Why Don't You Just Tell Us the Answer? - Ch. 3

Using the Rail Strike of 1877 to Teach Chronological Thinking and Causality

In order to fully understand chronology, students must also understand causality.#sschatreads #sschat pic.twitter.com/XuwfXCyeTK

— Carlene Baurichter (@MrsBaurichter) July 31, 2018

The Importance of Chronology

In Chapter 3, Lesh discusses the importance of chronology in teaching history. More importantly, instead of simply teaching the order in which events happen, we must make sure to help students make connections concerning the causality that links various events together. It's no use knowing what happens directly after an event if we can't make a connection as to why it is happening, instead of a different result.

Using Original Documents vs. Transcribed Documents

Lesh does mention the virtues of using images of original documents during historical investigations, but he makes a more important point: "These same yellowing documents, with their archaic and sometimes misspelled words, can turn a good historical investigation into a battle with students who shut down because of the language or readability of a source" (Lesh, 85). If students can't read the source, they won't be able to conduct the investigation. As a result, Lesh suggests that including an image of the original source is beneficial, but transcribing the source and retyping it can help students reach the intended goal: comprehending the primary source and being able to use it as historical evidence in their historical investigation.

Chronology Doesn't Work Alone

Lesh also warns against teaching students to read documents in chronological order.

"Chronology, when developed by historians, is not simply placing documents in chronological order, but making determinations about relationships among information contained within a historical source and then using that information to craft an accurate telling of the event. Just because a document is dated later than the others dos not mean that the information does not inform an earlier telling of the event" (Lesh, 89-90).

Just because a document was written after another document doesn't mean that it won't help explain causation, or other information that could be needed to set a foundation for the investigation.

Source Credibility Over Time

Lesh makes it clear that "time does not destroy the utility of a source to a given problem" (Lesh, 91). I am guilty of telling my students that "memory fades over time, so beware of memoirs," but Lesh makes a valid point here. Memoirs and sources written years after a historical event might distort the facts a bit, but they are still useful resources to give us a glimpse into the past. Some sources written long after the fact can be even better than a source written the day an event happened because they can "present a broader view of an issue, depoliticize it, or deepen its political value." That's an excellent point! Someone writing the day of might be very emotional about the event, but in reflecting years later might have a level head about what actually happened and why it is important. We can also see how the event has created an impact if we examine the thoughts of its participants years later.