Learning History and Understanding Historical sources

There is a continuous need to study what we went through in the past because it can help us to
understand the things that our past have made and it can tells us a lot of lesson from.

What is history?

A. Series of important events

B. Lessons from the past
C. Gives knowledge and information to everyone

“Historians do not perform heart transplants, improve highway design, or arrest criminals. In a society
that quite correctly expects education to serve useful purposes, the functions of history can seem more
difficult to define than those of engineering or medicine. History is in fact very useful, actually
indispensable, but the product of historical study are less tangible, sometime less immediate, than those
that stem from some other disciplines” (Stearns, 1998)

Why do we need to study history?

1. History helps us understand people and societie

- History becomes an active factor in the study of Philippine society
2. History helps us understand change and how the society we live in came to be
- It includes a look into the development of Philippine culture through time especially with the
influences of the colonial period that would eventually shape the present Philippine identity

TYPES OF SOURCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
- Primary sources feature first-hand accounts from actual observations and/or experiences that the
author themselves went through. Other sources that interpret such accounts are classified as
secondary sources.
SECONDARY SOURCES

- Defines as the testimony of anyone who is not an eyewitness

- Those who interpreted a certain primary text and used it in a certain subject in history
Module 2: content and contextual analysis of selected historical sources

Content and contextual analysis

Contextual analysis – is the interpretation of a text or document that helps assess the text

CONTENT ANALYSIS – this is done in 2 ways:

- within the context of its historical/cultural setting
- In terms of textuality or visual assessment

1. What does the text reveal about itself as a text?

2. What does the text tell us about its apparent intended audience(s)?
3. What seems to have been the author’s intention?
4. what is the occasion for this text?

5. Is the text intended as some sort of call to – or for – action?

6. Is the text intended rather as some sort of call to – or for – reflection or consideration rather
than direct action?
7. Can we identify any non-textual circumstances that affected the creation and reception of the
text?

CONTENT ANALYSIS – Is a more objective evaluation of the contents of an article (i.e. documents and
multimedia). This can be done in either of two approaches: quantitative and qualitative

CONTENT ANALYSIS
 THE QUALITATIVE – approach analyzes the meanings behind the content. This may involve
comparing between sources or trying to amalgamate different relevant sources to establish an
argument.

THE QUANTITATIVE – approach to content analysis involves the use of number and data. This approach
attempts to quantify the source material.
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT? WHY WAS IT WRITTEN?

- Everything is written for a reason; every author has some sort of agenda that shapes the
document’s content and tone. Is the document’s purpose to convince the audience to act a
certain way or believe a certain idea? To spur conversation? To motivate? To persuade? To
entertain? Etc.

What strategies does the author emplot to achieve his or her purpose?
What type of document is this?
What are the basic assumptions made in this document?
What does this document mean to you?

TYPE OF SOURCES: PRIMARY SOURCES

- Firsthand evidence
- Immediate
-Contemporary accounts
- Contain raw information
HOW TO USE PRIMARY SOURCES
- Primary sources do not speak for themselves, they have to be interpreted. That is, we can’t always
immediately understand what a primary source means, especially if it is form a culture significantly
different from our own. It is, therefore, necessary to try to understand what it means and to figure our
what the source can tell us about the past.

A. Place the source in its historical context.

1. Who wrote it? What do you know about the author?
2. Where and when was it written?
3. Why was it written?
4. To what audience is it addressed? What do you know about this audiene?

B. Classify the source

1. What kind of work is it?
2. Hat was its purpose?
3.What are the important conventions and tradtions governing this kind of source? Of what, legal,
political, religious, or philosophical traditions is it apart?

C. Understand the source.

1. What are the keywords in the source and what do they mean?
2. What point is the author trying to make? Summarize the thesis
3. What
4.
5.
6.
7.
 3. Historians often disagree on interpretations
- Some facts are ambiguous. Historians ask different questions about the past. Historians have
different values and come to material with different beliefs about the world. For these and other
reasons, historians often arrive at different interpretations of the same event.

WAYS TO EVALUATE AN INTERPRETATION:

A. THE ARGUMENT
1. What historical problem is the author addressing?
2. What is the thesis?
3. How is the thesis arrived at?
a. What type of history book is it?
b. What historical methods or techniques does the author use?
c. What evidence is presented?
d. Can you identify a school of interpretation?
e. What source are used?

B. EVALUATION
1. Did the author present a convincing argument?
a. Does the evidence support the thesis?
b. Does the evidence in fact prove what the author claims it proves
c. Has the author made any error of fact?
2. Does the author use questionable methods or techniques?
3. What questions remain unanswered?
4. Does the author have a polemical purpose?
 a. If so, does it interfere with the argument?
b. If not, might there be a hidden agenda?

C. THE DEBATE
1. How does this book compare to others written on this or similar topics?
2. How do the theses differ?
3. Why do the theses differ?
a. do they use the same or different sources?
b. do they use theses sources in the same way?
c. do they use the same methods or techniques?
d. do they begin from the same or similar point of view?
e. are these works directed at the same or similar audience?
4. When were the works written?
5. Do the authors have different backgrounds?
6. Do they differ in their political, philosophical, ethical, cultural, or religious assumptions?