The Secondary Source Short Answer Question (SAQ) on the AP history exam presents a unique challenge: students must analyze and synthesize historical interpretations from provided excerpts. This task requires more than simple reading comprehension; it demands critical thinking, contextualization, and the ability to connect historical arguments to broader developments, historical events, and trends. By breaking down the components and providing a structured approach, teachers can equip students to tackle this section with confidence.

Using the 2017 Vietnam War question as a model, we can illustrate effective teaching strategies as students begin the task of preparing for the AP Exam.

The question states:

““An arrogant and stubborn faith in America’s power to shape the course of foreign events compounded the dangers sown by ideological rigidity. Policymakers . . . shared a common . . . conviction that the United States not only should, but could, control political conditions in South Vietnam, as elsewhere throughout much of the world. This conviction had led Washington to intervene progressively deeper in South Vietnamese affairs over the years. . . . This conviction prompted policymakers to escalate the war. . . .Domestic political pressures exerted an equally powerful . . . influence over the course of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. . . . Another ‘loss’ to communism in East Asia risked renewed and devastating attacks from the right.”

       Brian VanDeMark, historian, Into the Quagmire, 1995

“The escalation of U.S. military intervention [in Vietnam] grew out of a complicated chain of events and a complex web of decisions that slowly transformed the conflict . . . into an American war. . . . [President Lyndon Johnson] made the critical decisions that took the United States into war almost without realizing it. . . . Although impersonal forces . . . influenced the president’s Vietnam decisions, those decisions depended primarily on his character, his motivations, and his relationships with his principal advisers. . . .The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of The New York Times or on the college campuses. It was lost in Washington, D.C., even before Americans assumed sole responsibility for the fighting.”

1. R. McMaster, historian, Dereliction of Duty, 1997
2. a) Briefly explain ONE major difference between VanDeMark’s and McMaster’s historical interpretations of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.
3. b) Briefly explain how ONE historical event or development in the period 1945 to 1975 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support VanDeMark’s interpretation.
4. c) Briefly explain how ONE historical event or development in the period 1945 to 1975 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support McMaster’s interpretation.”

The prompt presents two distinct historical perspectives: Brian VanDeMark, who emphasizes ideological rigidity, American arrogance, and domestic political pressures, and H.R. McMaster, who focuses on the gradual escalation, President Johnson's character and decisions, and the war's "loss" in Washington. To excel in this component, students must understand the nuances of each historian's argument and demonstrate their ability to apply external historical knowledge. Generally, students should know that the Secondary Source SAQ presents alternative interpretations of historical developments, and is a moment to engage in history as an interpretative discipline.

To effectively guide students in understanding the nuances of each historian's argument and demonstrating their ability to apply external historical knowledge, teachers should emphasize structured analytical techniques. One crucial strategy is to build a "web of word association." Before diving into the excerpts, teachers can brainstorm key terms and concepts related to the Vietnam War, such as "domino theory," "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution," "Cold War," "containment," and "presidential power." By visually connecting these terms, students can begin to see the interconnectedness of historical events and arguments. During close reading, teachers can then prompt students to identify words and phrases in the excerpts that link back to their word association web. This helps students recognize the underlying assumptions and arguments of the historians. For example, when VanDeMark mentions "ideological rigidity," students can connect this to the "domino theory” and the broader context of Cold War containment. The same approach could be used as it relates to evaluate the various factors that influenced President Johnson's decision to escalate U.S. involvement, McMaster’s interpretation.

When writing the SAQ, students should begin with a clear, concise thesis statement that directly answers part (a). For example: "A major difference between VanDeMark’s and McMaster’s interpretations is that the former emphasizes the role of ideological and political forces, while the latter stresses the significance of individual presidential decisions." This thesis should act as a roadmap for the rest of the response. Teachers should stress the importance of avoiding vague language and instead using specific terms from the excerpts. Each sentence should directly relate back to how these interpretations of the expansion of the Vietnam War differ. This should be no more than two to three sentences.

For parts (b) and (c), the essay needs to integrate external historical evidence seamlessly. Teachers should teach students to introduce their evidence with a clear topic sentence that connects it to the historian's argument. For instance, "The domino theory, a key aspect of Cold War ideology, directly supports VanDeMark’s argument about the influence of ideological rigidity." This sentence not only introduces the evidence but also explains its relevance. Students should then provide a brief, factual explanation of the chosen event or development. In this case, they would explain the domino theory and its impact on U.S. policy

The most crucial part of integrating evidence is the explanation of how it supports the historian’s argument. Teachers should teach students to use connective phrases like "this demonstrates," "this illustrates," or "this highlights." For example: "This demonstrates how the fear of communist expansion, as articulated in the domino theory, drove U.S. intervention, thus supporting VanDeMark’s claim about the power of ideological rigidity." This sentence explicitly connects the evidence to the historian's argument, showing the reader how the evidence supports the interpretation.

For McMaster, students can follow a similar approach. They might write: "The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Johnson broad authority to escalate the war, supports McMaster’s argument that individual presidential decisions were pivotal." They would then explain the resolution and connect it to Johnson's decision-making. Again, they would use connective phrases to explicitly link the evidence to McMaster's emphasis on Johnson's role.

Teachers should stress the importance of conciseness. Each paragraph should focus on one specific point, and sentences should be direct and to the point. They should focus on clarity and precision. A well-written essay demonstrates a strong understanding of the material and effectively communicates the student's analysis.