Advertisement

TLO 4: Identify and Interpret a Wide Variety of Secondary and Primary Sources

  • Adrian JonesEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter addresses the fourth Australian Threshold Learning Outcome (TLO) for university studies of history: ‘identify and interpret a wide variety of secondary and primary sources’. There are equivalents in the European Union Tuning and in the UK Quality Assurance Agency. Notions of primacy in ‘sourcing’ are at stake in this TLO. It is about finding and interpreting evidence. But what is a source? And what makes one primary, and another secondary? These notions reflect authorial orderings of authority when communicating about history. My key points are that these notions have changed. They have a history. A hypothesis is tested: difficulties encountered by students in relation to ‘sourcing’ echo past thinking about what ‘authority’ and its associated sense of ‘evident-ness’ might amount to when communicating about history. This chapter places the pedagogical literature on barriers to student learning beside the history of history writing and research, and in the light of studies of the epistemology of history.

References

  1. Anderson, C., & Day, K. (2005a). Enhancing teaching-learning environments in undergraduate courses. [UK] Economic and Social Research Council’s Teaching and Learning Program. Two publications: (1) Subject Overview Report [for] History. (2) Enhanced Learning and Teaching in History: A Digest of Research Findings and their Implications. Respectively http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/HistoryDigest.pdf.
  2. Anderson, C., & Day, K. (2005b). Purposive environments: Engaging students in the values and practices of history. Higher Education, 49(3), 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, C., Day, K., Michie, R., & Rollason, D. (2006). Engaging with historical source work: Practices, pedagogy, dialogue. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 5(3), 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ankersmit, F. (2012). Meaning, truth and reference in historical interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashby, R., Lee, P., & Shemilt, D. (2005). Putting principles into practice: Teaching and planning. In M. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics and science in the classroom (pp. 31–74). Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies, Division of Behavioral Sciences and Education.Google Scholar
  6. Baiser, F. C. (2011). The German historicist tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baron, J. (1990). Harmful heuristics and the improvement of thinking. In D. Kuhn (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on teaching and learning skills (pp. 28–47). Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
  9. Berkhofer, R. (1993). Demystifying historical authority: Critical textual analysis in the classroom. In R. Blackley (Ed.), History anew: Innovations in the teaching of history today (pp. 21–27). Long Beach, CA: California State University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Black, R. (1995). The donation of Constantine: A new source for the concept of the Renaissance. In A. Brown (Ed.), Languages and images of Renaissance Italy (pp. 51–85). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bod, R. (2013). A new history of the humanities: The search for principles and patterns from antiquity to the present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Booth, A. (2014). History teaching at its best: Historians talk about what matters, what works, what makes a difference. Borrowash, UK: Rippleround Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Bourne, E. G. (1971). Ranke and the beginning of the seminary method in teaching history (1901). In E. G. Bourne (Ed.), Essays in Historical Criticism (pp. 265–274). Freeport, NY: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  14. Britt, A., & Angliskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 485–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. CLIOHWORLD Guide II—see European Union.Google Scholar
  16. Collingwood, R. G. (1993). The idea of history. In J. van der Dussen (Ed.), Corrects confusions and lacunae in pre- and post-war texts and editions, 1920s-to-1940s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Counsell, C., Burn, K., & Chapman, A. (Eds.). (2016). MasterClass in history education: transforming teaching and learning. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  18. Coventry, M., Felten, P., Jaffee, D., O’Leary, C., Weiss, T., & McGowan, S. (2006). Ways of seeing: Evidence and learning in the history classroom. The Journal of American History, 2006(March), 1371–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Creutz, D. (2009). Droysen et l’historicité. In C. Delacroix, F. Dosse, & P. Garcia (Eds.), Historicités (pp. 47–61). Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  20. Dewald, C. (2006). Paying attention: History as the development of a secular narrative. In S. Goldhill & R. Osborne (Eds.), Rethinking revolutions through ancient Greece (pp. 164–182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Droysen, J. G. (1868). Outline of the principles of history. E. B. Andrews (1893) (Trans.), Grundriß der Historik. (Reprinted (1967) New York, NY: Howard Fertig). Retrieved November 23, 2017, from http://www.deutschestextarchiv.de/book/show/droysen_historik_1868, but many various German editions existed between 1857 and 1882.
  22. Elton, L. (2005). Scholarship and the research and teaching nexus. In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reshaping the university: New relationships between research, scholarship and teaching (pp. 108–118). Maidenhead: The Open University Press and the Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  23. European Union. Tuning education structures in Europe program, announced under the Bologna Process (1999) and the Lisbon Strategy (2000) @ http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/subject-areas/history.html, hosting CLIOHWORLD Guide II: Creating a new historical perspective: EU and the wider world: guidelines and reference points for the design and delivery of degree programs in history (2011).
  24. Faye, J.-P. (1972). Théorie du récit: Introduction aux langages totalitaires. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  25. Fornara, C. W. (1983). The nature of history in Ancient Greece and Rome. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Forster, E. M. (1927). Aspects of the novel. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  27. Ginzburg, C. (1988). Ekphrasis and quotation. Tijdschrift voor Philosofie, 50(1), 3–19.Google Scholar
  28. Grafton, A. (2012). What was history?: The art of history in early-modern Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greene, S. (1994). The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 29(2), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Habermas, J. (1989). The idea of the university: Learning processes. In S. Nicholsen (Ed.), The new conservatism: Cultural criticism and the historians’ debate. (pp. 100–127). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  31. Halldén, O. (1993). Learners’ conceptions of the subject matter being taught: A case from learning history. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(3), 317–325.Google Scholar
  32. Halldén, O. (1994). Constructing the learning task in history instruction. In M. Carrero & J. Voss (Eds.), Cognitive and instructional processes in history and the social sciences (pp. 187–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Halldén, O. (2009). On the paradox of understanding history in an educational setting. In G. Leinhardt, I. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 27–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Hartog, F. (1988). The mirror of Herodotus: The representation of the other in the writing of history. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press, and translation of Le Miroir d’Hérodote. Essai sur la représentation de l’autre (1980). Paris, Gallimard.Google Scholar
  35. Heidegger, M. (1927). Sein und Zeit, of which the standard edition (1977) is now Heidegger’s Gesamtausgabe (Vol. 2). In J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson (1962) and J. Stambaugh (1996) (Trans.), Being and Time. Frankfurt-am-Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  36. Holt, T. (1990). Thinking historically: Narrative, imagination and understanding. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.Google Scholar
  37. Hopkins, J., & Richardson, H. (Eds. & Trans.). (1975). Anselm of Canterbury, 4 Volumes (Vol. 1). In: Monologion, proslogion, debate with Gaunilo and a meditation on human redemption. Toronto: The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jones, A. (2011). Teaching history at university through communities of inquiry. Australian Historical Studies, 42(2), 168–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones, A. (2016). A (Theory and Pedagogy) essay on the (history) essay. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education online first (27 April 2016) 1–19,  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022216645260 @ http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/early/recent.
  40. Kagan, D. (2009). Thucydides: The reinvention of history. New York, NY: Viking.Google Scholar
  41. Kelly, T. M. (2013). Teaching history in the digital age. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, L. (2007). The portrait of Homer in Strabo’s Geography. Classical Philology, 102(4), 363–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kimball, B. (1983). Founders of liberal education: The case for Roman orators against Socratic philosophers. Teachers College Record, 85, 226–248.Google Scholar
  44. Kimball, B. (1986). Orators and philosophers: A history of the idea of liberal Education. New York, NY: Columbia University Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kuukkanen, J.-M. (2015). Postnarrativist philosophy of historiography. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. La Capra, D. (2002). Writing history, writing trauma. In J. Monroe (Ed.), Writing and revising the disciplines (pp. 147–180). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Leavis, F. R. (1975). The living principle: ‘English’ as a discipline of thought. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
  48. Lee, P. (2004). Walking backwards into tomorrow: Consciousness and understanding of history. International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research, 4(1), 1–46. Retrieved November 23, 2017, from https://centres.exeter.ac.uk/historyresource/journal7/lee.pdf.
  49. Leinhardt, G., & Ravi, A. (2013). Changing historical conceptions of history. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook for research on conceptual change (pp. 253–268). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Lévesque, S. (2008). Thinking historically: Educating students for the twenty-first century. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  51. Limón, M. (2002). Conceptual change in history. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 259–289). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  52. Limón, M. & Carretero, M. (1998). Evidence evaluation and reasoning abilities in the domain of history: An empirical study. In J. Voss & M. Carretero (Eds.), Learning and reasoning in history (pp. 252–271). London: Routledge-Falmer.Google Scholar
  53. Lorenz, C. (2014). Explorations between philosophy and history. Historein, 14, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mack, P., & Williams, R. (2015). Of tact and moral urgency. In P. Mack & R. Williams (Eds.), Michael Baxandall, vision and the work of words (pp. 1–8). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  55. Maeyer, J., & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students’ thinking. Science Education, 94, 963–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marincola, J. (1997). Authority and tradition in ancient historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Marwick, A. (1973). A fetishism of documents? The salience of source-based history. In H. Kozick (Ed.) Developments in modern historiography (pp. 107–138). Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Mayer, R. (1998). Connecting narrative and historical thinking: A research-based approach to teaching history. Social Education, 62(2), 97–100.Google Scholar
  59. McLean, M., & Barker, H. (2004). Students making progress and the ‘research-teaching nexus’ debate. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(4), 407–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meier, C. (1987). Historical answers to historical questions: The origins of history in Ancient Greece. Arethusa, 20(1), 41–57.Google Scholar
  61. Momigliano, A. (1979). The rhetoric of history and the tropes of rhetoric: On Hayden White’s tropes. In E. S. Schaffer (Ed.), Comparative criticism: A yearbook. 3 (pp. 259–268).Google Scholar
  62. Momigliano, A. (2002). Daniel et la théorie de succession des empires. (1980). In S. Berti & P. Farazzi (Eds.), Contributions à l’histoire judaisme. Nîmes: Éditions de l’Éclat.Google Scholar
  63. Murray, O. (2001, 2007). Herodotus and oral history. In N. Luraghi (Ed.), The historian’s craft in the age of Herodotus (pp. 16–44). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Newton, D., & Newton, L. (1998). Enculturation and understanding. Some differences between sixth formers’ and graduates’ conceptions of understanding in history and science. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(3), 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nye, A., Hughes-Warrington, M., Roe, J., Russell, P., Peel, M., Deacon, D., Laugesen, A., & Kiem, P. (2009). Historical thinking in higher education: staff and student perceptions of the nature of historical thinking. History Australia, 6(3), 73.1–73.16.  https://doi.org/10.2104/ha090073.
  66. Paxton, R., & Wineburg, S. (2000). Expertise and the teaching of history. In B. Moon, M. Ben-Peretz, & S. Brown (Eds.), Routledge international companion to education (pp. 855–864). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  67. Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  68. Peters, J. (2001). Combining innovative professional practice with a traditional subject: negotiated learning in history. In E. Chambers, Y. Evans, & K. Lack (Eds.), Subject knowledges and professional practices in the arts and humanities (pp. 105–112). Milton Keynes: Institute of Educational Technology, Open University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Proussis, C. M. (1967). The orator: Isocrates. In P. Nash et al. (Eds.), The educated man: Studies in the history of educational thought (pp. 54–76). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  70. Quinlan, K. (1999). Commonalities and controversy in context. A study of academic historians’ educational beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, A., Mason, R., & Perfetti, C. (1996). Using multiple sources to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, A., Britt, A., & Perfetti, C. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of disciplinary expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15(1), 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rouet, J.-F., Marron, M., Perfetti, C. & Favart, M. (1998). Understanding historical controversies: Students’ evaluation and use of documentary evidence. In J. Voss & Carretero (Eds.), Learning and reasoning in history (pp. 95–116). London: Routledge-Falmer.Google Scholar
  74. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Harper-Collins, Basic Books.Google Scholar
  75. Shah, A., & Oppenheimer, D. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sipress, J. (2004). Why students don’t get evidence and what we can do about it. The History Teacher, 37(3), 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smethurst, S. E. (1953). Cicero and Isocrates. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 84, 262–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Soffer, R. (1994). Discipline and power: The university, history and the making of an English elite, 1870–1930. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Sorkin, D. (1983). Wilhelm von Humboldt: Theory and practice of self-formation (Bildung), 1791–1810. Journal of the History of Ideas, 44(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Struever, N. (1983). Lorenzo Valla: Humanist rhetoric and the critique of the classical languages of morality (pp. 191–206). In J. Murphy (Ed.), Renaissance eloquence: Studies in the theory and practice of Renaissance rhetoric. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  81. United Kingdom (UK), Quality assurance agency for higher education (QAA). (June 2014). Subject benchmark statement: History. Retrieved November 23, 2017, from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/SBS-consultation-history.pdf.
  82. Valla, L. (2008). On the donation of Constantine. G. W. Bowersock (Ed.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Vansledright, B. (2004). What does it mean to read history?: Fertile ground for cross-disciplinary collaborations. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 342–346.Google Scholar
  84. Von Boxtel, C., & van Drie, J. (2012). ‘That’s in the time of the Romans!’: Knowledge and strategies students use to contextualise historical documents. Cognition and Instruction, 30(2), 113–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. von Humboldt, W. (1809–10, 1970). On the spirit and the organisational framework of intellectual institutions in Berlin. Minerva, 8(2), 242-267.Google Scholar
  86. White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination of nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. (1996). The effects of ‘playing historian’ on learning in history. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, S63–S72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Willer, M. (2006). Der Wahrheitsbegriff in Martin Heideggers Sein und Zeit: Versuch einer Neubeleuchtung. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 113(1), 78–98.Google Scholar
  89. Williams, B. (2001). What was wrong with Minos? Thucydides and historical time. Representations, 74, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wilschut, A. (2009). Canonical standards or orientation frames of reference?: The cultural and educational approach to the debate about standards in history teaching. In L. Symcox & A. Wilschut (Eds.), National history standards: The problem of the Canon and the future of teaching history (pp. 117–139). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  91. Wilson, S., & Wineburg, S. (1993). Wrinkles in time and space: Using performance assessments to understand the knowledge of history teachers. American Education Research Journal, 30(4), 729–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wineburg, S. (1999). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 488–499.Google Scholar
  94. Wineburg, S., & Wilson, S. (1991). Subject matter knowledge in the teaching of history. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching: A research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 305–347). Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice. Greenwood, CH: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  95. Wrigglesworth, J., & McKeever, M. (2010). Writing history: A genre-based, interdisciplinary approach linking disciplines, language and academic skills. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 9(1), 107–126.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022209349987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Yerushalmi, Y. H. (1982). Zakhor: Jewish history and Jewish memory. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  97. Young, K. M., & Leinhardt, G. (1998). Writing history from primary documents: A way of knowing in history. Written Communication, 15(1), 25–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.La Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations