Michael Streich's Blog

Posted by Michael Streich

Almost every student assigned to write a semester paper, essay, or a short-term homework assignment typically begins “research” by accessing an internet search engine, typing in the topic or some key words. Invariably, page after page of articles appear but most students are satisfied to sift through only the first few pages of results.

Differentiating sources is not considered and, sadly, too many students cannot tell the difference between good articles and less-reputable ones. In some cases, students want articles that give them everything they need to fulfill the assignment, without realizing that in many cases, internet articles are limited by how many words may appear in that article.

Students using internet sources should ask several questions before using the pieces and listing them in a bibliography or a Works’ Cited page:

• Is there an author?
• If so, can it be determined whether the writer has expertise in writing the article?
• Is there a writer’s profile?
• Does the article give good sources?
• Does the article merely state facts or is there any analysis of the issue?
• Does the article provide links to similar information?

Article URL’s are often not enough to determine the validity of sources. URL’s containing “edu” or “org” may be a safer bet than self-published items on Tripod, yet students can still be misled by not fully reading the content. Students researching the rise of the American Whig Party, for example, have used information from articles addressing the British Whig Party. Similarly, students writing on the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation used material pertaining to the Emancipation Act passed by the House of Commons some thirty years earlier.

The bottom line is that students using web articles must adhere to the policies governing scholarly sources. A retired stock broker may be well qualified to write articles on investing, but may not have the professional background to expound on the motives of Hamlet or the intricacies of the Versailles Peace Treaty.

Internet articles will continue to be a good resource for students, especially as institutional libraries replace books and shelving with computer terminals and weed collections of works seldom checked out. Most students are far more comfortable gleaning materials from internet data bases and google searches. Toward that end, an entirely new instructional policy and guideline needs to be developed that teaches young researchers what kinds of sources are acceptable in a high school or undergraduate college assignment. This should not mean, however, that books should be ignored as sources in any writing assignment.

Posted by Michael Streich

Teaching American History often involves perpetuating myths and stories that, for a number of reasons, found their way into the annals of the nation's past. This includes the famous story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, Patrick Henry ending his passionate speech in the Virginia House of Burgesses with the line, "Give me liberty or give me death," and the long taught story that Columbus sailed across the Atlantic to prove that the earth was not flat. Sometimes, the myths are minor, such as the assertion that the surrendering British at Yorktown played the tune, "the World Turned Upside Down," a "fact" still mentioned in numerous high school and college level American history survey texts.

Another aspect of the problem is telling the whole story, even if it makes a hero look bad. Andrew Jackson is considered a great President who helped further the process of political participation, yet he hated Indians and forced thousands of Cherokee off of their legally held lands in a trek known as the Trail of Tears. During the darkest days of the American Revolution, George Washington had to deal with several mutinies, even executing a few ringleaders in the process. During the Mexican-American War, President Polk secretly bribed Santa Anna to return to Mexico and end the way in favor of huge land grants to the United States.

In contemporary experience, some Americans believe that the 2000 election was stolen from Al Gore by George Bush and the Supreme Court, yet those events pale in comparison to the "Stolen Election" of 1876 when Samuel Tilden should have been declared President.

Historical events, decisions, and propaganda bring out passionate emotions. There are those that firmly believe such stories are best left out. Others, however, are convinced that good history is a "thick description," a complete retelling of what really happened even if the facts blemish the national history.

The same can be said of other histories: how to treat the Crusades, answering the Holocaust deniers, etc. Thus, the question is, to what extent should the teaching of history contain both the good and the bad? What purposes are served in either situation?