-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Reliability of Sources? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Skitit
- Start date
I tell my students to ask themselves 'why should I believe this source'?
They then start to explain why the author is trustworthy, or not, whether or not the content is the same or similar to other sources, which side the author is and how that would be impacting what they were saying, the problems with it being either primary or secondary (primary - one person's opinion only while secondary - has the advantage of reading numerous accounts and less likely to have the bias of the day), it is propanda, why did the writer write it e.g. Lloyd-George's scathing attacks on Haig have to be tempered with the fact that he wanted to make himself look better in his memoirs and reflects his own class bias.
I don't have a checklist as such - and find, as someone who has marked this, that often checklists end up being rather trite answers rather than really dealing with the issues.
If you have a source you would like to analyse send my a PM and I will look at it for you.
They then start to explain why the author is trustworthy, or not, whether or not the content is the same or similar to other sources, which side the author is and how that would be impacting what they were saying, the problems with it being either primary or secondary (primary - one person's opinion only while secondary - has the advantage of reading numerous accounts and less likely to have the bias of the day), it is propanda, why did the writer write it e.g. Lloyd-George's scathing attacks on Haig have to be tempered with the fact that he wanted to make himself look better in his memoirs and reflects his own class bias.
I don't have a checklist as such - and find, as someone who has marked this, that often checklists end up being rather trite answers rather than really dealing with the issues.
If you have a source you would like to analyse send my a PM and I will look at it for you.
stkildasts
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
Arrgh a teacher!
stkildasts
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
Well I guess knowledge dispels fear
Eduard_Khil
CASIO fx-82ES PLUS
What if you had a fear for knowledge.... that signature is not very logical :/
Anyway... to clear things up in this thread besides from taking long winded responses of course.
-Look at type of source
-Biasness
-Verifiability, as if it is corroborated or not
-Date
-Purpose
-Tone
-Factual content
Anyway... to clear things up in this thread besides from taking long winded responses of course.
-Look at type of source
-Biasness
-Verifiability, as if it is corroborated or not
-Date
-Purpose
-Tone
-Factual content
best method my teacher taught was
1) type of source (letter,article)
2) who wrote it
3)when was it written (primary or secondary)
4) audience
5) purpose
6) perspective (you get that from audience and purpose
7) reliability (own knowledge and good to use historians in this part)
8)usefulness (if reliable its useful and for what historian useful)
1) type of source (letter,article)
2) who wrote it
3)when was it written (primary or secondary)
4) audience
5) purpose
6) perspective (you get that from audience and purpose
7) reliability (own knowledge and good to use historians in this part)
8)usefulness (if reliable its useful and for what historian useful)
Using such a structure isnt a bad idea, but the main problem with that (I think cem aluded to it as well) is that answers tend to be robotic and rather descriptive as opposed to being analytical. Its all very well and good to identify who wrote a source, its audience etc, but you have to put it into perspective by stating how it relates to the sources usefulness.
And how it relates to the specific issue stated in the question.
Too often I have seen responses like:
This source is useful because it was written by a soldier who experienced the war first hand. It was written during the war. He was a British soldier etc etc.
No mention of the fact that the question is asking about the changing attitudes to the war. The above would get a 4 - 5/10 from me but if the writer said something like:
This source is useful in showing the changing attitudes of soldiers to the war because it was written in 1917 after the battles of The Somme and Verdun by which time any existing altruistic attitudes to the war were destroyed and the knowledge that the war still had years to go was being realised. The soldier had probably fought on The Somme or if not would have had buddies who did and could tell him of the horrors of that campaign. etc etc.
I would be looking more at a 9 - 10/10
Too often I have seen responses like:
This source is useful because it was written by a soldier who experienced the war first hand. It was written during the war. He was a British soldier etc etc.
No mention of the fact that the question is asking about the changing attitudes to the war. The above would get a 4 - 5/10 from me but if the writer said something like:
This source is useful in showing the changing attitudes of soldiers to the war because it was written in 1917 after the battles of The Somme and Verdun by which time any existing altruistic attitudes to the war were destroyed and the knowledge that the war still had years to go was being realised. The soldier had probably fought on The Somme or if not would have had buddies who did and could tell him of the horrors of that campaign. etc etc.
I would be looking more at a 9 - 10/10