Learning Module

Readings in Philippine History

The Faculty
Department of Arts and Sciences
Cavite State University
General Trias ǀ Trece Martiresǀ Tanza Campus
 Chapter 2: Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary Source
After the completion of the chapter, students will be able to:
1. Analyze the context, content, and perspective of different kinds of primary sources.
2. Determine the contribution of different kinds of primary sources in understanding the
Philippine History.

As you were reading, you should be able to take note of repetitive words that are given
emphasis by the author in the text. In the process, you will identify what he wants to get across
easier and faster. Can you find group ideas or related words together? If you do, you can find what
the author is trying to highlight in his passage or story. You will learn what he is trying to tell you from
the beginning. As you go along, you will find relevant ideas that keep on repeating. Without any
problem, you will be able to check out the main idea of the author. After that, you should be able to
restate the summary of the idea into one sentence that will not contain the details but only the main
message as a whole.

The proper acknowledgement of sources might seem like a no-brainer, as indeed it should,
to a scientist, and yet there are altogether too many instances where improper attribution goes
unchecked.

Sir Isaac Newton’s famous words in a l675 letter to Robert Hooke, “If I have seen further,
it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants,” may serve as a pithy reminder that even the most
famous scientists depended on their forebears.
But, in fact, it is even inadequate because Newton did not explicitly name those giants.
(As a historical aside, Newton’s comment was not as benign in intent as the words might
indicate. The two men had been embroiled in a bitter dispute over certain optical discoveries
and the handsome upper-class Newton was likely taking a dig at his lower-class rival’s physical
deformity. Regardless of intent, however, the statement has come to represent the importance
of giving credit where credit is due).
There is a vast literature on the issues of proper citation, academic honesty, and the
potential pitfalls of plagiarism. But aside from these self-evident reasons, there are other
perhaps less-considered arguments for scientists to be meticulous about citing sources
properly. Some of these reasons are for the good of the entire research community, whereas
others are more personal. This article discusses some of those less obvious, yet compelling,
arguments for reserving a block of time specifically for the purposes of attending to citations.
1. Attribution serves as a fact-checking tool.
Accuracy is all important in any writing, especially when we write about science. The
very act of looking up a reference for verification serves as an accuracy check, e.g., to double
check a direct quote, to ensure the fidelity of a passage that you paraphrased, or to cite another
study that is related to your study.
 
2. Citation makes you a better researcher.
 Some of the hallmarks of good research include attention to detail and the ability to
discern patterns and make connections. Good citation practices can help with both. The proper
attribution of sources entails many details, such as correct page numbers, the spelling of author
names, and of course, the accuracy of facts that you are presenting in your own article or other
work.
Becoming detail-oriented in one aspect automatically instills good habits across the
board in your research. As for the ability to spot trends and patterns, preparing a good
bibliography trains you for this task (which is crucial in scientific analysis) because of the vast
amount of information it condenses into a short space.
3. Good citation practices make you a better writer.
All of us aspire towards that elegant paper in which the prose is as compelling as the
content and good attribution habits build a strong foundation towards that goal. Citing specific
sources for the various facts that we present removes the hallmarks of intellectual laziness,
vague thinking, and sloppy writing as generalizations, clichés, and outright false claims, e.g., as
when the phrases, “everyone knows” or “they say,” are replaced with specific sources.
When you cite sources properly, you leave no question in your readers’ minds regarding
your point. Furthermore, by citing, you can easily use active language and avoid raising the
dreaded red flag of passivity to journal editors and reviewers. Cite well, and you may forever
expunge the phrase “It is said” from your academic paper.
4. A good bibliography shows off your scientific knowledge.
A bibliography is simply the compilation of the various sources that you have read and
cited in your own manuscript, dissertation, book, etc. Thus, an extensive bibliography is
naturally a hallmark of a widely read and well-informed scientist.
I can remember at least one occasion when my peers offered more compliments on my
bibliography than on the content of the paper (though they liked that too). In blind reviews, the
matters for which I’ve drawn the harshest critiques are for errors of omission, i.e., for not having
read or cited certain references. The last thing you want is a reviewer that says that you do not
know your field because you forgot to cite a critical and well-known piece of scientific literature!
5. Careful citation practices will build your credibility as a scientist or scholar.
This point is a simple corollary of the previous one. Indeed, showing off scholarship is
simply the icing on the cake of what a well-cited article has to offer. A deeper, more meaningful
role that a good bibliography plays for researchers is to establish a writer ‘s credibility among
peers in their field. The better documented your research and arguments, the more credible you
are to your scientific colleagues.
6. Citation enables better verification of your work.
Any piece of academic writing gets vetted several times over before it finally makes it into
print or onto a website. Whether one is a peer reviewer, editor, or editorial assistant whose job
is simply to track down sources in the bibliography and make sure that the citations are
accurate, life is simply easier when there is less busy work. So, your paper is much more likely
to be passed through these multiple rounds of editing with minimal criticism and positive
feedback if you have already taken the trouble to attribute your information correctly and cite all
your sources.

History Reading:
 History Reading embodies ways that historians interpret the world:
• Historians create categories of historical study such as
• Political
• Ideological
• Social
• Economic
• Artistic
• Historians study basic systems (feudalism, monarchy, etc.)

Historians study relationships among these systems and categories:

• Contingency
• Chance; Coincidence
• Chronology
• Historians study change over time.

How do historians think about history?

Historians do not consider their writing to be “truth” but rather interpretations from
documents from the past. All written history is not necessarily what actually happened.

1. History is an interpretation because there are competing narratives

2. History is an approximation of the past
3. History is contested and contestable
4. To understand history, one must have historical empathy
5. Historians care about historical significance, because some events and issues are more
significant that others

How do historians read?

Historians read several texts and compare them to verify information. Students only
focus on one text and don’t know how to corroborate more. They don’t really pay attention to
information in more than one text.

They engage in:

• Sourcing (determining where information came from) – It Consider the source
before, during, and after reading to for conclusion.
• Contextualization (determining what the circumstances were when the
information was written) - How does the time a piece is written change with time?
There are different views of fact at different places in time.
• Corroboration (determining the extent of agreement and disagreement across
sources) – How do Historians compare and contrast different texts to reach
conclusions.

In order to evaluate the credibility and trustworthiness of what they are reading

How do historians read?

Historians read as “pastisms” and “presentisms” how a time piece was written affects
what the piece says.
 1. Historians question how inclusive the interpretation is—what perspectives are included
and what is left out
2. Historians question the coherence of the historical arguments—whether or not they
make sense
3. Historians look at word choice as a signal of an author’s perspective
4. Historians try to find out where a story begins and ends (periodization)
5. Historians read history as an argument—a presentation of warrants, claims, and
evidence, even if the text has a narrative structure

Characteristics of history texts:

1. Textbooks commonly combine narrative, exposition, and description

2. Texts use conventions of chronology (before, after, next, In [date], later)
3. Texts borrow technical vocabulary from the other social sciences (economics, political
science, sociology, etc.)
4. Texts have a lot of difficult general academic vocabulary.
5. Texts employ metaphorical language (e.g. The gilded age)
6. Primary sources often use outdated language and ideas that are difficult and sometimes
uncomfortable to read.

Selecting Primary Sources Considering Historical Context

When students think like historians, they go beyond memorizing names and dates.
Instead, they construct their own understanding of historical events by piecing together
evidence from multiple sources — both primary and secondary.

If the goal is for students to analyze primary sources and piece together evidence to
construct new knowledge, then it is important for teachers to select primary sources with
enough information for students to place the photograph, diary entry, or map into historical
context.
 
Understanding the historical context of a primary source is critical for understanding the
attitudes and influences that shaped the creation of the primary source. If not placed into
historical context, a primary source’s true meaning might be misinterpreted.

Here are some characteristics to look for when selecting primary sources that your
students will be able to place in historical context:
 Bibliographic information: How detailed is the item’s bibliographic record? Do your
students need a primary source with a more descriptive bibliographic record so they can
find more leads for their research project?
 Creator name and creation/publication date: Are the creator’s name and creation date
available on the primary source or in the bibliographic record? Are you studying point of
view and therefore need to identify the creator of a particular primary source?
 Time and topic under study in your classroom: What is the time and topic under study in
your classroom? Is the source considered a primary source (created at the time under
study) or a secondary source (accounts or interpretations of events created by someone
without firsthand experience)?
 Contextual clues: Are there clues within the primary source that will help students place
the primary source into context? Will students identify clothing or technology from a
certain time period?
  Extraneous markings or annotations: Will Library of Congress cataloger’s notes or other
markings distract your students and interfere with their ability to place the primary source
into historical context?

EVALUATING HISTORICAL SOURCES

Historians most often use written sources, but audio and visual materials as well as
artifacts have become important objects that supply information to modern historians. Numerical
data are explained in written form or used in support of a written statement.

Historians must be aware of the climate of opinion or shared set of values, assumptions,
ideas, and emotions that influence the way their sources are constructed and the way they
perceive those sources. In addition, an individual's own frame of reference-- the product of one's
own individual experiences lived--must be acknowledged by the perceptive historian in order to
determine the reliability and credibility of a source in relation to others.

Good historical writing includes:

• a clear argument that has both logical and persuasive elements
• interpretations that strive to be as objective as possible but openly acknowledging the
underlying concerns and assumptions
• something new rather than simply re-hashing the work of other authors--sometimes
asking old questions and finding new answers or asking questions which never have
been asked
• a response to debates in the field of history, either by challenging or reinforcing the
interpretations of other historians evidenced in the footnotes and biography

How to Read a Primary Source

 
To read primary sources effectively requires you to use your historical imagination along with
your research skills. You must be willing and able to ask questions, imagine possible answers,
find factual background data, and craft an analytical response. To evaluate primary sources,
explore the following parts of the text or artifact by following these steps:
 
1. Author and Audience:
• Who wrote the text (or created the artifact) and what is the author/creator's place in
society? If the person is not well known, try to get clues from the text/artifact itself.
• Why do you think the author wrote it? How "neutral" is the text; how much does the
author have a stake in you reading it, i.e., does the author have an "ax to grind" which
might render the text unreliable? What evidence (in the text or artifact) tells you
this? People generally do not go to the trouble to record their thoughts unless they have
a purpose or design; and the credible author acknowledges and expresses those values
or biases so that they may be accounted for in the text.
• What is the intended audience of the text or artifact? How does the text reveal the
targetted audience?

2. Logic:
• What is the author's thesis? How does the creator construct the artifact? What is the
strategy for accomplishing a particular goal? Do you think the strategy is effective for the
intended audience? Cite specific examples.
• What arguments or concerns does the author imply that are not clearly stated? Explain
what you think this position may be and why you think it.
 3. Frame of Reference:
• How do the ideas and values in the source differ from the ideas and values of our
age? Give specific examples of differences between your frame of reference and that of
the author or creator -- either as an individual or as a member of a cultural group.
• What assumptions do we as readers bring to bear on this text? See if you can find
portions of the text which we might find objectionable, but which contemporaries might
have found acceptable.
4. Evaluating Truth Content:
• How might this text support one of the arguments found in a historical secondary
source? Choose a paragraph anywhere in a secondary source you've read, state where
this text might be an appropriate footnote (give a full citation), and explain why.
• Offer one example of a historical "fact" (something that is indisputable or generally
acknowledged as true) that we can learn from this text (this need not be the author's
exact words).
5. Relation to Other Sources:
• Compare and contrast the source with another primary source from the same time
period. What major similarities? What major differences appear in them?

HOW TO READ A SECONDARY SOURCE

 
Reading secondary historical sources is a skill which may be acquired and must be
practiced. The key is to think about the material being presented and to connect it to other
material you have covered. To evaluate secondary sources, explore the following parts of the
text or artifact by following these steps:
1. Structure: First read and think about the title -- what does it promise for the book or
article? Then, if you have a book in hand, look at the table of contents: this is the "menu"
that reveals the structure of the work. You can use this as your outline for your notes or
create your own brief outline.
2. Thesis: Always read a secondary source from the outside in: read a book's foreword and
introduction (or the article's first paragraph or two); then read the conclusion or
epilogue. Ask yourself what the author's thesis might be and check it against your outline to
see how the argument has been structured.
3. Argument: Continue to read the source from the outside in. For a book, quickly read the
first and last paragraph of each chapter to get a good idea of the themes and
arguments. Then skim through the chapters, taking cues as to which paragraphs are most
important from their topic sentences. It is up to you to judge which passages are more
important based on what you know so far about the book's themes and
arguments. Highlight passages that seem to be especially relevant by placing them on
notecards or making margin notes. Your notations should include your reactions to those
passages: is it a good piece of evidence for the author's argument or is a particular
statement valid or credible? The idea here is to evaluate the logic of the argument and the
base of resources on which the author relies.
4.  Resources: Read the footnotes! They are the nuts and bolts of history writing. When you
come across a particularly interesting or controversial passage, watch to see what is
cited. What primary sources has the historian used? Have they been used effectively? Are
her sources credible or reliable? How does the use of the sources influence the kinds of
arguments made? What other sources might have been used?

Understanding the ways historians construct their arguments is essential to writing good
history papers. Secondary sources, including your own research paper, are constructed for
various reasons, including the following:
 
1. No one has begun to analyze a particular issue, and so the author is developing a first
interpretation of it.
2. Gaps or deficiences in the scholarship in a particular topic created a need for a
monograph to help close them.
3. A popular or commonplace interpretation of an issue begs for a more accurate
interpretation with which to debunk it.
4. Existing scholarship of a topic is too simplistic, and an author might add complexity by
examining and evaluating particular details.
5. Debate on a particular topic might foster yet another perspective which will demonstrate
that one side is more persuasive than another.
6. Debate on a topic must be recast because the participants are asking the wrong
questions or viewing the issue in an inappropriate way.
7. A case study of a general historical argument or principle about a topic could provide
reinforcements for that principle, require modifications of it, or negate it entirely.
8. A test case of a broad interpretation of a large or complex topic would entail a study of
one portion of that larger argument. The results of that test case may reinforce the broad
interpretation, require its modification, or negate it entirely.
 

Chapter Assessment

Name: ________________________________________ Student No. ____________

Instructor: ______________________________________ Date: ______________

Activity 2.1 Direction: Write and place your answer and opinion using MS Word document.
Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts and arrive at a sound or
logical conclusion. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers although the question
does not expressly ask for an explanation. You do not need to re-write or repeat the question in
your paper.

1. In this chapter, you have read about the importance of carefully citing or attributing
your sources. Why should there be a need for this? What do you think can go wrong
when you make an improper citation or omit making citation at all? (10 points)

2. Describe what a “good” bibliography looks like. (10 points)

3. Can you usually tell apart how a historian reads from a student? Explain the lengthy
efforts made by historians or the ways they engage in when they are reading. (10
points)

4. What are the steps that you need to follow when evaluating a primary source? Give
the necessary questions that you have to ask yourself with each part/step. (10
points)

5. Similar to item #4, what are the steps that you need to follow when evaluating a
secondary source? Again, give the necessary questions that you have to ask
yourself with each part/step. (10 points)

Activity 2.2. Instruction: Write a 500 words reaction paper on “Ang Kartilya ng Katipunan by
Emilio Jacinto”; your essay should have a clear and largely familiar structure, with an
introduction, body and conclusion.

Link : http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipunan.html

Guidelines on Writing a Response or Reaction Paper:

Introduction. The introduction serves as the opening to your paper and it should grab their
attention and give them an idea about what they will find in your work. However, the introduction
does not need to be detailed. In a couple of sentences you should explain the topic of your
work, which methods you used for examining the topic, and the conclusion. This may be the
shortest part of your analysis paper, but it may also be the most essential one.
Body: The body of an analysis paper is the largest part of your essay. This part should consist
of you presenting points and evidence to support them. Here you can use different methods for
making your point visible, but it’s important to be consistent. The secret for writing a great body
of an analysis paper is to use the outline to list the most vital points of the narrative, so that you
can always refer to your notes and know which part of the body paragraphs is coming next;
Conclusion. The conclusion of your paper doesn’t need to be long. Plus, you shouldn’t present
any new ideas or points in the conclusion. Use the conclusion to merely sum up everything that
has been said in the previous parts of the analysis paper and once again state how you
managed to get your point across.

Deadline: End of week 6

Note: Use this format when sending your output (e.g. Module2 Surname section)
Font style: Arial
Font size: 11
Spacing: Double
Alignment: Justification

Activity 2.3
“The Philippine Claim to Sabah and International Law Journal Article”

Instruction: Write a 500 words position paper regarding “The Philippine Claim to Sabah and
International Law Journal Article”, your essay should have a clear and largely familiar structure,
with an introduction, body and conclusion.

Guidelines in writing a position paper:

A position paper can be arranged in the following format:
1. Introduce your topic with some basic background information. Build up to your sentence,
which asserts your position.
2. Introduce possible objections to your position.
3. Support and acknowledge the opposing points. Just be sure you aren't discrediting your
own views. Sample points:
4. Explain that your position is still the best one, despite the strength of counter-arguments.
This is where you can work to discredit some of the counter-arguments and support your
own. Sample points:
5. Summarize your argument and restate your position. End your paper focusing on your
argument and avoid the counter-arguments. When you write a position paper, write
with confidence and state your opinion. After all, your goal is to demonstrate that your
position is the correct one.

Deadline: End of week 6

Note: Use this format when sending your output (e.g. Module2 Surname section)
Font style: Arial
Font size: 11
Spacing: Double
Alignment: Justification