MedVision ad

Reliability of Sources? (1 Viewer)

Skitit

New Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
1
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
I lose all my test marks in reliability questions. I've been practicing lots of different types but I was wondering if anyone had some tips (or even a checklist?) to answer these questions well?
 

cem

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
2,438
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
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.
 

Kittikhun

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
615
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
What's wrong with a teacher on this site? She's very helpful and she's even, in a way, offering free online tutoring!
 

Eduard_Khil

CASIO fx-82ES PLUS
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
157
Location
NSW
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
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
 

saints123

New Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2011
Messages
18
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
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)
 

enoilgam

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
11,904
Location
Mare Crisium
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
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.
 

cem

Premium Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2005
Messages
2,438
Location
Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
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
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top