How to check your sources… Campfire’s stance on sourcing…
This guide explains Campfire’s approach to sourcing educational materials. While this primarily applies to textbooks and school curricula, the same principles apply to history, news, biographies, and other sources. When is it okay to use certain sources, and when is it not? What is wrong with encyclopedias? Should you use History.com or other similar sources? What are validated secondary sources vs. tertiary sources? All your questions are addressed below!
WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE TEXTBOOKS DON’T LIST ANY SOURCES? **THIS IS KEY FOR THE REST OF THE QUESTIONS**
WHAT ABOUT USING NEWS SOURCES FOR CURRENT EVENTS?
WHAT ABOUT USING NEWS SOURCES TO SHOW CONTRASTING OPINIONS?
WHAT ABOUT USING NEWS SOURCES FROM HISTORY?
BUT AREN’T PRIMARY SOURCES WRONG, A LOT OF TIMES?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH ENCYCLOPEDIAS?
WHAT ARE GOOD PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES THEN?
BUT MY SCHOOL GROWING UP TAUGHT ME FLAWED HISTORY! SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?!
BUT AREN’T .GOV AND .EDU LIBERAL AND PROGRESSIVE? WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE KINDS OF SOURCES?
WHY DO THEY ALL LIST IT DIFFERENTLY, AND WHAT ABOUT…..?
WHAT ABOUT WHEN THE TEXTBOOKS DON’T LIST ANY SOURCES? ARE THEY STILL GOOD TO USE?
NO SOURCES LISTED!
You might find when you use certain curricula, some of them don’t even list sources in the back of the book or anywhere else. Why is this? This is because there are a few different kinds of curricula.
1 – Experts: Professionals in the field can do the writing in certain textbooks. For example, this would include an actual chemist (or chemists) creating a textbook on chemistry. The sources are not listed, but the authors’ names and possibly credentials are. It would be like going to a mechanic and asking, “What is a timing belt?” or “What is power steering fluid?” You trust what he or she tells you because they are the expert.
2 – Independent Publishers: Independent publishers of curriculum who are not experts include their sources for verification (just like you would expect your neighbor to do if he was writing a mechanic’s book, and he wasn’t a mechanic).
3 – Independent Publishers with Expert Contribution: This is Campfire’s approach. Since experts are consulted and job shadowed but do not directly write the curriculum, they do not qualify as primary sources. Therefore, additional primary or secondary sources must be cited to ensure accuracy.
ANOTHER POSSIBILITY:
Another possibility is that the textbook or curriculum is published through an official publisher (which is supposed to have extremely stringent quality control). These may not be written by experts (often, they aren’t), nor do they always include their sources. However, they have the stamp of the publishing company.
HERE IS THE ANALOGY THAT HELPS:
If Chevy or Ford comes out with a new truck, consumers generally don’t quiz them on every part’s origin. Consumers trust because it’s a professional company that goes through a lot of quality control. Now, one might laugh a bit and say, “Chevy is awful! I’ll never buy a Chevy. Their engines are …” Another might say, “I love Chevy! They are the greatest vehicles ever built!” Still, most don’t question who put the trucks together or if they are going to break in half as you drive down the road. Is it possible? Yes. But not as likely with a well-vetted company.
On the contrary, if someone from your neighborhood began making his own vehicles and selling them independently without any oversight, consumers need to ask more questions. “How did you make sure XYZ was safe? What did you use for the brakes? Where did you get the brake pads?” In this instance, the person needs to detail it all.
WHAT ABOUT USING NEWS SOURCES FOR CURRENT EVENTS?
This is okay! In this instance, such sources be used as primary (with potential bias).
Example: The news discussing different mask mandates or reporting on the active shooting that is happening. That is a current event, and as such, it is appropriate to use (weighing bias). It is important, however, to verify that these sources are actually being used for current events and not just presumed to be.
For example, if there is a lesson that is teaching on former President George W. Bush and weapons of mass destruction (a matter of debate in history, and a large part of historical conversation), what kind of source should one want to use? The answer is typically primary sources or validated secondary sources–the actual government documents, presidential claims (speeches), reports that compare/contrast the two sides (official reports from the declassified documents) and the like.
On the contrary, one should not want to use a blog post from an opinion blogger (not a historian) years after the event, in 2015. If an opinion blogger wrote, How George Bush Discovered Weapons of Mass Destruction Years Ago, then this is not an appropriate source to use for educational material, as it is rather merely an opinion blogger writing his “facts” and interpretations of the past. That is not an accurate source for a history book re-telling history and teaching it to children. This is an individual with an opinion.
Some curriculum lists news sources, and it can be difficult to decipher in what context. If you believe news sources are only used for current events, you can do a simple check. Go into the lesson or part of the book you are referencing and see what it’s teaching. Is it teaching on a current event , or is it more like the scenario above where it is teaching about a historical event?
Is the lesson teaching on the past Cold War? World War I? The ins and outs of the Persian Gulf War? The beginning of the Civil War? The timeline of the Earthquake in Nepal? Columbine? Or is it teaching on a truly current event? This is what can determine if a news source is appropriate for a reference.
WHAT ABOUT USING NEWS SOURCES TO SHOW CONTRASTING OPINIONS?
This is also okay! Usually, you would use a liberal-leaning source and a conservative-leaning source to compare and contrast.
However, this is not always what occurs in some curriculum. As parents, you may want to check to see if the news source is actually being used in a proper way. For example, we have shockingly seen paragraphs similar to the following, with a single news channel listed as the only “source.”
A lot of people thought that President Kennedy was not fit to be a president because of suspicions with Marilyn Monroe. First, he did this. Then he did that. Then, his senior advisor told him “[Direct Quote here]” which he ignored and did XYZ instead. After all of this, the court system decided XYZ, and this was the ultimate outcome.
This is an example of a paragraph that is not utilized for opinion or contrasting views. Rather, it was used to support the retelling of historical events. The very first sentence shows an opinion about whether some people felt he’d still make a good president. However, the rest of the paragraph is filled with different facts: first he did this, then he did that... Those are sentences used to detail the events of what happened, which is not appropriate sourcing in this context.
Compare with this kind of a paragraph:
A lot of people thought that President Kennedy was not fit to be a president because of suspicions with Marilyn Monroe. A few people said they thought he might have been doing XYZ. Others argued the point and said he wasn’t doing anything wrong. It caused a lot of debate in the White House!
The latter paragraph is an “opinion” paragraph, showing different opinions. In this instance, different news articles would be appropriate to show conflicting viewpoints.
WHAT ABOUT USING NEWS SOURCES FROM HISTORY OR PAST?
This is okay, too! In this instance they can be used as a primary source. For example, if a journalist was present during a prior tragic active shooting and immediately filmed the heartbreaking aftermath (or detailed it as it happened), the journalist is considered a first-hand witness. Or, for example, a news reporter in Nepal during an earthquake can write down what happened, as it happened. The date of their news report matches the timing of the event, so this is acceptable (still weighing potential bias). This is why news articles from the 1600s are often considered primary sources, as you can see what happened that week in history. It’s a “timestamp in history.” This is far different than a journalist today writing an article about “What happened in the 1600s” from his or her opinion of the facts.
Consider, however, that there may be mistakes in the source itself. For example, a newspaper initially reported that every passenger on the Titanic died,. While this was written at the right time (as the tragedy happened) the source still includes inaccurate statements. So, educational resources need to cross-reference other sources.
BUT AREN’T PRIMARY SOURCES STILL A LOT OF TIMES?
YES! Primary sources are things like testimonies of eye-witnesses at a crime scene or journals of men who lived though an event. Or, they could be artifacts that were present at the time (old pottery that existed in that time period). Validated secondary sources are one step removed. Imagine a detective studying a cold case or an expert in pottery who analyzes the finding.
How can primary sources be wrong? Imagine the Titanic… the primary sources would include the survivors’ testimony. Still, one must acknowledge that the survivor’s testimonies often conflicted.
Even so, the survivors are still some of the primary sources and the best to reference because they were there. Even if you have to acknowledge the discrepancies from one person to the next, they get you the closest you can possibly be to the truth.
To prioritize tertiary over primary sources is like ignoring the survivors’ testimony and asking their aunt’s friend’s brother’s grandma’s opinion on what the survivor said happened, instead.
Likewise, if the data is shaky to begin with (such as conflicting testimony), the last thing you want to do is use a lesser source.
Primary doesn’t mean it’s going to be telling the whole truth. It means it’s the closest thing you have to what happened. Thankfully, many primary sources are confirmed by other primary sources (which is very helpful!). On the contrary, news sources, social media (or gossip) can come along and twist it all up. That’s why it’s important to first go to the primary source whenever possible. Secondary should be used, if not.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ENCYCLOPEDIAS?
Nothing, when they are utilized appropriately. However, they should not be the foundation or sole support of any curriculum, as we have seen happen. Below, we have provided a few statements from colleges that share the same sentiment of many other reputable colleges and universities.
– University of Winnepeg
– The College of New Jersey
– The College of New Jersey (con’t)
– The College of New Jersey (con’t)
– SE State College
-Southern New Hampshire University
– West Sound Academy
If an educational resource uses an encyclopedia as a “starting point” then parents should check the other supporting sources and see if well-rounded research was truly completed. Side note: every once in a while, you might find an encyclopedia article written by a primary source! This is rare, but it does happen. The same could even be true with Wikipedia!
Side note on books: Be mindful… if a curriculum lists a particular “book” as a source, it does not automatically mean it’s official. In some instances, we have even seen high school curriculum with the following listed as the “source” for the lesson:
- An enjoyable read-aloud for elementary students was used as a source for the life of Christopher Columbus.
- A chapter book for 3rd graders was used to share the details of George Washington (and the facts within the high school curriculum were incorrect as a result).
- A mystery writers (not historians) who propagated a “what if” theory in a book, and the work was used to write the curricula facts, as if it was a primary sources.
WHAT ABOUT HISTORY. COM?
History. com is considered an entertainment source by many. Here are some screenshots:
.
WHAT ARE GOOD PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES, THEN?
Some good primary sources would be things like the actual declassified documents, or the actual investigation report. Here is a screen shot of some other ideas:
Secondary sources are also valuable! Secondary sources are one step removed from primary sources, but they often quote or directly reference primary sources. Imagine a group of scholars discussing what an artifact means or says. The scholars write an article about their findings, and now the artifact can make sense to everyone else. The scholars are not the primary source (the artifact is), but their article is almost more valuable because they are able to provide precious insight. Sometimes, they are still considered a primary source, where others call them a secondary source. In any case, when validating any secondary sources, educational materials should be sure to pick ones that can be confirmed by others, as well. For example, a “documentary” is something that is allowed, but documentaries from entertainment sources (such as from history . com) are different than documentaries put together by actual historians. These are just a couple of many examples.
Secondary sources can also be things like textbooks, books and articles that carefully review or interpret research works, biographies, literary criticism, political analysis, etc. In other words, secondary sources offer analysis of primary sources.
Side note: many inaccurately presume that anything ending in “.org” is a reliable secondary source. Please be mindful that anyone can create a “.org.” Even Wikipedia is .org. Any activist, opinionated person, or group of people in any movement can create a “.org.”
WHAT ABOUT SINGULAR ERRORS?
We have always believed that all curricula, books, historical references, and more will have errors. That includes our own. It happens. The difference to ask yourself, if you ever feel concerned, is this: “Is this a single error because it was a typo or an accidental misunderstanding?” OR, “Are there multiple errors in content as a result of a bigger sourcing issue?”
Does the creator of a product make every attempt to be as accurate as possible with the most official sources that can be found? That’s what parents should be seeking.
BUT MY PUBLIC SCHOOL TAUGHT ME INCORRECT THINGS, TOO! WE HEAR THIS FROM PARENTS WHO SAY SOURCING ISN’T IMPORTANT. OUR RESPONSE:
1) It’s going to happen. That doesn’t mean one should embrace inaccuracies, just because someone else did it before.
2) Isn’t that one of the reasons why we homeschool? Don’t we want something better than what we had?
.
BUT AREN’T .GOV AND .EDU LIBERAL?
We should make it clear: .gov and .edu are not always primary sources. In fact, .edu is frequently a secondary source and sometimes neither primary nor secondary. Campfire does not believe that “.gov” and “.edu” are the only sources that should be used. So why is it sometimes better for a curriculum to use more “.gov” or “.edu” when verifying data in a curriculum?
Let’s answer the question with a question:
What would you rather between the following:
- A .gov site (such as the official congressional document or the military’s official stance on something) and .edu (the actual scientists’ research that contributed to NASA’s space report) ….OR…
- CNN? NPR? The New York Times?
In reality, they could all be sharing a progressive perspective, depending on the topic. Still, one is more authoritative and official than the other.
We personally aren’t always going to agree with the sentiment of “primary sources.” For example, when we job shadowed our volcanologists, most of them were of the belief that the Bible wasn’t real and that God did not create the world. Obviously, for this purpose, we did not include their ideologies that dealt with that topic as if it was factual within the lessons. However, they are still where we begin our questions for “What kind of a volcano is this?” and “How is a pahoehoe lava flow different than an ‘a’a lava flow?”
WHY DO THEY ALL LIST IT DIFFERENTLY?
As we explained in the very first point of this post, a lot of curricula lists their sources differently.
- Some don’t list anything at the end or beginning of their textbook.
- Some do it all throughout (for example, as you come upon a historical document, they might include an image or description of it and a tiny memo in the bottom of where the information came from).
- Some detail every single reference (from ‘water is wet’ to ‘air has weight’).
- Others merely tell you that ALL information can be verified and proven true via NOAA.gov with some key terms.
- Some have experts as the authors; some have homeschool parents. Etc….
Each curriculum does it differently. Generally, as a rule of thumb, we recommend checking the overall types of sources used throughout. Where do they want you to fact check or where are most of their sources derived?
There are always going to be problems with everything out there–from primary sources to secondary to tertiary and more. There is nothing that is perfect in this world. There is only a standard which is usually followed in the world of academia.
Where are our sources listed:
On our LINKS pages for the units, enabling parents do look into the information themselves! While we personally get our initial information from the experts directly, they are our launching pad and not our cited sources. Rather, after job shadowing, we do further extensive research and find additional primary and secondary sources that can be directly verified by customers at home.