Primary Sources in History: Breaking through the Myths

Abstract

Using primary sources in history classes is all the rage. But if teachers are not reflective about the best use of such materials, they may engage students in exercises that are neither historically nor instructionally sound. Mr. Barton points out common misconceptions about primary sources and suggests ways to maximize their educational potential. VISUALIZE the following classroom scene. Students walk into history class and pull out packets of primary sources -- or, in a more technologically advanced school, they log on to a collection of digitally archived documents. History books are used only for reference, and lectures are virtually absent. Instead, the students work in small groups to analyze each source and evaluate its reliability -- determining its argument, establishing who created it and when, and identifying the bias of the author. Later, they compare sources and reach conclusions about the events or time periods portrayed, and they discuss reasons for their differing interpretations. Sounds like good history instruction, doesn't it? Well, not necessarily. For over a decade, I have suggested, along with many other historians and educators, that teachers make use of primary sources as an alternative to lectures, textbooks, and worksheets. Although such recommendations are nothing new, they have recently begun to attract a larger following. Primary sources can be found on tests, in commercially available packets, in archives on the Internet, and even in textbooks. Many teachers use these resources in inspiring and intellectually rigorous ways. Researchers in social studies and educational psychology, meanwhile, have investigated how students (and teachers) make sense of such sources. Thus, even if their use is not as widespread as many reformers would like, primary sources clearly are the order of the day. Unfortunately, the use of primary sources in each of these settings often reveals fundamental misconceptions about history. In some cases, scholars who have little experience with historical methods appear to be passing along mistaken ideas about what historians do. In other cases, the use of primary sources seems to be driven less by a concern with historical authenticity than by demands for standards and accountability. The misunderstandings that arise from these practices, if not addressed, will result in classroom procedures that are not only inauthentic but irrelevant and ineffective. The following are seven common beliefs about primary sources. Some have been stated directly, either in academic manuscripts or in books and articles for teachers; others may not have been articulated so explicitly, but they nonetheless represent underlying assumptions of those who define the curriculum or of other educators. But each one is a myth. Myth 1. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources. Perhaps this is not the most common belief about primary sources, but it is surely the most ridiculous. Because primary sources were created during the period under study or by witnesses to historical events, some people believe that they provide direct insight into the past and have greater authenticity than later accounts. Secondary sources, in this view, are corruptions of the originals and are prone to successive layers of error and bias. Some children hold exactly this view. They think we know about the past through oral stories that have been handed down over the generations, and each transmission introduces a new round of mistakes, just as in the game of telephone.1 Few educators would entertain this misconception, yet they may believe that primary sources retain a purity that makes them more reliable than secondary accounts. However, primary sources are created for a variety of reasons, and some of those reasons have nothing to do with objectivity. Sometimes primary sources represent narrow or partisan perspectives; sometimes they were created intentionally to deceive. …