At GCSE you will need to show that you can evaluate sources.
The word 'evaluate' means exactly what it says - you will need to assess the VALUE of a source for historians.
The two key things are:
validity (is it reliable/ true?)
and
sufficiency (how much does it tell you of what you need to know?)
My MAIN ADVICE is to give a common sense answer to the question you are asked, making sure that you use in your answer both evidence from the source(s) AND your own knowledge.
Especially note the mnemonic PACT which will help you remember the FOUR things you need to remember when you evaluate a source: Purpose, Author, Context, Tone.
!!!
REMEMBER - Each Point gets a paragraph then
you must remember to PEE every paragraph!!!
(i.e. within each paragraph, you will always have a Point, Evidence and an Explanation):
Finally, here is some specific advice on the questions you will be asked:
Study
Haig's assessment of the effects of the Battle of the Somme.
How valid is this interpretation of the importance of the Battle of the
Somme? Use the source and
knowledge from your studies to explain your answer.
This task is worth 5 marks.
This is really a question about VALIDITY - how far can you believe it?
On the face of it, it looks as though the battle was a success! Show how the Source supports this.
BUT then, think about:
 |
Purpose - what was Haig wanting to do? |
|
Author - was Haig well-placed to know what he was talking about? |
|
Context - remember that Haig was being criticised by Churchill and Lloyd George; how is this going to affect your assessment of the truth of the source? Did Haig have a motive to lie? |
|
Tone - does it 'ring true' to you? Do Haig's comments fit with what YOU know about the battle of the Somme? Is it true to say that what Haig does NOT mention is just as important as what he does say? |
REMEMBER - you are NOT answering a question about whether the Battle of the Somme was a success; you are saying whether you think Haig's assessment of the battle is reliable for an historian.
Look over your answer and make sure you have answered that question.
John
Keegan, a modern military historian, suggests that Haig was an 'efficient and
highly skilled soldier who did much to lead Britain to victory in the First
World War'. Is there sufficient evidence in Sources A to H to
support this interpretation? Use the sources and your knowledge to
explain your answer.
This task is worth 10 marks.
This is really a question about SUFFICIENCY - do the sources tell you enough? - although VALIDITY comes into it (a source tells you nothing if it's unreliable).
Make sure that you do the following:
|
Make sure that you mention EVERY source at some point in your answer. |
|
Comment on the usefulness or limitation of each source based on the amount of information and ideas it contains - compare it to the information you have learned from other sources. |
|
Comment on the usefulness or limitation of each source based on the validity (reliability) of information and ideas it contains - to do this you will need to think about PACT for each source. |
|
Make some overview comments in conclusion about the usefulness or limitations of the sources as a whole. (You will obviously want to say at some point that you would have to study many more sources and learn much more before you could come to a firm idea.) |
REMEMBER - you are NOT answering a question about whether the Haig was a success; you are saying whether you think there is enough useful evidence in Sources A to H to say one way or the other.
Look over your answer and make sure you have answered that question.