Metacognitive Reading Report no. 1
Name: De Guzman, Janna U.
Section: A16
Instructions: Read the referenced readings and accomplish the reading report:
Readings:


Gottschalk, L. (1969). Understanding history: A primer of historical method (pp. 4161, 117-170). New York, NY: A. A.
Howell, M. & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources: An introduction to
historical methods (pp. 17-68). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
1. The three (3) things that I significantly learned from the readings are:
o
o
o
I learned that – Historians write about the past using sources. Sources can either
be an artifact or a testimony. A testimony is something that describes an event,
usually oral or written. An artifact that exist as a relic, or what we may call
“remains”, is used by historians to further study about their culture, technical
skills and artistic capacities.
I learned that – Testimonies and artifacts are not created intentionally to serve
as records. Some are created for some other purpose entirely. Intentional and
unintentional sources are used by scholars in order to create their own
depiction of the past.
I learned that – Historical knowledge is limited. Historians can only study what is
still present now, such as testimonies or relics. Not everything from the past
survived and was recorded. Also, not every source is reliable. Therefore, it
results in having limited knowledge about the history of the past.
2. The three (3) things that are still unclear to me are:
o
o
o
Imagination in Historiography – In my opinion using your imagination to depict
the past is contradictory to the historical method wherein you critically analyze
and examine the authenticity of sources and artifacts.
Certitude vs Certainty – The concept of certitude and certainty is still unclear
to me because it was not discussed and elaborated in the reading material.
Also, there were no concrete example for me to fully understand what the
difference between certainty and certitude is.
Difference between Primary and Original Sources – I didn’t quite understand
the different between primary and original sources. More concrete examples
could be helpful in emphasizing the different between different sources.
3. I used to think that:
I used to think that oral evidences are not credible because there are lots
of ways to alter or change the original source. Oral evidences may have a
different meaning when translated to other language, thus changing the
evidence entirely. But upon reading the article, I learned that oral evidences are
also important sources for historians because most of historians’ knowledge about
prehistoric times is based on the oral record.
4. The three (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings are:
o What if a source from the past was not authentic and yet was still used by
scholars and historians?
o How can an oral evidence be credible if some of the evidences were not
permanently recorded, and most of the sources come from the very distant
past and may possibly been influenced in different periods?
o What will happen if a document or material was altered in the process of
restoring it?