The APUSH SAQ Point

And my 2019 APUSH Writing Seminar

On Thursday, September 26, 2019, from 4:00–5:00 PM PST, I hosted on online writing seminar for the teachers making use of my APUSH P1-P9 Content Delivery System.

If you are an APUSH teacher and were unable to attend, or an APUSH student wanting to learn how best to answer the APUSH SAQs, you may find it helpful to look over the seminar recap appearing below.

FIRST . . .

We reviewed the APUSH exam “SAQ writing directions.”

• 4 Question — 50 minutes — Answer Question 1 and Question 2. Answer either Question 3 or Question 4.
• Write your responses in the Section I, Part B: Short-Answer Response booklet. You must write your response to each question on the lined page designated for that response. Each response is expected to fit within the space provided. In your responses, be sure to address all parts of the questions you answer. Use complete sentences; an outline or bulleted list alone is not acceptable. You may plan your answers in this exam booklet, but no credit will be given for notes written in this booklet.

THEN . . .

We looked at all the different ways that the APUSH exam SAQ questions (since 2016) have typically started off.

• Briefly describe one major similarity between
• Briefly describe one major difference between
• Briefly describe one specific historical difference between
• Briefly describe one specific historical similarity between
• Briefly explain how one specific historical event
• Briefly explain how one specific historical development
• Briefly describe one perspective
• Briefly explain one historical perspective
• Briefly explain how one event or development
• Briefly explain one specific way
• Briefly explain how one major historical factor
• Briefly explain how one person
• Briefly explain one specific outcome
• Briefly explain one specific historical impact
• Briefly explain one specific historical effect
• Briefly explain one specific result
• Briefly explain how one major historical factor
• Identify one distinct factor
• Briefly explain how one circumstance
• Briefly explain one reason

THEN . . .

We looked at the actual SAQs from previous years, going back to 2016.

• SAQ 2016
• SAQ 2017
• SAQ 2018
• SAQ 2019

THEN . . .

I shared my SAQ writing strategy.

1. Answer every SAQ question in 3–5 sentences.
2. Answer every question (A, B, and C) by starting off with a claim (a big, bad, bold assertion) that answers the question.
3. Then write “one bit of evidence in support of this claim is . . . “
4. Then in less than five words say what the evidence is . . . (i.e, manifest destiny, the case of Brown v. Board, salutary neglect)
5. Then describe the evidence (but do not use any language that can debated or argued; in other words only say that which is entirely true about the evidence. Facts. That’s what’s calle for here. When, where, who, what, etc.
6. Then add what I (and others) call a “clincher sentence” — a sentence that consists of wording that makes use of much of what was said in the claim and what was said when describing the evidence. (This may sound odd, but it works like a charm). The clincher sentence “drives the point home.”

THEN . . .

One of the other teachers shared their SAQ writing strategy (called ACE; click here for details.) To learn how other APUSH teachers teach their kids to answer the SAQs, see below:

• Daniel Jocz’ How to Answer the SAQ (5:01)
• Mark VanOver’s ACE the SAQ (20:25)
• Morgan AP Teaching’s How to Write an SAQ (5:52)
• Adam Norris’ SAQs (12:34)

THEN . . .

We tried answering some of the SAQs from previous years.

• SAQ 2016
• SAQ 2017
• SAQ 2018
• SAQ 2019

THEN . . .

We collectively tried to determine whether the answers given were worthy of the point. In this regard, I said it is my belief that CB wants whenever possible to give the point so students should following the golden rule “when it doubt spell it out.” In other words, if they have two sentences, go for three. Three sentences, go for four. Etc., Yet stop, not matter what, at five.

THEN . . .

I answered one of the more interesting questions that was raised during the seminar . . . whether my SAQ writing formula (claim, evidence, clincher sentence) would work when students were asked to describe how two things differed. I said yes, I believe it would work and explained why. In any event, I encourage my students, when presented with a question calling for them to describe how two things differ, to begin with a claim.

• Both a and b differ in terms of c.
• One bit of evidence in support of this claim is . . . .
• Description of evidence
• Clincher sentence

Then . . .

I closed out by agreeing to host another seminar a few weeks from now — this one to focus on how to teach students to earn the contextualization and thesis point (regardless of whether its for an LEQ or DBQ.)