History

Common mistakes in working with sources

3 mistakes learners make with working with sources, each one named and explained.

All common mistakes

A source is evidence about the person who made it as much as about the event.

A person, event or term matched to the wrong one

What it looks like

A reform is credited to the wrong figure, or a term is given the wrong definition.

Why it happens

History is dense with names, dates and terms learned together, and neighbours in the list swap places.

A worked example

Question. Who led the campaign that won the vote for women in Britain?

A common answer. A figure from a different campaign

The answer. The suffrage campaigners, led by figures such as the Pankhursts

Why. Attribution matters: the claim is about who did what, so the wrong name makes the whole sentence false.

Put the two side by side

A famous name from the right period may still be the wrong one.
The right name is the one tied to that campaign.

Tie each name to the one thing it is known for.

A source trusted because of what kind of thing it is

What it looks like

A photograph or an official report is called reliable simply because it is a photograph or official.

Why it happens

Some kinds of source feel factual by nature, so the question of who made it and why never gets asked.

A worked example

Question. Why might an official government report on a battle be unreliable?

A common answer. It is official, so it is reliable

The answer. It was written by a side that wanted to look successful

Why. Reliability comes from who made a source, when, and for whom, not from the form it takes. An official report can be the most motivated source of all.

Put the two side by side

The form of a source tells you nothing on its own.
The purpose behind a source tells you how to read it.

Ask who made this, when, and what they wanted it to do.

The content used without the provenance

What it looks like

A source is judged only by what it says, with no use made of its date, author or audience.

Why it happens

The words are right there on the page and the small print above them looks like labelling rather than evidence.

A worked example

Question. A diary entry from 1940 describes high morale. How should it be used?

A common answer. As proof that morale was high

The answer. As evidence of what one person recorded at the time, read alongside who they were

Why. The provenance is part of the evidence. A private diary, an official broadcast and a foreign newspaper say different things even when the words match.

Put the two side by side

Content alone gives you a claim.
Content plus provenance gives you evidence.

Read the attribution before the extract, and use it in the answer.

WAJD spots these patterns in your child's answers and names the one behind their wrong answers, instead of just marking them wrong.

More history topics