Research School Network: Reading like a historian Dom Bell considers the fundamental difference in how pupils read history compared with other disciplines.

History is special.

It’s what all historians like to think about the subject, and it’s true. It is different to Maths, English, Geography and the Social Sciences. As a result, historians think differently to those who study other disciplines. As a result, historians read differently to those who study other disciplines.

I don’t just mean this in the idea that we read different forms of text, but of course this is true too. In fact, the whole way that a historian approaches their texts is different to the way that every other discipline does so.

Collectively we want our students to work as historians and therefore it is not too much of a leap to suggest that we should encourage our students to read like historians. This idea is at the heart of disciplinary literacy.

The question now becomes, how do historians read?

How do historians read?

According to Wineburg (2001):

In essence, Wineburg characterises historical reading as coming from a place of mistrust. This much feels obvious. When reading historical sources, I find myself constantly interrogating them rather than purely reading:

• ‘What has this person got to gain from writing this?’
• ‘What is the author’s background?’
• ‘What was happening elsewhere when this person formed this source?’

I’ve always felt that I’ve trained myself to do this when teaching source work too. My first instinct was to suggest that my students do read like historians. However, when reading Bain (2005) and Wineburg (1998) I came to realise that in a lot of instances:

Upon reflection I realised that yes I do want my students to interrogate sources but often when this is my sole intention. When I’m supporting students in writing an 8 mark GCSE source analysis question I do encourage these students to read in this manner. But is this because it’s part of the discipline or is this in order to pass an exam?

Models on reading history

Diving into disciplinary literacy in history has led me to a model on how historians do read. The work of Shanahan, Shanahan & Misischia. In their work the following 3‑part model has been suggested to read like a historian:

• Step 1– Sourcing. Identifying who made the text and using this to interrogate the content.
• Step 2 – Contextualisation. In what context was the text created and how might this impact its content.
• Step 3 – Corroboration. Using a wide range of information and other pieces of text to interrogate the text even further.

This was a light bulb moment. As historians we start with the author and go from there.

This is the fundamental difference between reading history and reading in other disciplines. The author and the context are absolutely paramount. Only when beginning with this can we lead our students to read in a manner that is truly disciplinary.