Comments on: Teaching primary sources: Secondary in, Primary out, Flip it, Repeat http://hotbrainstem.org/2010/07/29/teaching-primary-sources-secondary-in-primary-out-flip-it-repeat/ Go archives Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:58:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Alexis http://hotbrainstem.org/2010/07/29/teaching-primary-sources-secondary-in-primary-out-flip-it-repeat/comment-page-1/#comment-1865 Alexis Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:34:12 +0000 http://hotbrainstem.org/?p=494#comment-1865 Also, kudos to you for coming up with such thorough assignments that really challenge students and teach them about the value of understanding how history is constructed. Historiographical methods are the hardest part of history to teach, and perhaps why there is so little focus on this at the high school and undergraduate level. Also, kudos to you for coming up with such thorough assignments that really challenge students and teach them about the value of understanding how history is constructed. Historiographical methods are the hardest part of history to teach, and perhaps why there is so little focus on this at the high school and undergraduate level.

]]> By: Alexis http://hotbrainstem.org/2010/07/29/teaching-primary-sources-secondary-in-primary-out-flip-it-repeat/comment-page-1/#comment-1864 Alexis Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:29:56 +0000 http://hotbrainstem.org/?p=494#comment-1864 This is an amazing amount of work for students and I think that all of this is really some thing like a 3 credit college course. Smaller chunks would be good for high school students. Also, it really depends on the students you are working with. This requires a lot of logistics to come together, like students being near a well-used repository, and access to the sources the author used. All in all, though, it is the BEST way to teach students what history is and how it is constructed. I used to use similar assignments with students where I would have them compare primary sources about an event to a short textbook narrative of said event. It was the ONE way I could get introductory students, and non-history majors to "get it." I used to send my students to the archives and ask them to construct narratives on a topic using a certain set of materials, and then we would compare narratives. I really think this prepares students to understand what historiography and history are. This is MUCH more difficult to teach than I initially imagined, and I want a chance to do it again some day, even better than the first few times I did it!!! This is an amazing amount of work for students and I think that all of this is really some thing like a 3 credit college course. Smaller chunks would be good for high school students. Also, it really depends on the students you are working with. This requires a lot of logistics to come together, like students being near a well-used repository, and access to the sources the author used. All in all, though, it is the BEST way to teach students what history is and how it is constructed. I used to use similar assignments with students where I would have them compare primary sources about an event to a short textbook narrative of said event. It was the ONE way I could get introductory students, and non-history majors to “get it.” I used to send my students to the archives and ask them to construct narratives on a topic using a certain set of materials, and then we would compare narratives. I really think this prepares students to understand what historiography and history are. This is MUCH more difficult to teach than I initially imagined, and I want a chance to do it again some day, even better than the first few times I did it!!!

]]> By: Maureen http://hotbrainstem.org/2010/07/29/teaching-primary-sources-secondary-in-primary-out-flip-it-repeat/comment-page-1/#comment-1677 Maureen Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:51:26 +0000 http://hotbrainstem.org/?p=494#comment-1677 When I was in college, we had to do something close to your second exercise for a class -- basically, we had to take a chapter in a monograph or an article, read through the cited sources, and then write a paper about whether we believed that the author had enough evidence to make the argument she was making. This was a great exercise for a number of reasons: 1. The same reasons that (I think) motivate your pedagogical activity -- reminding students that history is produced by people, and people can make mistakes or come to different conclusions. 2. Our instructor was setting the standard that history must involve an argument. You have to make a point, or else you're reading a compendium of archival sources. Doing so is a lot of fun, but they don't mean anything in and of themselves. Furthermore, I'm not certain that it's possible to read through, pick through, and exclude historical information WITHOUT making some sort of implicit argument. Anyway, the instructor is Sharon Ullman, at Bryn Mawr, and she might be interested in working with you if you wanted to make this a reality. When I was in college, we had to do something close to your second exercise for a class — basically, we had to take a chapter in a monograph or an article, read through the cited sources, and then write a paper about whether we believed that the author had enough evidence to make the argument she was making. This was a great exercise for a number of reasons:
1. The same reasons that (I think) motivate your pedagogical activity — reminding students that history is produced by people, and people can make mistakes or come to different conclusions.
2. Our instructor was setting the standard that history must involve an argument. You have to make a point, or else you’re reading a compendium of archival sources. Doing so is a lot of fun, but they don’t mean anything in and of themselves. Furthermore, I’m not certain that it’s possible to read through, pick through, and exclude historical information WITHOUT making some sort of implicit argument.

Anyway, the instructor is Sharon Ullman, at Bryn Mawr, and she might be interested in working with you if you wanted to make this a reality.

]]>