rewritign: Analysing historical documents, whether it be for an assignment, test, or exam, is more a
rewritign: Analysing historical documents, whether it be for an assignment, test, or exam, is more a skill than a natural talent which you can develop by use of several techniques and strategies. With practice, source analysis can become easy and can be a way of gaining those crucial marks in history class! What is a source?A source, or document, is essentially information about the past that can provide support for a claim or argument, or may even contradict it. They can supply factual detail, beliefs, and opinions, both intentionally, and unwittingly. For this reason, no source should be taken at face value, and hence we find the necessity for source analysis. The Five W’sWho would have thought something we learnt when we were but wee little tots, learning how to write narratives and those dreaded ‘what you did over the weekend’ expositions would prove so helpful? Who, what, when, where, and why? These interrogative questions are critical in finding information regarding the source in question, and are useful in understanding the essence of it. Who made the source? Who is the intended audience? What is the source? What is the nature of the source? What is the content? When was the source made? Where was the source made? Why was the source made? These primary questions give you a base knowledge of the source and allow you to ask more extensive questions, such as is it primary or secondary? Is it biased? Was it private or public? OPVLA lesser known strategy, OPVL (origin, purpose, value, limitation), allows you to bypass the primary questions posed by the Five W’s and directly address more complex questions, though it works on the same principle. It also serves as an effective structure when writing about a source. What are the origins of the source? Who wrote it? Where? When? What is it? What is the purpose of the source? Why was it created? Whose perspective is it from? Does it seek to persuade the reader? Inform? Condemn? How is the source valuable? Does it give you relevant information? What can we learn about the time period? Does it represent a particular side in a conflict? What are the limitations of the source?* How typical is this particular account? What is intentionally not addressed? Does it inaccurately portray the time period? *bias is not necessarily a limiting factor of a source, but more on that later. These are only a few questions you might pose when analysing a source. If I were to write them all down, this would probably never be posted! How do I go about analysing a source?Analysing a source can become a highly methodical process, and one where you might even slip into auto-pilot when answering questions about it. I generally follow the same method when analysing a source, no matter the type or question. Read the question and understand what it is asking. If you struggle with this, I have a post, Understanding the question, that may help (shameless self promotion). Underline key words in the question, so you understand the instructions and exactly what you need to know is made clear. If you’re asked to compare and contrast two sources, for example, this will ensure you both compare and contrast the sources, rather than just compare, or just contrast. Doing so can lose you big marks! Read the source through once for a general understanding. If it’s a non-written source (cartoon, photograph, etc.), glance over the image and pick out the overall ideas it demonstrates. Don’t worry about words you don’t know too much. So long as you have a good general understanding, that should suffice. Make sure you read any relevant captions there might be! These can be essential in your understanding of the source!! Reread and annotate the source, highlighting, underlining, or circling parts that will provide information for the Five W’s, OPVL, or whatever strategy you are using to understand the source. Write down your ideas and understandings next to the source so you don’t forget them. Reread the question with the source in mind and go about answering the question. Reread the question and your answer, ensuring you’ve addressed all the parts of the question. What about bias?Earlier, I wrote that bias is not necessarily a limitation, which can be confusing. Surely a biased source is a limited one? A creator’s bias does not devalue a source, rather it reveals a great deal of information about them, and the opinions and attitudes circulating at the time. So long as you are able to make a conscious effort to separate bias from fact, a biased source can be highly valuable in providing information about the source creator and the spirit of the times. There will, at times, be a source whose bias impedes understanding and coherence, and perhaps in these cases, it is a limiting factor. While bias could be considered the answer to all your questions regarding a source, simply writing, ‘the source is biased’, will likely make your history teacher cringe; you must elaborate! Who is it biased towards? What is left out? How does this impact your understanding of the source? This has turned into a very lengthy post, and for that I apologise. I hope you can find it useful for future source analyses. Good luck! If you have any questions, feel free to message me! -- source link