Secondary Source Analysis
Context, Humanity and Critical Thinking through Secondary Sources
History is less of a destination with a static conclusion as it is a journey through the historical documents left behind and the interpretations drawn from them. History is a dynamic discipline where the past is constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted. The work of the historian, then, is to make sense of the past by using both primary and secondary sources. My philosophy regarding the use secondary sources in the classroom is to provide a foundational basis of scholarly context and relevance, as a tool to help humanize the history students learn in textbooks, and as a means of exercising critical thinking skills as students examine the historiography of secondary texts to develop their own interpretations and historical arguments.
As a teacher in the early stage of my career with limited experience and expertise, I relied heavily on textbooks to provide a foundational basis for context for my students. I still believe that it’s a necessary function but as I became involved in our AP program, and even further as part of my graduate certificate program, my view evolved. While primary sources remain frozen in time, our interpretations of them do not. In addition to providing basic context, secondary sources also can provide the relevance of remaining current. As I read the works of Thucydides, Rediker, Raynal, Pestana and other texts for my classes, I learned that we must critically examine and compare past, perhaps authoritative, interpretations of the past with new and original interpretations. In one lesson on this subject, my students read Douglas Wilson’s 1992 essay, Thomas Jefferson and the Meaning of Liberty. Wilson bases most of his characterization of Jefferson on the premise that Jefferson could never have engaged in an affair with Sally Hemmings and such accusations are the result of “historical relativism”. When students read about the DNA evidence that surfaced in 1998, they are forced to reevaluate Wilson’s essay in light of new information in a socratic seminar with their peers. The result is usually more questions than conclusions from students… a necessary disposition for students of history.
Peter Stearns suggests we study history because “it harbors beauty”[1]. The Graduate Certificate program has showed me that the use of non-textbook secondary sources could lend depth and humanity to the histories that survey textbooks struggle to communicate. As I read Jeanne Theoharis’ Rebellious Life of Rosa Parks, I had a richer, more nuanced understanding of Parks. These texts humanize the often-flat portrayals of real people. These histories help students develop a nuanced appreciation for history. My students view of Aaron Burr, after reading Burr’s Trial by Kenneth Davis is less villainous and more sophisticated than it was before. Their understanding of the tribulations of prairie life are more nuanced and sympathetic after they’ve read an excerpt from David Laskin’s The Children's Blizzard. When they compared them to their text’s accurate but sterile description of Burr and prairie farmers’ lives, students develop a greater appreciation for history.
While my use and proficiency are still developing, historiography has begun to take a more prominent role in my classroom practice. One experience that fostered this disposition was my historiographical research in Pirates of the Atlantic World. In comparing multiple, sometimes conflicting, perspectives on pirate societies in the 1700s, my understanding of the discipline of history became more sophisticated. The critical thinking skills required to make these analyses are more necessary than ever in today’s world where, as Wineburg warns, mountains of information, “threaten to bury us each day.”[2] In a world where the credibility of sources can be nebulous and obscure, our students need to be able to look for the value and limitations of the information they consume. The British Royal Society’s motto “nullis in verba” might be overly cynical, but it speaks to the establishment of credibility. In the future, I’ll better provide a consistent framework, and the opportunity to practice it, to my students. Hoefferle’s framework will be helpful here as she provides a practical lens to examine these sources. As my practice develops, I plan to adapt her framework so that students are better able to critically examine secondary texts. As my students struggle to compare the way textbooks have treated historical events in Professor Ward’s History in the Making, or Reconstruction through the essays of Eric Foner or James and Lois Horton, they’ll find corroboration and contradiction. These conflicting accounts force students to account for these discrepancies by assessing each argument's strengths and weaknesses and develop their own interpretations of our past.
[1] Peter N. Stearns, Why Study History?, American Historical Association, https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/historical-archives/why-study-history-(1998)
[2] Samuel S. Wineburg, Why Learn History (When It’s Already on Your Phone), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018, 8.
