Metacognitive Reading Report # 2

Trainee: Sañosa, Carl Angelo C. Date: 11/20/19

Philippine History/
Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
      
BEFORE USE THIS
DO NOT
COMPLETING TEMPLATE
PLAGIARIZE!
THIS FOR YOUR REVIEW
RESPOND TO
ASSESSMENT, FOLLOW ANSWER ANSWERS YOUR
THE PLAGIARISM
PLEASE READ THE IN BUT DO NOT WORK
REQUIREMEN IS A MAJOR
ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIO ESSAY LIMIT BEFORE
TS OF THE OFFENSE
INSTRUCTIONS NS. FORM. YOURSELF SUBMITTI
TASK. THAT LEADS
THOROUGHLY WITH THE NG IT.
TO
AND LINES
EXPULSION.
CAREFULLY. PROVIDED.

EVALUATION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

Topic/Lesson

1. Difficult Concepts (What concepts did you find difficult to understand?)

i. Things to consider when evaluating primary and secondary sources.
ii. How to find the key points upon evaluating primary and secondary sources
iii. How to properly evaluate primary and secondary sources

2. Insights (What new insights or learnings did you gain in discussion/ activity?)

i. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I thought – that the

way to evaluate a primary source is only based on its author. That if the
author experienced the event that he or she wrote about, that is a primary
source.

ii. However, reading the article/understanding the lesson, I now think/realize –

that there are six points of inquiries to evaluate the authenticity of a
primary source. First is the date, when was it produced? Second is the
localization, where did it originate? The authorship, who wrote it? Analysis,
what pre-existing material served as the basis for its production? The
integrity, what was its original form? And lastly, credibility, what is the
evidential value of its content? So, in we are able to answer or provide this
information within the source that we got, then we can consider it as a
primary source.

iii. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I thought - that

secondary sources are not that credible and has no use at all when it
comes to gathering data for a certain research being conducted.
 iv. However, reading the article/understanding the lesson, I now think/realize –
that Louis Gottschalk emphasized some use of secondary sources. That
these sources must be used for deriving the setting wherein the
contemporary evidence will fit in the grand narrative of history. The other
is for getting leads to other bibliographical data, and for acquiring
quotations form other sources. Now, when we use secondary sources
based on what Gottschalk emphasized, we can say that secondary sources
are also credible.

v. Before reading the article/understanding the lesson, I thought – that only

primary sources are considered credible when it comes to gathering data.

vi. However, reading the article/understanding the lesson, I now think/realize

-that both sources can be considered credible. It’s just based on how
you’re going to use the sources that you have gathered. Given this
statement, Howell and Prevenier identified seven factors to critically
evaluate any given source that you might get. First is the genealogy of the
document, if it is only a copy or the original one. The genesis of the
document, referes to the situations while the document is being published.
The originality of the document, refers to the nature of the document. The
interpretation, authorial authority, competence of the observer, and the
trustworthiness of the observer, all of these being observed and then
having answers of it, will surely consider your source credible whether it is
a primary or a secondary source.

3. Questions (What questions would you want answers for? Or vague areas you
want more explanations about?)
i. Why do some people tend to abolish secondary sources?
ii. why is it important to consider both sources?
iii. What are the benefits of having a credible source?

4. Clarification (What are the areas of the text that are still unclear to you?)
i. The reason for Gottschalk to emphasize areas for secondary sources.
ii. The seven factors for identifying a credible source.
iii. Essence of knowing all of this knowledge towards sources.