Engaging With Historical Source Work

8/3/2019 Engaging With Historical Source Work

1/22

http://ahh.sagepub.com

EducationArts and Humanities in Higher

DOI: 10.1177/14740222060676232006; 5; 243Arts and Humanities in Higher Education

Charles Anderson, Kate Day, Ranald Michie and David RollasonEngaging with Historical Source Work: Practices, pedagogy, dialogue

http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/5/3/243

The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Arts and Humanities in Higher EducationAdditional services and information for

http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/5/3/243Citations

by Miu Mihaela on February 23, 2009http://ahh.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/5/3/243http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/5/3/243http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ahh.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ahh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/22

Engaging with Historical Source Work

Practices, pedagogy, dialogue

charle s ande r son and kate dayUniversity of Edinburgh, UK

with

ranald mich ie and david rollason

University of Durham, UK

abstract

Although primary source work is a major component of undergraduate history

degrees in many countries, the topic of how best to support this work has been

relatively unexplored. This article addresses the pedagogical support of primary

source work by reviewing relevant literature to identify the challenges under-

graduates face in interpreting sources, and examining how in two courses carefully

articulated course design and supportive teaching activities assisted students to

meet these challenges. This fine-grained examination of the courses is framed

within a socio-cultural account of learning. The findings show how a skilful

drawing of students into the interpretive/discursive practices of source analysis

was associated with an epistemological reframing of historical knowledge and

dialogical forms of teaching that helped the students to take forward a dialectical

engagement with sources.The benefits of an integrated approach to source work

that fosters students affective and intellectual engagement with historical inter-

pretive practices are highlighted.

keywords history learning and teaching, interpreting texts, interpretive practices, primarysource work

i n t ro duc t i on

The analys i s of primary sources features prominently in the curricu-

lum of history degrees in many countries.A survey of historical source work

in UK universities by Aldous and Hicks (2001) found that a high level of

[ 2 43 ]

A&H

Arts & Humanities in Higher EducationCopyright 2006, sage publications , London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi ISSN 1474-0222

vol 5(3) 243263 doi: 10.1177/14740222060676 23

http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/http://ahh.sagepub.com/


3/22

importance was universally given to undergraduates engagement with

primary sources, which were normally used in teaching in all the years of a

degree. They found much to commend in current teaching within this area,

and identified many pockets of excellent (but contrasting) practice. The

survey also revealed considerable differences in the purposes and expectationsassociated with undergraduate source work, in assessment of this work and

in the criteria used for assessment. While this survey has provided a valuable

overview of historical source work, there is a need for detailed studies of

what makes for effective support of students engagement with primary

sources.

This article examines practice on a first- and a final-year course, and analyses

the elements of course design and pedagogical approach that helped develop

students understanding of, and engagement in, source work. To achieve a fine-

grained analysis of how source work was being pursued in these two contexts

it is necessary to have a clear view of exactly what is involved in interrogat-

ing sources. Accordingly, the literature review that follows delineates key

components of the complex set of interpretive/discursive practices that consti-

tute historical source analysis.

Primary source work and its challenges

prov id ing an expl ic it account of interpret ivepract ice s

Recent writings on the scholarship of teaching in higher education have

focused on the need to assist students in decoding the disciplines (Pace and

Middendorf, 2004: 2). In this vein, David Pace (2004b: 1175) has drawn

attention to how history represents a unique epistemological and methodo-

logical community, whose rules and procedures must be fully understood and

made explicit before we can generate rigorous knowledge about learning and

teaching in our field. As regards the interpretation of primary sources, it isimportant to recognize points of contrast, as well as commonalities, in the

epistemological stance of historians; for there may be differences between

historians in their views both of the truth claims that can be made on the

basis of source interpretation and of the relation of the author of a histori-

cal text to its content. However, there does seem to be broad agreement in

historians general descriptions of theprocess of source analysis, as evinced in

the following statement by Richard Evans (2000: 230): Historians . . . do not

just listen to the evidence, they engage in a dialogue with it, actively interro-

gating it and bringing to bear on it theories and ideas formulated in the

present.

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 5 (3)

[ 2 44 ]



4/22

source analys i s and ep i stemological stance

This understanding of source analysis as a triadic process, involving dynamic

interchange between the historian, texts and framing perspectives brought to

the texts, also emerges from a number of studies that have tracked historians

encounters with specific documents. This body of research has involvedexamining the thought processes of professional historians and students

engaged in interpreting primary sources, allowing comparisons to be made

between the performance of novices and experts. Here, Sam Wineburg

(1991a, 1991b, 1994, 1998; Wineburg and Fournier, 1994) has been a central

figure. Insights from his studies include recognition of differences in the

epistemological stance to reading primary source documents taken by

novices compared to professional historians. Novices read documents as

sources of information and saw their purpose as gathering information, in

contrast to historians much more complex understanding of the nature of

sources in which texts were viewed as social exchanges and central attention

was given to how texts were defined by their authors (Wineburg, 1991b: 510).

For the expert historians, reading sources was a dialectical process of exchange

between the questions taken to texts and the textual materials themselves, and

was taken forward in a very agentic fashion (Wineburg, 1998). A contrasting

position with respect to activity and authority was displayed by novices:

Historians worked through these documents as if they were prosecuting attorneys; they

did not merely listen to testimony but actively drew it out by putting documents side

by side, by locating discrepancies, and by actively questioning sources and delving into

their conscious and unconscious motives. Students, on the other hand, were like jurors,

patiently listening to testimony and questioning themselves about what they heard, but

unable to question witnesses directly or subject them to cross-examination. For students,

the locus of authority was in the text: for historians, it was in the questions they them-

selves formulated about the text. (Wineburg, 1991b: 511)

Historians also proceeded in a self-aware fashion and were tentative

concerning the conclusions they reached, particularly compared to highschool students (Wineburg, 1991a, 1994). An important process engaged in by

historians was the specification of ignorance (Wineburg,1998: 3345), estab-

lishing the limits of their knowledge of certain matters and setting out plans

to address these limitations.

read ing the t e xt, event and sub-texts

As the historians in Wineburgs studies interacted with primary documents

they recursively constructed a model of the events to which these documents

referred and the relationships of the documents to these particular events

(Wineburg, 1994). In addition, historians could be seen to read for subtexts

of hidden and latent meanings (Wineburg, 1991b: 498), treating the text as

Anderson & Day with Michie & Rollason: Engaging with Historical Source Work

[ 2 45 ]



5/22

a rhetoricalartifact and a human artifact. When viewing the text as a rhetori-

cal artifact, the focus is on such matters as authors purposes, rhetorical tech-

niques and the representation of the intended audience of a document

(Wineburg, 1994). In using the term human artifact,Wineburg is referring to

how texts frame reality and disclose information about their authors assump-tions, world views and beliefs (Wineburg, 1991b: 499). The initial challenge

for students in reading for these subtexts lies in developing a different concep-

tion of texts. In Wineburgs own words: Before students can see subtexts, they

must first believe they exist (1991b: 510). Reading subtexts would seem to

require that students develop a concern for how sources representan event and

the motives for this representation, combined with an alertness to what

sources may have been designed to do as well as what they tell us.

corroborat io n, sourci ng and contextual izat io n

Wineburg has shown how historians, in their dialectical encounter with a

source and its subtexts, are guided by the general strategies of corroboration,

sourcing, and contextualization. In employing the corroboration heuristic, the

historians proceeded in a disciplined, cautious manner checking important

details against each other before accepting them as plausible or likely

(Wineburg, 1991a: 77). Novices by contrast were not as alert to discrepancies

and the pursuit of corroborating and disconfirming evidence.

Wineburg describes the sourcing heuristic in the following terms: Whenevaluating historical documents, look first to the source or attribution of the

document. Sourcing alerted the historians to questions of authorship and

allowed them to draw on their accumulated knowledge to weigh textual

information and determine its probity (1991a: 79). It also revealed their

implicit epistemological stance towards sources; that is, the manifestation of

a belief system in which texts were defined by their authors (Wineburg,

1991b: 510).

Contextualization, a concern with situating events in a temporal, physical,cultural context, emerged from Wineburgs research as a central matter in

source analysis. This included a developed awareness of the different linguis-

tic as well as social context of an earlier age. His 1998 study, in particular,

demonstrated that this was not simply a matter of placingevents in an appro-

priate setting, but of historians themselves actively creatinga context for their

work of source analysis as they proceeded through the task.

te xtual read and h i stor ical read

These general strategies of document reading were also evident in Leinhardt

and Youngs (1996) study of expert historians engaging with texts, which

brought out clearly the critical role of intertextuality in historians reading

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 5 (3 )

[ 2 4 6 ]



6/22

and their self-aware, minute attention to text qua text (1996: 477). Besides

this close textual read, the historians whom they studied also engaged in a

historical read, that is, they framed their interpretation of sources in terms of

their specialism (for example, economic history) and their global sense of

historical purpose and their theory of history (Leinhardt and Young, 1996:449). The historical read was foregrounded when the historians engaged with

a familiar document; general heuristics, such as those identified by Wineburg,

were more strongly in evidence when they were tackling an unfamiliar

document. The interaction between historians, conceptual/interpretative

frameworks and the sources that Leinhardt and Young observed led them to

characterize historians as extraordinary . . . readers . . . moving iteratively

between documents and their own historical theories about an issue

(Leinhardt and Young, 1996: 441). In taking ahead both the textual and the

historical read historians displayed that they were aware of and monitor

the analytic, interpretive, constructive nature of their historical reasoning

(1996: 479).

content, d i scur s ive and d i sc i p l inary k nowledge

From their close analysis of historians document-reading procedures,

Leinhardt and Young (1996: 474) were able to show how a historians general

document-reading knowledge interacts with his or her topic-specific

expertise. On the theme of the relationship of content knowledge todocument interpretation Young and Leinhardt (1998: 51) found, in a later

study focusing on students writing from primary documents, that one factor

which influenced individuals use of a text was the depth of knowledge the

student brought to it. Other studies (e.g. Greene, 1994a; Stahl et al., 1996)

also draw attention to the question of how the background knowledge that

readers bring to the task informs their analysis of sources. In addition, Rouet

et al. (1996: 479) remind us that domain experts have a deep knowledge of

text structures, and they use this knowledge to build sophisticated readingstrategies. Greene (1994b: 92) notes that three different kinds of knowledge

distinguish between the performances of historians and those of students in

writing and solving problems in history: discourse knowledge, topic

knowledge and disciplinary knowledge. (By disciplinary knowledge he

appears to refer to such matters as the general heuristics identified by

Wineburg.) While this distinction between types of knowledge may be

helpful in drawing attention to the range of learning that students need to

achieve, it can be argued that within the practice of source analysis these types

of knowledge are likely to be indissolubly associated with each other rather

than presenting as discrete elements.


[ 24 7 ]



7/22

b ene f i t s o f encounter ing mult i p l e source s

There is strong agreement in the literature on the beneficial effects of

exposing students to a variety of sources within a given task, as a means of

developing their reasoning about, and with, primary texts. For example,

Rouet et al. (1996: 487) suggest that in their study increasing the diversitywithin the document set may have helped the students take into account

discourse features as well as content. Wiley and Voss (1996) point up the

benefits, in terms of more active knowledge transformation and under-

standing, of getting students to write an argument-focused text from a

number of sources. This area of investigation has also exposed some of the

challenges that students may face when engaging with a number of

documents, such as needing to be able to see relevant content and issues in

terms of the range and the center and avoiding the danger of over-

representing one issue or perspective . . . at the cost of underrepresenting

another (Young and Leinhardt, 1998: 53).

writ ing-up source work

Students using multiple sources may be faced with the task not only of

synthesizing information but of giving personal organization to a body of

material and of weaving a robust chain of inference. The creative, pattern-

making aspect of writing from sources is brought out well by Greene in his

investigation of Students as Authors in the Study of History. He describeshow restructuring meaning from primary documents may entail supplying

new organizational patterns not found in the sources, appropriating infor-

mation as evidence to support an argument, and making connections between

prior knowledge and source content to create a novel text (Greene, 1994a:

138). At the same time, students need to gain sufficient mastery over the

rhetorical conventions of historical writing (Greene, 1994a, 1994b; Young and

Leinhardt, 1998). How students view the audience of their writing about

sources is also a crucial matter. Part of Greenes study focused on comparingstudents and historians interpretations of what was involved in writing

reports and problem-based essays. The historians approach to these tasks kept

in central view the fact that their texts would be produced for a wider

discourse community. They recognized a need to take part in ongoing

debates, responding to earlier contributions, justifying their own focus and

using strategies to establish a personal point of view (Greene, 1994a: 1504).

For the students in Greenes study at least, the audience was seen primarily as

the teacher evaluating their work (1994a: 157). Commenting on this striking

contrast, Seixas (1994: 108) draws out a clear recommendation for teaching:

Greenes findings suggest that teachers might significantly improve the quality

of students history writing by providing opportunities (and standards) for

Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 5(3)

[ 24 8 ]



8/22

students to critique each others essays and thus develop a critical historical

community of their own.

support ing students source work

Turning to publications that focus on supporting students source work, thereare a few that provide clear guidelines to undergraduates (Lorence, 1983;

Strickland, 1990; Pace and Pugh, 1996), emphasizing matters such as perspec-

tive-taking, contextualization, genre identification and the encouragement of

an active interpretative stance. A number of valuable accounts of practice in

designing and enabling student source work have also been produced; for

example, by Pace (2004a: 1718) who highlights the clear modelling of inter-

pretive procedures, practice at distinguishing between essential statements of

a thesis and supporting evidence, building motivation, and giving meaning-

ful feedback each week on well-defined actions.

Explicit modelling of historians source analysis also features as one of the

many elements that Holt (1990) addresses in a very full, thoughtful account

of the purposes and practices used to assist students to pursue documentary

work. On his courses, source work serves as a means of challenging and

developing studentsconceptions of the nature of historical knowledge, aiding

them to unlearn what they think history is (1990: 1). Holt foregrounds the

theme of history as the creation of an analytical narrative. Students sense of

history as involving multiple narratives, and the subtle craft involved innarrative construction, was being developed in part by presenting them with

sources written from contrasting viewpoints out of which they themselves

had to fashion a narrative, thereby learning how to ask the right questions of

our documents (1990: 36). Implicit also in Holts account is the care taken

over the choice of individual documents and their positioning at appropriate

points throughout a course to take ahead students historical practice and their

understanding of substantive issues and concepts.

central e l ements o f h i stor ical interpret ive pract ice s

The preceding sections have highlighted how the activities and strategies of

source analysis deployed by historians are bound up with particular ways of

conceptualizing text and intricately linked with the pursuit of wider histori-

cal purposes and theorizing. This close look at historians own practice in

source work has also brought into sharp relief the challenges faced by

students. It would appear that if students are to participate in this interpre-

tive community, to even a modest degree, they need to make progress in:

developing appropriate epistemological framing what is a source?

employing an active, questioning stance


[ 2 4 9 ]



9/22

acquiring requisite background knowledge

taking relevant and generative questions to sources

applying general heuristics of sourcing, corroboration, contextualization

reading between sources

reading subtexts rhetorical form and structure, alertness to intendedaudience of a source, authors intentions, world-views

taking ahead meaning construction, synthesis and writing-up source work

in a disciplinary appropriate fashion.

As Figure 1 indicates, appropriate engagement with sources requires a flexi-

bility of focus of attention as one constructs an increasingly layered under-

standing which draws on resources outside the individual primary text itself.

This requires a dialectical movement between a source, its historical context,

other sources, the secondary literature, and theoretical models. Ideally also thefocus shifts from time to time to a self-aware scrutiny of how the task is

proceeding.

th e i nv e s t i gat i on o f s ou rc e wo r k

Research conducted within the Enhancing TeachingLearning Environments

(ETL) project has allowed us to explore students understanding of what

source work entails and how they were engaging with its challenges. The

project has also given us the opportunity to examine in considerable detail

the support provided for students source work in two course settings, a first-

year and a final-year module. These modules were followed during theacademic years 2002/3 and 2003/4.A detailed description of the learning and

teaching environment of each course has been constructed based on:


[ 25 0 ]

f igure 1 Focus of student engagement with sources.



10/22

course documentation

interviews with staff and ongoing discussion with course teams

the administration of two questionnaires to capture student orientations

and approaches to studying and their experiences of the courses

group interviews with students.

A summary description of the approach taken to the analysis of the data

gained by these methods can be found in Anderson and Day (2005).

The courses in which source work was investigated were offered by a large

history department in a long-established university which attracts students

from across the UK. The first-year course was a 20-week module in early

medieval history, in which a strongly thematic and conceptual approach was

taken to the structuring of subject content. It was staffed by three lecturers

and tutors, and featured a total of 19 lectures and 14 seminars. Studentenrolment over the two years of our research was 107 in 2002/3 and 116 in

2003/4. In 2002/3 18 students were interviewed on their experience of this

course and 29 in 2003/4. The final-year course was a year-long special subject

module in modern financial/institutional history, delivered by one member

of staff, in which weekly seminars combined an interactive blend of tutor

input, student presentations and group discussion. It had an enrolment of 16

students in the academic year 2002/3 and 11 in 2003/4. There were 12

students interviewed in 2002/3 and all 11 of the 2003/4 cohort. Additionalcontextual information can be found on the website in the final report on

the history strand of the ETL project (see Anderson and Day, 2006), where

the first-year module is identified as H3F and the final-year module as H3L.

While the quantitative findings derived from the questionnaires that reveal

students positive perceptions of the courses can be found in the final report,

this article focuses on analysing the students talk (during group interviews)

on source work in the context of the two courses.

Framing students engagement with sources in the first-year module

Focusing first on the first-year course, the student interviews showed that

consideration of primary sources was an ongoing element in both lectures

and seminars. This is now a feature of at least a significant minority of first-

year history courses, some of which may indeed require more extended

examination of individual sources than was the case in the module we

examined.What we viewed as distinctive in this course, however, was the care

displayed in the conceptual framing of students engagement with primarysources and the active encouragement of their own voice in interpreting and

debating primary and secondary sources. Interviews with the lecturers on the


[ 2 5 1 ]



11/22

course and review of the course content revealed the strong emphasis that

was placed on careful analysis of evidence and the attention given to intro-

ducing different sources. Indeed, developing students awareness of different

types of source was seen as a key matter. This was accompanied by a wish to

move students away from a simplistic view of what an evidence-basedapproach entails. The lecturers argued that evidence needs to be understood

in relation to particular conceptual frameworks that are developed to allow

the analysis of a historical context. Encouraging students to engage in imag-

inative historical questioning was another important objective. Staff viewed it

as essential that they assist students to build up the habit of reading both

primary and secondary sources in a careful, reflective fashion; and in this a

perceived teaching challenge was to get students to engage with evidence in

sufficient detail rather than superficially noting its limitations.

communicat ing h i stor ical ways of th ink ing

Students accounts during interviews revealed that staff had clearly commu-

nicated to them the need to examine closely the process of argumentation

and interpretation of evidence associated with a historians portrayal of a topic

or event.At the same time students were being introduced to other key aspects

of historical practice. A large body of interview comment indicated that the

lectures and seminars were firmly focusing students attention not only on the

processes of argumentation and interpretation of evidence underpinninghistorical work, but also on:

historians representations of aspects of the period covered by the course

the contested nature of these representations

the provisional nature of knowledge of the period

taking into account differingrepresentations and perspectives

the need to consider the shaping effects of the world-views and socio-

political contexts of historians themselves

engaging with ongoing debates and constructing a personal, defensibleinterpretation.

source s a s s i t e s o f interpretat ion

Students saw primary sources as featuring continuously in the foreground of

the course, describing, for example, how a range of primary sources was

employed within lectures in a way that engaged interest. The use of sources

in lectures, however, cut deeper than the function of providing engaging

illustrations, clearly demonstrating the interrelationship of evidence and

argument:


[ 2 5 2 ]



12/22

. . . its purely the structure of the lectures. And they emphasize, both aspects that are

important are continually so at the end of it, I mean, if you are going to pick up on

the evidence then an argument will be presented: and then a piece of evidence and

another argument and a piece of evidence.And its just reinforcing that which obviously

they deem as important.

Statements by a number of students suggested that they had appreciated the

way the lecturer modelled the interpretation of sources and their use in

historical argument, which had led them to take on board the interconnect-

edness of primary sources and historical argument.

Primary sources were also viewed by students as a central matter of

concern in seminars, and some interviewees pointed up how tutors could

prompt thinking about questions concerning evidence. Students talk about

primary sources revealed that they were assimilating from lectures and

seminars a sense of these sources as sites of interpretation (rather than, say,

viewing them as straightforwardly conveying information). An understanding

of the interrelationship of source and interpretive activity can be seen in the

following extracts.

Interviewer So overall what would you say youve learnt from this module about

evidence and primary sources?

Student A I think more than anything interpretation. Because youve always

realized the importance of evidence . . . Whereas this is more if we

look at this piece of evidence, do we either go this way or that.

Student B I think most of it is just so many different interpretations of every-

thing, of all the different sources weve used. And its just, we have to

evaluate which one is the best.

Statements such as these would seem to indicate the success of the course in

leading students to frame the activity of source analysis in an appropriate

manner, developing their conceptions of historical knowledge.

The experience of the module had also broadened students conceptionsof what might be regarded as a historical source. One interview participant,

for example, talked of how module staff wished students:

Not just to look at the obvious sources that you can, you can draw evidence from

everywhere really: such as like buildings and book, em manuscripts, and like clothing,

yeah everything.And how to use it in a historical argument like in answering a question,

there are going to be different arguments but youve got, were kind of taught to use

the sources to support the arguments.

expec tat ion of engage d , p er sonal inte rpretat ion

All the interviews revealed that staff had communicated a strong expectation

that the students should display an agentic approach to engaging in debates


[ 2 53 ]



13/22

about the module topics and in deploying historical reasoning to come up

with personal interpretations of primary and secondary sources. For example:

it encourages you more to argue more through your point of view that, yeah, there can

always be more than one interpretation but, you know,this is my interpretation and this

is why. I really get that from this module.Yeah.

Interviewees also drew attention to the way in which the lecturers active

display of enthusiasm for the subject activated their own engagement with

the task of personal interpretation.

creat ing an engag ing s pace for interpretat ion

Interviewees pointed up the fact that the module not only required active

personal analysis on their part but also gives us the space to handle these

different interpretations. An open, dialogic presentation of differing viewsencouraged students to display initiative in interpretation: . . . because of the

way he is and the nature of the module is sort of quite an open delivering

to you. It does make you want to go there and try and work it out for

yourself . Some students also indicated how the form of interaction and ethos

established in the seminars supported an engaged, exploratory approach to

historical interpretation.

Theres much more in-depth discussion and like everybody in the group is encouraged

to become involved and its a lot more the testing of your own opinions, like the thingsthat you say are actually tested.

The students quoted have given a sense of how interview participants in

general were aligning themselves with, and making some emotional invest-

ment in, the enterprise of active, personal interpretation of historical

questions and sources. However, a small number of students did not view the

project of displaying initiative in interpretation in a positive light. A few

revealed some resistance to it or raised questions about how qualified they

were as first-year undergraduates to take ahead this professional, historicalpractice. The following interviewee, for example, focused on the difficulty of

reaching an independent interpretation of primary sources at first-year level.

I dont know. I dont think Id feel, even if I saw the source, Id still be relying on someone

elses view. I dont feel I know enough yet to say Im going to disagree with all these

historians and make my own point.

By contrast, other students, such as the individual quoted next, concentrated

more on the progress they had made in analysing primary sources.

Yes, I think thats something that weve developed while we were here. So its quite atransition, kind of, from A-level where you rely on other authors to tell you about the

[primary sources], actually take a chance to actually look at them yourself, make judge-

ments on it.


[ 2 5 4 ]



14/22

Joined-up course design in the final-year module

the l ecturer s a im s for student source work

Appropriate framing of source work, a dialogic teaching approach and strong

backing of students interpretive voices also featured prominently in the

final-year course. In our account of this course, attention is focused on how

students intellectual and affective engagement with sources was enabled by

well-articulated course design. The lecturer saw a final-year special subject

module as allowing joint development of the understanding of a specific

topic and aspects of historical practice, with analysis and interpretation of

original source material forming its core. In this particular course on the City

of London, there was a wish not only to deepen students understanding of

the City as a financial institution but also of the ways in which it has been

represented. In unpacking these representations of the City, students need tobe concerned with probing the motives, background and stance of the

authors of a document, and with developing perspective-taking skills that

enable them to decentre themselves and view matters from the very different

positions of particular historical actors. There was also a wish to alert

students to how accounts of an episode may be recast as events unfold, with

some of the sources used allowing attention to be directed to hindsight and

its effects. It was hoped that through their work with primary sources

students would develop the habit of examining an individual document fromdifferently located viewpoints. The students were expected to read a source

for its representation of an event, to reflect on methodological questions

concerning the nature of the evidence it provided, and to consider how it

could be framed within a wider pattern of events or set of processes. To

achieve an analytical reading of a primary text, they were encouraged to take

ahead a close, internal reading of the source, which included a consider-

ation of its status as evidence, and an external reading in which the source

is interpreted against a wider frame of reference. To assist students to develop

these historical practices, considerable attention was given to including avariety of contrasting types of source arranged in a carefully ordered

sequence, with certain of the documents chosen to have a cumulative effect.

In addition, in 20032004 a central thrust in course development was a

concern to align more closely the consideration of primary documents with

relevant secondary sources.

student understand ing of, and engagement with ,

source workOur interviews with the students revealed how they were grappling with the

practices of primary source analysis the lecturer wished to encourage. With


[ 2 55 ]



15/22

a clear appreciation of the contested nature of history, the students empha-

sized the need to display an active, questioning stancetowards sources:

Youre always questioning things, rather like a lawyer. So you question why did they

write that? When did they write it? Who helped them? Why was it published? Youre

always asking questions, you dont take things for granted.

The interviews revealed that the students had been socialized into adopting

the stance of prosecuting attorneys (Wineburg, 1991b: 511), and thus were

engaging in a dialectical encounter with sources. Their experience of

analysing documents, and the scaffolding offered on the module, which

involved the marking up of salient concerns, had also given them a more

precise sense of what the interrogation of evidence involved. They appeared

sensitive to the importance of considering the reliability of particular pieces

of evidence, the background of the author(s) and authorial intentions, and

the time and context of production of a source. Some student statements also

revealed that attention was being given to the form of writing of a document

as well as its content.

Contributions which drew attention to the importance of understanding

the kind of mind-set, values of the creators of sources, demonstrated

concern not only with the reliability of the picture that sources give but

also with how sources representan event or issue and the motives for this

representation. In other words, these students were developing alertness towhat sources may have been designed to do as well as what they tell us. In

addition to this recognition of authorial purpose, there were glimpses in the

interviews of consideration being given to the reception of primary

documents by their original audience, to what people thought initially.

Some students comments revealed how developing the habit of critical

analysis of primary sources could possibly encourage a more challenging

approach to secondary material (particularly if this material was related to

primary documents they had interpreted).In summary then, one can see from the interviews how these final-year

students were coming to have a clear appreciation of matters that are identi-

fied as key in the literature. They saw the need to take a questioning stance

towards and have a dialectical engagement with sources, were concerned to

read for subtexts and to apply the general strategies of sourcing and contex-

tualization.Attention was being given to the form of writing of a document

as well as its content, and there was evidence of the development of perspec-

tive-taking skills the ability to decentre themselves and view matters from

the position of particular historical actors. It is also important to note the very

enthusiastic tone in which both cohorts of students we interviewed talked

about source work. They described how the interest engendered by engaging


[ 2 5 6 ]



16/22

with primary sources had increased their enthusiasm for historical work; and

viewed primary source work as involving active, authentic engagement with

practical history.

the contr ibut ion of congruent de s ign and teach ingapproach

Students engagement with source work and understanding of module

content were enabled by the interaction of positive characteristics of the

teachinglearning environment, each of which will now be touched upon in

turn. (These positive characteristics were also very much in evidence within

the first-year course.)

Carefully articulated course design A successful articulation of course

purposes with learning activities led students to perceive coherence between

module purposes, the secondary literature and source activities. The way in

which the choice and sequencing of specific sources contributed to a

coherent course experience is revealed in the following observation:

Also the choice of documents complement each other quite well. Hes chosen high

profile City reports written by members of the Bank of England. It gives us one aspect

of the City of London. Next week it may be written by an anonymous commentator

whos writing a little bit on the City. The different perspectives we gain from the

documents give us a very rounded view of the subject were studying.

In addition, in 20032004 the seminars integrated the study of primary and

secondary sources, and thereby led students towards reading primary and

secondary sources together interactively. Students found this bi-direction[al]

consideration of primary and secondary sources distinctly helpful, providing

them with a context for your critical analysis of the primary material.

Thus, central to achieving the articulation of different course elements was

the investment of considerable time and effort in choosing and sequencing

documents, secondary sources, course materials, and activities, so as to be in

alignment with the main module themes and purposes.

Display of commitment to teaching and subject enthusiasm Careful course

construction and communication were coupled with authentic involvement

in conveying content and historical practice. Students own efforts were

inspired by a display of commitment to teaching, he does care about the

students, and enthusiasm for the subject:

Student And he conveys his kind of like passion for it.

Interviewer Does that rub off?

Student Yeah, I think its definitely, [another student: Yeah] made us more

enthusiastic.


[ 2 57 ]



17/22

A teaching approach which provided support and encouraged independence This

active engagement with teaching and the subject was allied to a teaching

approach that achieved a balance between supportive structuring of students

source work and other course activities, and encouraging independence of

judgement on the students part.Its not trying to say read this and youll be OK. Its more suggestions. Hes making you

think for yourself which I find important.There are some modules and youll learn what

they tell you but you wont have a chance to think for yourself. This one you get given

all the information and you construct your own arguments. Youre not told what to

think.

The open teaching approach was viewed by interviewees as enabling their

own efforts to form personal interpretations of historical issues: youre

actually encouraged to take them all on board [i.e. different arguments andpositions] and formulate your own ideas. Thats turned out to be in practice

what youve been able to do.

A supportive group ethos and effective group work The exercise of independ-

ent judgement in source work and other course activities was also encour-

aged by informal interaction and the presence of a supportive and productive

group ethos which was more conducive to discussion. Collaborative sub-

group work on presentations, and engaged group discussion, which involved

the sharing and exploration of different perspectives, promoted the develop-

ment of understanding: Its just a good combination of ideas that you dontrealize when youre reading something. Someone whos reading the same

thing can get [a] different idea. You get a combination of both ideas that

you hadnt thought of but because theres two of you.

Opportunities for continuous feedback and guidance Students appreciated how

the range of feedback received in relation to all course activities, including

but not confined to written work, assisted them in developing their under-

standing of module content and practice in source work. The formative

coursework that was a feature of the module was described as giving astructure that encouraged continuous application of effort and provided

good practice. The formative essays in particular were seen as requiring

interaction with, and reorganization of, knowledge: I think without the

practice, you can go to it, you can read the book, but without the practice.

Actually writing an essay you have to think differently and you have to do

[a] different thing with the things youve got there. Furthermore, supportive

feedback was made available to students very much on an ongoing basis:

You get feedback from the discussions in the seminar. If you give a presentation, hellpick you up on points and say if theyre good points or not so good points. Whether

youre actually inaccurate, whether your interpretation is a good one. Even if youre just

asking questions or providing answers hell comment on these.


[ 2 5 8 ]



18/22

Students comments revealed that a combination of explicit communication

by the lecturer and feedback on formative work had given them a clear sense

of what was expected of them in undertaking the different types of assess-

ment for the module.

p ract i c e s o f s our c e wor k , p e dago g y , d i a l og ue

The literature review in this article has depicted the complex processes that

historians employ in reading primary texts and the challenges that students

face as they begin to grapple with source work. The following pages then

described in detail the ways in which course design, teaching and learning

activities on a first- and a final-year module assisted students to meet these

challenges and fostered affective as well as intellectual engagement with

primary sources. In singling out these two courses for special attention, we

are not suggesting that they should serve as straightforward templates of good

practice. Other examples of effective approaches could be identified; and it

is likely that appropriate introduction of source work requires careful tailoring

of pedagogical actions to individual course contexts to take account of

students backgrounds and the nature of a particular topic domain. At the

same time, certain of thegeneral features of design and teaching approach that

were evident in these two courses are likely to be productive across all settings.

Accounts of learning that have been concerned to situate it in a socio-cultural context have emphasized the need for novices to be aided to gain

sufficient mastery in performing the practices and making appropriate use of

the discursive resources of professional or disciplinary communities (Wells and

Claxton, 2002). Studies on learning from a socio-cultural perspective have also

emphasized the need to focus attention on the norms and social relations of

a community, and how these norms enable or constrain novices participation

in a communitys practices (Wenger, 1998). Applying these insights to higher

education, Northedge (2003: 22) has noted how learning is a process ofbecoming increasingly competent as both:

a user of various specialist discourses;

a participant within the relevant knowledge communities.

In the courses examined in this article students were being skilfully assisted

to make progress on both these fronts. There was a concerted effort to provide

them with a clear account of the purposes and practices that actuate histori-

cal source work. This explicit communication about source work, and the

modelling of the use of sources within historical argument, may be viewed

as creating the grounds on which dialogue about sources, between staff and

students and between students themselves, could proceed. The spirit in which


[ 2 59 ]



19/22

this clear exposition and modelling of disciplinary practices was achieved is

worth highlighting. Students indicated that their efforts were energized by

their lecturers display of evident passion for their discipline and commitment

to teaching. On this theme, Wenger has noted how teachers need to

represent their communities of practice in educational settings. This typeof lived authenticity brings into the subject matter the concerns, sense of

purpose, identification, and emotion of participation (Wenger, 1998: 276).

The display of wholehearted engagement of being within the discipline,

and the sharing of its concerns, was accompanied by careful epistemological

and conceptual framing of students understanding of the use of sources

within history. The first-year course did not introduce source work in a

compartmentalized fashion, as a set of discrete skills, but integrated students

encounter with sources within the general purposes and practices of history

as a discipline. This framing of source work within a wider disciplinary

context was helping students to meet the epistemological challenges associ-

ated with the appropriate reading of sources that Wineburg (1991b) has

identified. It included the presentation of primary texts as sites of interpret-

ation. Thus students were encouraged to regard texts as thinking devices

(Lotman, 1988; Wertsch, 1998, 2002) rather than as straightforward sources of

information.Moving to view primary sources as sites of interpretation carried

with it the possibility for students to deploy a more interactive interpretive

stance, a change in position and activity that is captured well in the followingquotation from Wertsch (2002: 161): approaching a text as a thinking device

involves a more dynamic and interactive stance on the part of the individual

employing it. In this case the textual resource is viewed as the starting point

for an active dialogue rather than something to be simply critiqued or

rejected.

Consonant with the encouragement of an active interpretive stance that

involved a dialectical encounter with sources, the expectations, activities and

ethos of both courses were drawing students in to involved participation in thepractice of historical source work. Careful structuring and supportive shaping

of students understanding and actions were balanced by strong encourage-

ment of their own initiative. We have described how interview participants

saw the first-year course as providing the space to handle these different

interpretations and how a large majority were engaging with the enterprise

of active personal interpretation of historical questions and sources. On the

final-year course students were coming to have a clear appreciation of central

matters in source analysis, coupled with a sense that it involved active,

authentic engagement with practical history. Working from the premise that

Barnett and Coate (2005: 110) foreground in their account of higher

education curricula that forms of knowing produce forms of being, one


[ 26 0 ]



20/22

could argue that these courses provide students with the opportunity to take

on a specific form of involved interaction with primary texts, secondary

works and peers: to be a particular kind of interpreter.

Understanding of, and engaged participation in, the practices of source

analysis were enabled by carefully crafted course design. We have illustratedfrom the final-year module how a course design and a teaching approach were

achieved that were congruent (McCune and Hounsell, 2005) with the

purposes and processes that were being pursued in source work. Within this

module studentsefforts were also supported by an articulation of the different

elements of the course that made for a coherent learning experience. This

included careful choice and sequencing of the primary sources themselves to

support an evolving understanding of module themes and of source work.

In addition, attention was given to integrating the study of primary and

secondary sources, facilitating the interactive readingof primary and secondary

texts. On both modules, course design congruent with the purposes and

practices of historical source work was allied to a clear conceptual framing of

source analysis and an open, dialogical form of teaching that encouraged

students own voices to emerge. Thus these courses were not only assisting

students to deploy the disciplinary practices of source work but were also

backing students own agency in analysis and interpretation.

re f e r ence s

Aldous, C. and Hicks, M. (2001) A Survey of Historical Source Work in Higher

Education. History, Classics and Archaeology Subject Centre.Available at http://

hca.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/TDG/reports/hicks.php (accessed 27 April 2006).

Anderson, C. and Day, K. (2005) Purposive environments: Engaging students in

the values and practices of history. Higher Education 49(3): 31943.

Anderson, C. and Day, K. (2006) ETL Project Subject Overview Report: History.

Available at http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/HistorySR.pdf (accessed 27 April

2006).

Barnett,R. and Coate, K. (2005) Engaging the Curriculum in Higher Education. Maid-enhead: SRHE and Open University Press.

Evans, R.J. (2000) In Defence of History (revised edition). London: Granta Books.

Greene, S. (1994a) Students as authors in the study of history, in G. Leinhardt,

I.L. Beck and C. Stainton (eds) Teaching and Learning in History, pp. 13768.

Hillsdale, NJ and Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greene, S. (1994b) The problems of learning to think like a historian: Writing

history in the culture of the classroom. Educational Psychologist29(2): 8996.

Holt, T. (1990) Thinking Historically: Narrative, Imagination and Understanding.

Chicago, IL: College Entrance Examination Board.

Leinhardt, G. and Young, K.M. (1996) Two texts, three readers: Distance andexpertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction 14(4): 44186.

Lorence, J. (1983) The critical analysis of documentary evidence: Basic skills in

the history class room. History Teaching8: 7784.


[ 2 61 ]



21/22

Lotman, Yu M. (1988) Text within a text. Soviet Psychology 26(3): 3251.

McCune,V. and Hounsell,D. (2005) The development of studentsways of thinking

and practising in three final-year biology courses. Higher Education 49: 25589.

Northedge, A. (2003) Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching

in Higher Education 8(1): 1732.

Pace, D. (2004a) Decoding the reading of history: An example of the process, inD. Pace and J. Middendorf (eds) Decoding the Disciplines: Helping Students Learn

Disciplinary Ways of Thinking, pp. 1321. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, no. 98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pace,D. (2004b) The amateur in the operating room: History and the scholarship

of teaching and learning. The American Historical Review109(4): 117192.

Pace, D. and Middendorf, J., eds (2004) Decoding the Disciplines: Helping Students

Learn Disciplinary Ways of Thinking. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,

no. 98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pace, D. and Pugh, S.L. (1996) Studying For History. New York: Harper Collins.

Rouet, J-F., Britt, M.A., Mason, R.A. and Perfetti, C.A. (1996) Using multiple

sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology

88(3): 47893.

Seixas, P. (1994) When psychologists discuss historical thinking: A historians

perspective. Educational Psychologist29(2): 1079.

Stahl, S.A., Hynd, C.R., Britton, B.K., McNish, M.M. and Bosquet, D. (1996)

What happens when students read multiple source documents in history?

Reading Research Quarterly 31(4): 43056.

Strickland, S. (1990) History students as detectives: A case study in using

documents. College Teaching38(4): 1467.

Wells, G. and Claxton, C., eds (2002) Learning for Life in the21st Century: Sociocul-

tural Perspectives on the Future of Education. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (1998) Mind as Action.New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wertsch, J.V. (2002) Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wiley, J. and Voss, J.F. (1996) The effects of playing historian on learning in

history.Applied Cognitive Psychology 10: S63S72.

Wineburg, S.S. (1991a) Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive

processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence.Journal

of Educational Psychology 83(1): 7387.

Wineburg, S.S. (1991b) On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach

between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal28(3):

495519.

Wineburg, S.S. (1994) The cognitive representation of historical texts, in

G. Leinhardt, I.L. Beck and C. Stainton (eds) Teaching and Learning in History,

pp. 85133. Hillsdale, NJ and Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wineburg, S.S. (1998) Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert/expert study in the

interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science22(3): 31946.Wineburg, S.S. and Fournier, J.E. (1994) Contextualized thinking in history, in

M. Carratero and J.F. Voss (eds) Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and

the Social Sciences, pp. 285308. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


[ 2 6 2 ]



22/22

Young, K.M. and Leinhardt, G. (1998) Writing from primary documents: A way

of knowing in history. Written Communication 15(1): 2568.

b iog raph ical note s

charle s ander son and kate day are Senior Lecturers in the School ofEducation, University of Edinburgh. Charles Anderson has as a main research

interest the study of talk and texts in educational settings. He shares with Kate Day

both a focus on higher education and particular areas of enquiry including the

teaching and learning of history at university, the experiences of students under-

taking Masters level dissertations and of their supervisors, and the evaluation of

initiatives involving e-learning. Recent joint publications are: Purposive environ-

ments: Engaging students in the values and practices of history (2005, Higher

Education 49: 31943) and Mastering the dissertation: Lecturers representations of

the purposes and processes of Masters level dissertation supervision (2006, Studies

in Higher Education 31: 14968).Address: Higher and Community Education, The

School of Education, The University of Edinburgh, Patersons Land, Holyrood

Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, UK. [email: [email protected]]

ranald m ich ie and david rollason are Professors of History at the

University of Durham, UK.


[ 2 63 ]

Documents

Engaging With Historical Source Work