1. Roehampton Site Usage, Students’ interviews and extracts from forums abbattia@roehampton.ac.uk a.messer@roehampton.ac.uk

2. Students enrolled on the site 63 Independent History Research Project Module

3. How frequently have students viewed the site?

4. Actions

5. Week I: Introduction to studying history at University

6. Week II: Conducting independent research – what sort of questions do historian ask?

7. Week III: Conducting independent research – finding and analysing primary sources

8. Week IV: Conducting independent research – using academic scholarship

9. Resources

10. Comparison between the two iterations: total site views

11. Students’ interviews Students said to have found it easier to use Mahara and the Moodle site than they expected. They enthusiastically engaged with discussion boards discussions. It is “what we have to do”, but also they found it interesting to see what others think. They considered the quizzes the most interesting and stimulating activity. They also valued as useful the involvement of PhD students.

12. Research questions forum briefing This is the discussion forum for the task on research questions. Please look at question 6. on the research questions quiz. Which two questions do you think are the best questions for a historian to ask of this source? Explain why you have chosen those two answers on the forum. Remember - you should post your response to the task above, a reply to a comment on your response, and comment on another student's response. It's ok just to say that you agree with someone's post or that you find their comment interesting! You might find it helpful to revisit the lecture slides or view Arthur Chapman's video (displayed in the session box) before posting. The forum will be open across week 2.

13. First of all, on the historian quiz, my result was an empiricist historian. I do agree that I am similar to this, I take bias strongly into account when looking at sources and tend to have trouble putting facts together when there is any form of strong bias, even though bias is always evident, I believe primary sources will always give an true and more trustworthy account of the events of the past. Now, I believe that questions D and E are the best out of all the questions to ask a historian. First of all, both give one the ability to conduct a strong argument and eventually reached a methodical hypothesis. Question A is too subjective and where all the other questions are ones which perhaps an ordinary member of the public may ask for self interest, the last two are ones which incline the most historical significance. … Finally, the first few questions are quite personal questions, meaning its more how that one individual may feel on such a controversial subject rather than what history may view it as. Question C is even dipping into conspiracy theorist territory, which, in my view, should not get confused with history. …

14. Thanks for your response B - good points here. On bias, as discussed in today's class, while it is something to be aware of, it doesn't determine the significance of sources on its own. In the case of some branches of historical enquiry, it would be impossible to write their history without making use of biased sources (the history of propaganda, for example). Often, academic historians work with the bias in primary sources to explore something of historical significance - how people at the time viewed the world around them. Often that world view might not correspond to what we see as being 'real' today or to what we know about - say- the actual causes of certain events but it is historically significant because that world view can tell us why people reacted in a certain way to certain events.

15. As has already been stated by the others, the ideal questions relating to source 6 would be questions D and E. …unlike questions A and B they are not based on a moral premise, … Question C is not greatly related to the source itself and like questions A and B it is not a question that can be “proved” (In a sense that with the evidence we have at our disposal we cannot make an informed judgement on the question) – which means therefore like A and B it is a question that is subjective to the individual and open to bias.... By elimination of questions that we can classify as “bad questions” we are left with the questions D and E – both these questions are relevant to the source at hand... Question D the better of the two questions in my opinion because it asks us to look at how America’s global self-image went through a process of change as a result of the attack on the WTC which can be classified as a question of causal significance … From the historian quiz I got the result – Empiricist Historian, after reading the definition I agree that the way in which empiricist historians analyse history is most similar to me. S - thanks for your thoughtful comments. Yes, D and E involve questions of historical significance, addressing causal, symbolic and contemporary significance.

16. I believe D and E are the best questions because both are specific, compared to the other three questions which are broad. D and E are also open to debate and varying and differing views can be explored. They have testable hypothesis and there is also evidence that can be used to justify answers to these questions. For example, you can talk about how the world trade centre was seen before the attacks, how the news presented its destruction and how magazines, like the source presented, reported the event with headlines like "America Under Attack" Questions A, B and C whilst interesting are not good historical questions as they are too broad and contain political and moral prejudices. They invite people to make personal judgements which are not relevant for a historical inquiry and may affect answers to the question. They are also controversial, and are near impossible to answer due to their, as mentioned, broad nature but also the fact that you wouldn't really be able to come up with a definite answer. Therefore I believe questions D and E are the best historical questions for the source presented.

17. B, thank you for your comments.... I'd just like to take up one point that you make - that one problem with A to C is that you wouldn't be able to come up with a 'definite' answer … I think the problem with these questions is rather that that you would not be able to come up with an answer that could be supported with empirical evidence. This is different from a definite or definitive answer. Actually, most academic history books and articles feature conclusions which tend to be qualified and nuanced rather than definite. The reason for this is that academic historians moderate their arguments in light of counter- arguments and pieces of evidence which do not appear to support their thesis. They also acknowledge gaps in evidence which may leave elements of their conclusions unproven/speculative in nature. Arthur Chapman's video in the week 2 block picks up on how this influences the language that historians use delivering their conclusions - use of qualifying words and phrases ('while', 'although', 'as far as', 'to some extent' etc. etc.) It's worth taking a look at that video if you haven't already. So the lack of a definite answer doesn't necessarily indicate a bad historical argument. However, a question which cannot be answered through the analysis of evidence is not a good historical question.

18. As has been established by more or less all of the participants so far, I feel that questions (d.) and (e.) are the most obvious options to go for - (d.) being the superior of the two as it is more concise. In contrast to questions (a.) and (b.)'s moral subjectivity, this question is far more objective and appropriate for the task in hand, as the transformation of 'self image' is more easily defined and quantified compared to labels such as 'good' or 'deserving', and is also much more direct and relevant to the source than question (c.) as we can at least attempt to answer it to an extent as it does indeed portray an 'image' of America which was projected globally via the media; this cannot be done within the third source as the image gives no indication to the causation of the attack, therefore we cannot imply that the attack existed but its origins were faked - the only other alternative being that the entire attack never existed, which given that we have photographic evidence, is highly unlikely. The reason for my choosing (d.) over (e.) was partly stated by M, in order to include this source in answering such a question would rely heavily on the assumption that the 'War on Terror' was a direct result of the attack, which may not be the case as I'm sure there were other contributing factors. …