Historical Skills & Evaluating Sources

Historical Skills & Evaluating Sources

This lesson is an introduction to the four historical skills we focus on in this class.

Learning Objective:

Students will examine and explain the importance of the historical skills sourcing, close reading, contextualization, and corroboration.

Multiple Choice

What is history?

• History is anything a textbook says.

• History does not exist, only this moment matters.

• History is an account of the past argued by providing evidence

• History is simple facts everyone agrees on.

Historical Skills

We use the four historical skills to read primary and secondary sources, understand them, and decide if they are reliable. Ultimately the skills help us find convincing evidence and create strong arguments about history.

Sourcing

Sourcing is the historical skill of considering who wrote a document and the circumstances of its creation.

Close Reading

Close reading is the historical skill of understanding what an author means while evaluating the language and evidence used. This skill involves reading but also analyzing art like political cartoons and photographs.

Multiple Choice

If I am focusing on the language in a document and trying to understand the argument made by the author, I am practicing which historical skill?

• Sourcing

• Close Reading

• Contextualization

• Corroboration

Contextualization

Contextualization is the historical skill of understanding a primary source in relation to what else was happening at the same time or in the same area.

Contextualization explained

• Think about when a tv show that leads with “previously on”; it’s going to explain what is “happening” around the main event (todays’ show). 

• Take a look at the photo. What are they doing? How do you know?

Corroboration

Corroboration is the historical skill of comparing information found in two or more sources to find similarities between them. It is meant to strengthen your historical argument.

Multiple Choice

If I am trying to figure out what else happened during the same time period as when a document was written, I am practicing which historical skill?

• Sourcing

• Close Reading

• Contextualization

• Corroboration

Multiple Choice

If I am questioning who wrote a document and why they wrote it, I am practicing which historical skill?

• Sourcing

• Close Reading

• Contextualization

• Corroboration

Multiple Choice

If I am comparing multiple documents to see how they are similar, I am practicing which historical skill?

• Sourcing

• Close Reading

• Contextualization

• Corroboration

Evaluating Sources

A very important historical skills is choosing the right sources to find evidence for your historical argument.

Instructions!

For the following historical questions, choose one of the sources that you think will help you to best answer the question and explain why. You do not need to actually answer the historical question.

Historical Question: Who was present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Which source do you trust more? Why?

• Source 1: Hollywood movie about the American Revolution made 2001.

• OR

• Source 2: Book written by a famous historian who is an expert on the American Revolution, published in 1999.

Multiple Choice

Historical Question: Who was present at the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Which source do you trust more?

• Source 1: Hollywood movie about the American Revolution made 2001.

• Source 2: Book written by a famous historian who is an expert on the American Revolution, published in 1999.

Why is the book more reliable?

While both movies and historical books both aim to make money, they do it in different ways. Movies make money by entertaining people and a good story is more important than facts. Historical books make money by providing accurate information and compelling historical argument. Books written by historians are reviewed by other historians to make sure they are accurate (corroboration).

Historical Question: What was slavery like in South Carolina? Which source do you trust more? Why?

• Source 1: Interview with former slave in 1936. The interviewer is a black man collecting oral histories for the Federal Writers’ Project.

• OR

• Source 2: Interview with former slave in 1936. The interviewer is a white woman collecting oral histories for the Federal Writers’ Project.

Multiple Choice

Historical Question: What was slavery like in South Carolina? Which source do you trust more?

• Source 1: Interview with former slave in 1936. The interviewer is a black man collecting oral histories for the Federal Writers’ Project.

• Source 2: Interview with former slave in 1936. The interviewer is a white woman collecting oral histories for the Federal Writers’ Project.

Why is the source with the black interviewer more reliable?

In this case, former slaves who were interviewed by a white person did not feel comfortable telling their story. The information the white interviewer got was not accurate because the people being interviewed did not trust them. The black interviewer was able to get more accurate information because the former slaves felt comfortable sharing their story with them.

Historical Question: What was the layout of the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz? Which source do you trust more? Why?

• Source 1: Interview with 80 year-old Holocaust survivor in 1985.

• OR

• Source 2: Map of concentration camp found in Nazi files.

Multiple Choice

Historical Question: What was the layout of the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz? Which source do you trust more?

• Source 1: Interview with 80 year-old Holocaust survivor in 1985.

• Source 2: Map of concentration camp found in Nazi files.

Why is the Nazi map more reliable?

Because the historical question is asking about the exact layout of a Nazi concentration camp, the map would be most helpful. Nazis were known for keeping detailed notes, maps, and plans. The holocaust survivor most likely was not able to see the whole camp and may forget years later where everything was. The interview with a holocaust survivor would be considered reliable and helpful for many other historical questions; but this one would benefit more from seeing the map.

Historical Question: Why were Japanese Americans put in internment camps during WWII? Which source do you trust more? Why?

• Source 1: Government film explaining internment from 1942.

• OR

• Source 2: Government report on Japanese Internment from 1983 based on declassified government documents.

Multiple Choice

Historical Question: Why were Japanese Americans put in internment camps during WWII? Which source do you trust more?

• Source 1: Government film explaining internment from 1942.

• Source 2: Government report on Japanese Internment from 1983 based on declassified government documents.

Why is the declassified government documents more reliable?

While they are both government documents/film, they have a huge difference. The government filmed was produced during the event (Japanese Internment) and would have had an interest in making it sound necessary and even good. The declassified documents would be more reliable because it would show what leaders were actually thinking during Japanese Internment.

Historical Question: Did American soldiers commit atrocities during the Vietnam War in 1969? Which source do you trust more? Why?

• Source 1: Sworn testimony by American Sergeant in Congressional hearings in 1969.

• OR

• Source 2: Speech by American General touring the United States in 1969.

Multiple Choice

Historical Question: Did American soldiers commit atrocities during the Vietnam War in 1969? Which source do you trust more?

• Source 1: Sworn testimony by American Sergeant in Congressional hearings in 1969.

• Source 2: Speech by American General touring the United States in 1969.

Why is the testimony more reliable?

The sworn congressional testimony is given under oath and is subject to corroboration. That means the person giving the testimony can be prosecuted if they lie. On the other hand, a speech by a touring American General is designed to gain favor, or persuade an audience. It would be much more likely to exaggerate.

Historical Question: What happened at the Battle of Little Bighorn? Which source do you trust more? Why?

• Source 1: High school history textbook from 1985.

• OR

• Source 2: Newspaper account from the day after the battle in June 1876.

Poll

Historical Question: What happened at the Battle of Little Bighorn? Which source do you trust more?

• Source 1: High school history textbook from 1985.

• Source 2: Newspaper account from the day after the battle in June 1876.

• Neither source is reliable.

Which source is better?

There is an argument for either source of information. On the one hand, you have a “Primary” source (the newspaper), which was written immediately following the Battle of Little Bighorn; however, a newspaper can be written with a sense of bias (what if the author of the article lost a family member in the battle? How do you think he would portray the conflict? Would he blame one side with his own emotions?). While on the other hand, the textbook should have unbiased (neutral, not opinionated) information, but it was written over a hundred years after the Battle of Little Bighorn, and is classified as a “Secondary” source. Also, textbooks can overgeneralize and have bias as well. Textbooks created in the 1980s were known for having a big "Pro-America" bias.

You are done!

Congratulations