the most important difference between GCSE and A Level History is that you are negatively marked for any irrelevant information - therefore try to make sure that your essay is tightly argued and is focused. Moreover, at the beginning of AS , I fell into the trap of trying to include everything related to the topic and many examples, this was a major pitfall- try and avoid this.
Rather, you are better of including a few relevant examples and focusing on your analysis. Linking your arguments will get you the higher grades. Finally make sure you always refer back to the question so you keep your essay cogent.
With regards to timing issues, at this point of the year don't worry too much about spending more time. I too was like this. But, I promise with practice, it will become second nature! Perhaps you can slowly start setting yourself time limits when completing essays at home, and eventually build up to the time required for your exams.
I hope this all helps! And like I said, at this time of the year don't worry too much assuming you don't have any January exams!! Sannn Follow 18 followers 15 badges Send a private message to Sannn. Follow 3 Building up both sides of an argument then demolishing them through further points is pretty key to scoring top marks, my Hist teacher said. Follow 4 Original post by Sannn Building up both sides of an argument then demolishing them through further points is pretty key to scoring top marks, my Hist teacher said.
Follow 5 Original post by stateofdreaming So it's perfectly okay to contradict the first point I make. Maicccccmannnn Follow 4 followers 10 badges Send a private message to Maicccccmannnn. Follow 6 Follow 7 I'll try and build both sides or the argument whilst analysing them as well as I can. Hopefully I'll be able to improve my writing technique with this advice! Oh and in the conclusion, would I just be summarising my points made before. Sometimes I try to assess which factor is the most important but I feel like I'm being too analytical.
Ndella Follow 52 followers 18 badges Send a private message to Ndella. Follow 8 I had exactly the same problem as you when I did my history essay last week, I have history tomorrow and I'm pretty sure I wont get a pass mark since I was completely confused as to what to write in the essay without being too descriptive. Follow 9 Original post by Ndella I had exactly the same problem as you when I did my history essay last week, I have history tomorrow and I'm pretty sure I wont get a pass mark since I was completely confused as to what to write in the essay without being too descriptive.
Follow 10 Original post by stateofdreaming Okay thank you! Follow 11 Original post by stateofdreaming Don't worry!
You can do this! I'm feeling all motivated and I'm hoping that practicing more will ensure that I stop being far too descriptive yet show that I have explicit understanding of the content and question. Don't worry, there's always people to help and I'm sure you'll be fine! Muppetmad Follow 4 followers 11 badges Send a private message to Muppetmad.
Follow 12 I did Edexcel AS History last year although different topics. It's tough getting used to the technique, but one of my top tips to gaining a few extra marks is to refer to the interrelation of the various factors you discuss.
Don't worry about it sounding a little clunky, just get it in there - anything along the lines of "Factor W is also significant in issue Y, and relates to factor X in way Z" will do. People often look at the different factors on a given question in a detached way; the examiner will like it if you can show that these factors are not rigidly defined but fluid and interconnected.
For example, to use an example I used last year for my essay paper on Lutheranism, Luther's ideas and the emerging German "nationalism" although this phrase is anachronistic are not separate entities which independently led to the thriving of Lutheranism but were mutually dependent: If you have any more specific questions on exam technique, feel free to ask. Last edited by Muppetmad; at Follow 13 Original post by stateofdreaming Would you say that I have to link at least two factors or every factor to each other in each paragraph?
Follow 14 Follow 15 Also, for the point given in the question you should aim to write a third of your work on that Use strong land specialist language, instead of workers say proletariat Strong lead in sentences help too, eg: Follow 16 Original post by stateofdreaming Thank you!
I do have January exams so I'm really nervous about getting the structure and timing correct. I understand that I have to link my points after explaining it but it's a bit hard without giving irrelevant detail beforehand. Original post by Fwapper Well I sent it anyway: P Might be handy, never know Follow 10 It's not perfect and it's too long for an exam but still Becka07 Follow 0 followers 0 badges Send a private message to Becka Follow 11 Here is one I did my A2 year on Stalin so its the sort of thing you would be expected to write if you happen to do a module on this.
Do you know which topics you will be doing yet and we can see if any of ours match up. To what extent was Stalin's personal paranoia the main reason for the purges? There is no single explanation for the Purges. Historians fail to agree on the extent to which Stalin was personally responsible and whether, if Stalin did have a large personal role in the Purges, the extent to which this was down to paranoia.
Some Historians, look to the psyche of Stalin and point to his suspicious and distrustful nature as to the cause, others say they were a rational economic decision made by Stalin. These views focus of Stalin as the cause and form the intentionalist argument, led by historians such as Robert Conquest.
Their argument is that Stalin was a totalitarian dictator who was the main planner and architect behind the purges. The structuralist school on the other hand believe that the situation was a consequence of Bolshevik theory. This school includes historians such as J. The Purges thrust the whole of Russia into a state of fear of what would happen to them. It affected all sectors of society and even a seemingly insignificant act could result in arrest. For example one woman was arrested for saying that Tukhachevsky, a high ranking military officer, was handsome after he was arrested.
The purges have their origins in the situation in the communist party immediately after collectivisation. Some believed that Sergei Kirov, party boss of Leningrad, would make a better leader. Stalin exaggerated isolated threats, turning them into a continual attack by others on himself and Bolshevism.
The Purges can also be seen as logical in another sense, not that they follow on from the logic of Bolshevism, but that Stalin picked particular people for death as scapegoats for his own economic failures. It is possible that the Purges and economic failures linked. In the last show trial, the accused were blamed of sabotage and causing all the errors and malpractices of the Soviet economy. The sabotage included attempts to use the wrong types of crop rotation, provide bad seed and throw glass into butter.
Although logical to find people to blame for the purges, a flaw in this supposedly logical argument is that there would be no need for so many scapegoats and they would simply be needed as an example, not to be killed or subjected to such excruciating tortures as they were. Talented economists, politicians, members of the military, young fit men etc were all used as scapegoats in the purges at a time when the country was meant to be in a revolution and preparing for war.
If Stalin did possess an economic motive in relation to who was killed in the Purges then it was not his main reason, he did not begin the Purges because of his economic failings, at least not directly. His initial reason was surely the threat he felt from possible alternatives to his leadership, as the assassination of Kirov shows. He may have felt this threat because of his economic failures however and this indirectly caused the Purges. Stalin can be alleviated of the weight of some of his crimes to an extent, because he did not have absolute power over the entire Purges.
Although Stalin had set the wheels in motion he would never have assumed that the country would be so thoroughly purged. The nature of Leninism and Bolshevism did not logically lead to the Purges, but to the situation in which the Purges could happen, if radical, paranoid attitudes entered the party. The Purges most likely grew out calls from the radicals in the party for more extreme measures of implementing Socialism, Yezhovschina thus most likely was a further natural progression from such policies.
The Yezhovschina was the time in which Yezhov was head of the secret police, the N. It is believed by some that Stalin knew nothing of what was going on at the time and that party members like Yezhov should take more of the responsibility, it is certainly true that when Yezhov himself was purged and Beria took over his role, the terror eased somewhat.
Stalin clearly did not choose everyone who was arrested, denouncing was often done to settle a score and people had to denounce for fear of being denounced themselves. Arch Getty believes that Yezhov was pursuing his own agenda and resistance came in the form of more accusations. It was logical that Yezhovschina would stem from the Purges, yet none could have foreseen the level the Purges reached before they began.
A number of those who knew Stalin personally look to his persona to explain the Purges. With the example of Trotsky this could well be due to a grudge he held against Stalin for having him exiled. Lenin recognised that the Purges, or something similar could occur before Stalin was in power, Stalin feared people letting this secret slip.
There are differing opinions even on the mental health that Stalin suffered as Alan Bullock describes him not as paranoid but narcissistic. This is a psychological state in which the victim is so absorbed with themselves that nothing else is real by comparison. Bullock implies that deaths that Stalin ordered did not seem as serious to him as to other people. This has some weight behind it as Stalin would casually sign thousands of people to their death in an instant.
Stalin did to some extent admit that his state of mind was not level and that his attitude towards other human beings was one of huge indifference. She is dead and with her died my last warm feeling for all human beings.
However, once the Purges had begun, the effect was like a rolling snowball, as each person feared for their own lives, they tried to save themselves by denouncing others.
Stalin did not initiate the Purges because of a desire to make economic scapegoats or unify the country in foreign policy opinion, but whilst the Purge occurred he seized these opportunities.
Follow 12 Follow 13 Pretty soon you'll be overwhelmed with all these essays flooding in: Follow 14 Original post by Becka07 Here is one I did my A2 year on Stalin so its the sort of thing you would be expected to write if you happen to do a module on this.
Follow 15 Original post by Fwapper Pretty soon you'll be overwhelmed with all these essays flooding in: Follow 16 I'm going to have to write a 'To Rep' list, I think. Follow 17 Original post by Becka07 I did Nazi Germany too but it might take me a while to find the stuff. I'll c what I can find for you though.
Follow 18 Its a shame we are doing different topics! Follow 19 Original post by ghastlymistake steffu.
A-level history is all about writing essays. No matter how much you know, if you can't: write a good essay you will not do well. Unfortunately, a good essay does not just consist of writing all you know about a given topic; at A-level examiners tend to insist on tricky things like answering the question, analysis rather than narrative and including .
May 09, · Is there anywhere that I can view example AS and A2 level history essays for free, preferably with a grade? I'm doing the A level in one year, and would.
The most important thing about help any essay is level what you think about the question! Before you work on the specifics of what essay in which paragraph, try to think of a short, history or two-sentence answer to the question you've been asked. A level history essay - Allow the specialists to do your homework for you. All kinds of writing services & research papers. Make a timed custom research paper with our assistance and make your teachers startled.
How to write an A-Level History Essay Writing Essays is the most important skill that A-level Historians need to acquire. Some Units are examined wholly in essay questions either 2-part structured questions, or longer. Nov 23, · After receiving many questions and pleas for advice about the infamous history coursework (it's a right pain I understand!), I've decided to post one of my coursework essays on here. The exam board is Edexcel, and the coursework programme I followed was 'CW The USA: From Reconstruction to Civil Rights, c' and the following essay .