Loading subjects
15 exam-style questions with model answers, plus 20 quick multi-choice questions — every question on the site for this standard, grouped by the 5 pages of notes they come from.
Write a full answer before you reveal the model one — that comparison is where the marks come from. Every block links back to the notes that teach it.
Describe what AS91437 requires of a contested event, and where the perspectives may come from.
Explain in depth why a disagreement about the NATURE of an event is usually more productive than one about its origins or consequences.
Comprehensively analyse the "or since" clause in the standard's definition, and what it implies about what History at Level 3 is examining.
Describe what "historical validity" means in AS91437 and how you would assess it.
Explain in depth why students find it hard to take a side in this standard, when Merit explicitly requires it.
Comprehensively analyse what the phrase "as an historian" adds to this standard, given it appears in all three grade definitions.
Describe how AS91437 expects you to explain a perspective, and what counts as evidence for one.
Explain in depth why what a source counts is stronger evidence of a perspective than what it says.
Comprehensively analyse the difference between explaining a perspective and excusing it, and why students conflate them.
Describe the previous/current structure AS91437 illustrates, and how you would use historians in a submission.
Explain in depth why students wrongly attribute changes in historical interpretation to the discovery of new evidence.
Comprehensively analyse the difficulty of explaining the current perspective by its own reasons, and why it is the clearest test of the "as an historian" stance.
Describe how you would plan an AS91437 submission and write the judgement it requires.
Explain in depth why the ground you choose for your judgement determines whether you can answer the objection to it.
Comprehensively analyse whether it is coherent for a standard to require judgement about perspectives while defining validity in terms of reasons rather than correctness.