Ancient History: 2018 Senior External Examination

(1)

Statistics

Year Number of

candidates Level of achievement

VHA HA SA LA VLA

2018 16 2 3 8 2 1

2017 20 0 5 12 2 1

2016 16 2 4 5 5 0

2015 16 0 7 7 1 1

2014 16 2 10 3 1 0

General comments

Candidate performance in the 2018 Senior External Examination for Ancient History was mixed.

The majority of results sat within the SA level of achievement, but candidate results were spread across all levels. Comments about both Paper One and Paper Two are provided separately below.

Paper One

Part A — Reflections on the research inquiry process

Similar to 2017, candidates generally responded to the set questions in Paper One Part A but needed to show greater detail, particularly in:

• documenting the resource elements of their investigation

• demonstrating how things might change during the investigation process.

Candidates who did not cite a suitable range of sources did not meet the requirements of the following descriptor for Criterion 1: Planning and using a historical process — The candidate demonstrates ability to select varied primary and secondary sources that offer a range of perspectives.

For example, in response to Question 3 (What archaeological and historical materials did you use in your investigation? Name actual authors, collection/s and primary and secondary sources … ) candidates needed to cite a range of authoritative sources beyond Wikipedia and Britannica.

Ancient History

2018 Senior External Examination: Assessment report

(2)

Ancient History

2018 Senior External Examination: Assessment report Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority March 2019 Page 2 of 13

The emphasis on offering ‘a range of perspectives’ should have been targeted to increase the overall quality of candidate responses to Paper One Part A.

In addition, most candidates needed to select better quotes and more detail from the unseen source they were required to respond to in Question 8. The unseen source was quite long and provided plenty of scope for candidates to quote directly from it and elaborate on the importance of their quote selection. For some candidates, this was a wasted opportunity. Candidates needed to be able to engage with and explain the applicability of an unknown source to the inquiry process to achieve a higher level in Paper One Part A.

Part B — Extended written response to an unseen question

Candidates selected a surprising range of questions for Paper One Part B. Nonetheless, all responses needed to break down the different parts of the question and address them separately.

The cognitive skill of ‘evaluation’ should have been clearly addressed in the introduction and conclusion with the following response structure:

1. Causation

2. Nature of conflict (course and detail) 3. Consequences (both short and long term).

Similar to 2017, candidate responses needed to demonstrate knowledge of source materials on the topic and not only provide historical detail and examples. Most responses did not engage with, or demonstrate knowledge of, specific source materials associated with the chosen topic. As such, these responses did not meet the requirements of the following descriptor for Criterion 3:

Communicating historical knowledge — the candidate presents coherent, valid historical arguments that:

• refer to the evaluation processes without disrupting the argument

• incorporate direct and indirect references to diverse relevant historical evidence.

Candidates needed to demonstrate knowledge of historical evidence, not only facts, to achieve a higher level in Paper One Part B.

Paper Two

Extended written response to historical evidence

In Paper Two, most candidates responded directly to the statement they chose and, to varying degrees, grappled with the complexity of the issue that it related to.

Again, many candidate responses did not take advantage of the opportunity to evaluate authors and sources. Source and author evaluation is a vital component in the quality of a Paper Two response. The concern that low performance in evaluation has been evident in candidate responses for several years needs to be addressed. Candidates need to consider this when preparing for the examination.

The 2018 Paper Two, like the 2017 Paper Two, had fewer unseen sources than in previous years to encourage candidates to engage more with the sources. Of the six unseen sources on offer,

(3)

most candidates used more than one. Engagement with unseen source material demonstrates the depth and complexity of a candidate’s thinking skills, particularly analysis. Overall, most responses engaged with a range of sources offered, with sources and quotes being generally well selected.

Candidate responses

The following pages contain sample essay responses that met the A standard as defined in the assessment criteria. They have been reproduced exactly as written and include any spelling or grammatical errors made by candidates.

(4)

Ancient History

(5)

(6)

Ancient History

(7)

Redacted due to copyright restrictions

(8)

Ancient History

(9)

(10)

Ancient History

(11)

(12)

Ancient History

(13)