Citation: Shopkow, Leah. “How Many Sources Do I Need?” (The History Teacher 50, no. 2
(February 2017): 169-200. http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/.)

In this piece, Leah Shopkow addresses what is likely the second most common question (after “how long should it be?”) that undergraduate students taking a history course ask their professors. Although the ideal answer to the question would be to use however many sources you need to support your argument, Shopkow understands that this answer is not at all a satisfying answer, particularly for students who are not history majors themselves. In fact, Shopkow found
that their writing actually turned out more muddied and disconnected when they used a large number of sources. With these problems in mind, she decided to experiment with her classes and figure out which numbers gave the best results.

Shopkow first tested whether or not three sources was enough. Admittedly, I was
pessimistic about the results; I assumed that such a low number would lead to very poorly sourced writing and spurious connections and conclusions. However, the results were far more interesting. Shopkow found that students showed a much stronger ability to connect their sources and use them more judiciously. With less noise to distract them, the students found it easier to
make connections and critically analyze the material. The citations were more spread out among the articles rather than presented linearly, suggesting that they worked fluidly with the source material. The results were not perfect; however. From the teacher’s point of view, three sources is just not satisfying. For even junior courses, choosing just three sources was not challenging enough (too easy, in other words). Students also continued to use irrelevant and poor sources,
and having just three to work with made recovering from this mistake very difficult.

Shopkow then changed the course to allow for six sources, with the hope that it would find a happy medium between three and “however many.” There was an extremely important note to her rule: six was merely sufficient, students could use more if they desired. This system seemed to work well for history and non-history majors alike while keeping intact the goal of
giving students the ability to analyze the world with a historic perspective. As with any system however, success was only attainable if the students actually completed their homework and other assignments. Six sources or more seems to be the answer to Shopkow’s question, but perhaps we should follow it up by asking how to convince and encourage students to complete their work.

Citation: Knüsel, Ariane. “Facing the Dragon: Teaching the Boxer Uprising Through Cartoons.” (The History Teacher 50, no. 2 (February 2017): 201-26. http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/.)

I will admit, I worried a bit about choosing two articles from the same issue. With a title and topic like this though, I at least had to read it over. Using cartoons and comics as a source in history courses was something that I have always personally enjoyed, as they can reveal a lot about certain views that society held at the time. As Knusel writes, however, using cartoons can
be a tricky endeavor. There are numerous “pitfalls” students must be careful to avoid, such as the need to understand the context in which they were published in order to accurately analyze cartoons and the risk of oversimplifying or overgeneralizing societal attitudes based on them. Even with these potential problems, I think cartoons can be effective teaching tools as long as they are not relied too heavily upon.

The Boxer Rebellion is really a perfect case study in discussing how cartoons can be used in teaching. It was a complicated event that involved several nation-states fighting against an essentially guerilla faction during a pivotal time in history. This is not to say it was unique in that regard; the 1917 Russian Revolution, Iranian Revolution, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and more could be used instead. The Boxer Rebellion happens to have a component that was much
less prevalent in other examples: symbolism. The strong association of China with dragons lead to a very wide range of comics that expressed different ideas with much of the same imagery.

Knusel is right to use this as an example as it can very clearly be used to compare and contrast different sources and synthesize a more complex and nuanced point of view. Cartoons cannot teach or explain the context of the Boxer Rebellion, but with the proper background knowledge they can effectively showcase a wide variety of viewpoints and develop a more complex understanding. Knusel also notes that they can show how opinions in society have changed over time or how they may have differed regionally.

Cartoons appeal to students of
many different backgrounds (who does not like cartoons or comics?) and provide a useful aid for visual learners (myself included) who can sometimes find text to be difficult to process and analyze. They should not be the sole source used, but cartoons are a very useful and underutilized type of source material that should be used more often than they are currently.