Historical Thinking Skills

Which historical thinking skill would best be used to figure out what actually happened when 2 historical sources describe what happened differently?

• sourcing

• contextualization

• corroboration

• credibility

When analyzing a source, historians use context to:

• think about what was occurring in history that may

  affect the evidence

• compare the evidence to other pieces of evidence

• determine who wrote or created the evidence

• prove their hypothesis about what happened

In the Lunchroom Fight scenario about Historical Thinking, a person who was on the other side of the cafeteria far away from the fight would have a different account of the events mainly because of:

• perspective

• bias

• credibility

• proximity

A person's feelings or opinions affecting the information received is called:

• proximity

• perspective

• bias

• context

When historical sources say the same thing, it most likely means that:

• it is a weaker argument

• it is a stronger argument

• it does not affect the argument at all

• none of the above

How close a historical source is to an event is called:

• perspective

• proximity

• bias

• refute

The first historical thinking skill that should be done when analyzing a source is:

• contextualizing

• corroborating

• sourcing

• none of the above

When corroborating, you have a stronger argument if:

• sources of the same perspective disagree

• sources of different perspectives agree

• sources of different perspectives disagree

Comparing sources to see whether they agree or disagree is called:

• sourcing

• contextualizing

• corroborating

Historians know about historical events :

• by reading textbooks

• by using various types of evidence

• by using Google

• exactly the way that they occurred