Assignment 1. Metacognitive Reading Report no.

Name: Nichole Ann Z. Zalzos Section: GED103-A9

Unit 1: Distinction of Primary and Secondary Sources

Readings:

1. Gottschalk, Louis (1969). Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method.

New York: A.A. Knopf, pp. 41-‐ 61 and pp. 117-‐170.

2. Howell, Martha and Prevenier, Walter (2001). From Reliable Sources: An

Introduction to Historical Methods. New York: Cornell University Press, pp. 17-‐68.

m
er as
Answer the following questions:

co
1. Three (3) things that I significantly learned from the readings

eH w
o.
 After reading the Chapter III of the book Understanding History: A Primer of Historical
rs e
Method, I have had a more in-depth understanding about the definition of history. There
ou urc
are certain meanings that can be derived from objects that have survived from the past.
Examples are a manuscript, coin, painting, portrait or book. Though these items are not
o

the exact happening in the past, if studied well, we could grasp what has occurred or how
was the way of living before. Unfortunately, not all relicts are saved as time passed, some
aC s
vi y re

remained incomplete, broken or lost its parts. The lack of further evidence made it harder
to understand its connection to the people. Most of the human affairs have occurred
without leaving any record or trace. This gave me a thought that what we know now
about the past must only be a small part of what has occurred. Our generation has a
ed d

bigger chance of gaining more records than the previous generations due to the advanced
ar stu

technology that we have today. In just a mere click, we are able to record even the
simplest happening in our life.
is

 After reading the Chapter VI of the book Understanding History: A Primer of Historical
Th

Method, I have significantly learnt that in history, there had been problems regarding
authenticity or external criticism. It is plausible that documents from the past ware
already tampered by people whom liked to twist the truth for their own liking. In fact, as
sh

according to Gottschalk, fabricated documents are not rare to encounter. This made
historians more careful and constant in maintaining that only relevant parts with in the
documents remain. When the documents are considered as a whole, there is a higher
chance of invalid facts are notes. Based on the book, calling something credible is not
what has exactly happened in the past but something that is close to what has happened.

This study source was downloaded by 100000826598790 from CourseHero.com on 06-06-2021 08:14:02 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/39421574/GED103-MRR-1docx/
 The historical fact may have come directly or indirectly from the records. Various tests
are done before the information is fully considered as credible.

 After reading Howell and Prevenier’s From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to

Historical Methods, I have significantly learned that the historians do not fully rely on the
written sources in order to gain knowledge. They also put in account the oral sources
available. Most scholars today use a mixture of written, oral and other material sources
that is required and needed. As time progressed, man was able to produce devices such as
cameras and recorders that gave birth to photographs and films. Technology became a
breakthrough in understanding the history because it gave us a way of gaining more
sources of evidences. Photographs, films and voice records are a more realistic source
than those that were drawn or painted. With all the records available, they must all
complement each other before it shall be considered as strong evidence.

m
er as
co
2. Three (3) things that are still unclear to me

eH w
 The first thing that is still unclear on my part is the fact that the forged documents were

o.
rs e
able to get through without an official noticing.
ou urc
 The second thing that is still unclear on my part is that during the nineteenth century, why
did the government south to limit the press’s potentially subversive character?
o
aC s

 The last thing that is still unclear on my part is how did the U.S. press demonstrate how
vi y re

easily they could abdicate their responsibility?

ed d

3. I used to think that…

ar stu

 I have always thought that the documents, records and files from the past shall be a solid
proof of the history. Now after conducting some readings, I have learnt that not all
is

sources are credible enough to use. It is possible that there had been occurrences that
people tampered with the documents. Twisting the past into their liking. That is why the
Th

historians and other specialists try their best to choose the sources wisely. They have to
conduct various tests before arriving to the conclusion that the information that they have
gathered are properly labeled as evidence for a historical fast. Those records which were
sh

widely accepted are now seen in places such as an archive, museum, library or any
research site where they are preserved. As time passed, various sources of information
have emerged with the help of modern technology. Our generation has a higher chance of
gaining more solid evidences of what has or is occurring in our time.

This study source was downloaded by 100000826598790 from CourseHero.com on 06-06-2021 08:14:02 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/39421574/GED103-MRR-1docx/
 4. Three (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings

 Since there had been authenticity problems with the documents of the past, is it possible
that some of it had been overlooked by the specialists and are currently used as a source
of information?

 If proven so, how will the historians or government handle the concern?

 How can we know the relationship of a certain relict from the past to the people of that
time?

m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000826598790 from CourseHero.com on 06-06-2021 08:14:02 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/39421574/GED103-MRR-1docx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)