Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

2026-08-27T15:01:35Z

aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt

Neue Seite

{{T}}
[[Category:English]]
[[Category:Historical Thinking and Source Criticism]]

{{BR}}
= Introduction =

'''Historical thinking''' is the disciplined process of asking questions about the past, examining evidence, comparing interpretations, and building claims that can be supported and revised. '''Source criticism''' is the careful evaluation of information sources for a particular historical question. In this Grades 9–10 aiMOOC, you learn to work with documents, images, maps, artifacts, oral histories, websites, and other traces of the past as evidence rather than as automatic facts.

A source does not "speak for itself." You have to ask who created it, when and where it was created, what its creator could know, who the intended audience was, what purpose it served, how it reached you, and how it compares with other evidence. The goal is not to become suspicious of everything. The goal is to make well-supported judgments and to show the limits of what you know.

[[File:Rosetta Stone.JPG|500px|frameless|center]]

The Rosetta Stone is a useful reminder that surviving evidence must be interpreted. Its inscriptions can be studied as material objects, texts, official communication, and evidence about language and political authority. Different historical questions make different features of the same source important.

'''By the end of this course, you should be able to''' distinguish source types without confusing "primary" with "trustworthy," source and contextualize a document, corroborate evidence across sources, explain how perspective affects evidence, identify limitations and archival silences, evaluate digital historical claims, and write a qualified historical argument.

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgU1BcDStK0|500|center}}

{{BR}}
= How Historical Knowledge Is Built =

{{BR}}
== The Past, Sources, and Historical Accounts ==

The '''past''' is everything that has already happened. '''History''' is our evidence-based study and interpretation of that past. Historians cannot directly observe most past events, so they work with surviving traces: letters, laws, photographs, maps, buildings, objects, recordings, statistics, newspapers, artworks, memories, and many other kinds of evidence.

A historical account is therefore an argument about the past, not a simple copy of it. Strong accounts make their evidence visible, explain how the evidence supports the claim, acknowledge uncertainty, and remain open to revision when better evidence or reasoning appears. This is why [[English:Historical method|historical method]] and [[English:Historiography|historiography]] matter: they help you examine not only what happened, but also how knowledge about what happened is constructed.

{{BR}}
== Primary and Secondary Sources ==

A '''primary source''' has a direct relationship to the period, event, person, community, or activity you are investigating. Examples can include a diary, a law, a photograph, an artifact, a map, a speech recording, a census, or an oral history from a participant. A '''secondary source''' analyzes, synthesizes, or interprets evidence, often after the events being studied.

The distinction depends partly on your research question. A history textbook is usually a secondary source for a study of the French Revolution, but the same textbook could be a primary source in a study of how schools taught the French Revolution in the year the textbook was published. A later oral-history interview may be a primary source for a participant's remembered experience even though it was recorded decades after the event.

Most importantly, '''primary does not mean accurate, neutral, or complete''', and '''secondary does not mean weak'''. A carefully researched scholarly book can be more reliable for a broad factual question than one eyewitness account. The type of source tells you how it relates to your question; source criticism tells you how to use it.

[[File:Magna Carta (British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106) - 02.jpg|500px|frameless|center]]

A surviving manuscript such as the 1215 Magna Carta can be studied for its wording, legal purpose, material form, authentication, intended audiences, political context, later transmission, and changing historical significance.

{{BR}}
= Core Historical Thinking Skills =

The Digital Inquiry Group's historical-thinking materials emphasize four closely connected reading practices: '''sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, and close reading'''. These practices are useful because they force you to connect the content of a source with the circumstances in which it was created and with other available evidence.

{{BR}}
== Sourcing ==

'''Sourcing''' means examining source information before or while you examine the content. Identify the creator, date, place, genre, intended audience, purpose, and circumstances of production. Ask what position the creator occupied and what access they had to the events or information being described.

Do not treat "bias" as a simple stamp that makes a source useless. Every source comes from a position or perspective. A government poster may be poor evidence for a neutral description of public opinion, but excellent evidence for what a government wanted citizens to believe or do. A private diary may reveal personal experience while still being limited by memory, knowledge, emotion, and social position.

{{BR}}
== Contextualization ==

'''Contextualization''' means placing a source in the time and place in which it was created. You consider relevant political institutions, social relationships, technology, language, economic conditions, cultural expectations, conflicts, and events. Context can change the meaning of a word, image, map symbol, or political demand.

Contextualization also helps you avoid '''presentism''': judging or interpreting the past only through assumptions from the present. Avoiding presentism does not mean avoiding ethical judgment. It means first understanding historical actors and choices in their own circumstances before making a carefully reasoned evaluation.

[[File:Waldseemuller map.jpg|500px|frameless|center]]

The 1507 Waldseemüller map is evidence about geographical knowledge, mapping practices, naming, and European understandings at a particular historical moment. It is not a transparent photograph of the world. A historical map shows what its maker represented, selected, emphasized, and sometimes misunderstood.

{{BR}}
== Close Reading ==

'''Close reading''' means examining what the source actually says or shows. Pay attention to claims, key words, categories, tone, images, symbols, omissions, contradictions, and the structure of the message. For a visual source, inspect framing, composition, captions, labels, scale, and what falls outside the frame. For statistics, inspect definitions, measurement choices, missing data, and the units used.

Close reading works best together with sourcing and context. A sentence can have a very different meaning when you know it comes from a private letter, a courtroom statement, a campaign speech, or a satirical newspaper.

{{BR}}
== Corroboration ==

'''Corroboration''' means comparing sources. Look for agreements, disagreements, independent confirmation, shared assumptions, and differences in access or perspective. One source can lead you to another, but several sources that all copy the same original are not independent confirmation.

When accounts conflict, do not simply count how many sources support each side. Investigate how each source was produced and what each source is actually capable of showing. A later source can sometimes correct an earlier eyewitness because it uses records unavailable to the eyewitness. An eyewitness can sometimes preserve details that official records omit. The strongest conclusion explains why particular evidence deserves weight for the specific question.

{{BR}}
== Causation, Change, Continuity, and Significance ==

Historical thinking also asks larger questions. '''Causation''' examines why events happened and usually requires you to distinguish long-term conditions, short-term triggers, human choices, and unintended consequences. '''Change and continuity''' ask what transformed, what stayed relatively stable, and for whom. '''Historical significance''' asks why a person, event, development, or source matters within a particular inquiry.

These concepts prevent source criticism from becoming a mechanical checklist. You criticize sources in order to answer meaningful historical questions and construct better explanations.

{{BR}}
= Source Criticism in Practice =

{{BR}}
== External Criticism: Authenticity and Provenance ==

External criticism focuses on the source as an object with a history. '''Provenance''' is the record of where a source came from and how it was preserved, copied, edited, catalogued, digitized, or transmitted. Before relying on a source, determine whether you are looking at an original, a reproduction, a transcription, a translation, an excerpt, or an edited version.

Physical and digital details can matter. Handwriting, paper, seals, watermarks, file metadata, catalog records, scan quality, missing pages, cropping, or later annotations may affect what you can conclude. Authentication asks whether the source is what it claims to be. Even an authentic source can contain false statements, and even a copy can preserve valuable evidence if its relationship to the original is understood.

[[File:Dresden Codex p09.jpg|500px|frameless|center]]

A reproduced page of the Dresden Codex illustrates a key point: the historical manuscript and the modern image through which you study it are not identical objects. You should distinguish the date and context of the original from the date, editor, scan, or reproduction that gives you access to it.

{{BR}}
== Internal Criticism: Meaning and Credibility ==

Internal criticism focuses on what the source communicates and how credible its content is for the question you are asking. Consider the creator's knowledge, opportunity to observe, purpose, audience, language, memory, interests, and possible incentives to exaggerate, conceal, simplify, persuade, or entertain.

Credibility is rarely all-or-nothing. A witness can be accurate about one detail and mistaken about another. An official report can be precise about its own procedures while omitting experiences outside the institution. A memoir can be valuable evidence about later memory and identity even when some details about the original event are uncertain.

{{BR}}
== Reliability Is Question-Dependent ==

Instead of asking only, "Is this source reliable?", ask, '''"Reliable for what claim?"''' A propaganda poster may not accurately measure public support, battlefield conditions, or enemy behavior. It can still be strong evidence of official messaging, persuasive techniques, desired emotions, political priorities, and images used to define enemies or allies.

[[File:"Loose lips might sink ships" - NARA - 513543.jpg|500px|frameless|center]]

This United States World War II poster can be analyzed as operational-security messaging. Its slogan, visual design, institutional provenance, and intended persuasive function help you study wartime communication. To answer other questions, such as actual military losses or private public opinion, you would need different evidence.

[[File:Careless talk poster - "Keep mum – she's not so dumb".jpg|500px|frameless|center]]

This 1942 British poster communicates a similar secrecy message through very different imagery. Comparing the two posters can reveal a shared wartime goal as well as differences in audience assumptions, visual persuasion, gender representation, and institutional context.

{{BR}}
== Comparing Conflicting Sources ==

Use a conflict between sources as a clue, not as a failure. Disagreement can show differences in location, social position, timing, memory, goals, access to information, or definitions. A useful comparison records both what the sources say and why they may differ.

{| class="wikitable"
! Analytical move
! What you examine
! Why it matters
|-
| Source
| Creator, date, place, audience, purpose
| Establishes position and circumstances
|-
| Context
| Events, institutions, language, social conditions
| Helps you interpret meaning historically
|-
| Content
| Claims, details, omissions, tone, visual choices
| Shows what evidence is actually present
|-
| Corroboration
| Agreements, conflicts, independence, source dependence
| Tests claims against other evidence
|-
| Qualification
| Limits, uncertainty, unanswered questions
| Prevents overclaiming
|}

{{BR}}
== Missing Voices and Archival Silences ==

Archives are shaped by survival, power, collection policies, literacy, technology, destruction, privacy, and chance. Some people and institutions created many records; others left few records or had their records ignored, scattered, or destroyed. This creates '''archival silences'''.

An absence in the archive does not automatically prove that something never happened. At the same time, you must not invent evidence to fill a gap. Good historical reasoning identifies what is missing, seeks alternative source types, and states uncertainty clearly. Material culture, archaeology, oral history, local records, newspapers, community collections, and sources produced by opponents or outsiders can sometimes illuminate lives that official records overlook.

{{BR}}
== Ethical Historical Inquiry ==

Historical sources concern real people. Treat testimony, images of suffering, private letters, and culturally sensitive materials with care. Respect archive rules, consent conditions, community protocols, and copyright or reuse information. When quoting harmful language from a historical source, include it only when necessary for analysis and explain the context.

Ethical inquiry also means representing people fairly. Do not turn a single source into a stereotype for an entire group, and do not remove a statement from its context simply because it supports your argument.

{{BR}}
= Visual, Oral, and Digital Sources =

{{BR}}
== Photographs as Evidence ==

Photographs can feel immediate, but they are constructed records. A photographer chooses where to stand, when to press the shutter, what to include, and sometimes how to pose a subject. Editors and publishers may crop, retouch, caption, sequence, or select images. A photograph therefore provides evidence both about what appears before the camera and about choices made in producing and circulating the image.

[[File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg|500px|frameless|center]]

Dorothea Lange's 1936 "Migrant Mother" photograph is useful for studying documentary photography during the Great Depression, but strong analysis also considers the larger sequence of photographs, the photographer's work for the Farm Security Administration, captions and catalog information, and later uses of the image. An iconic image can shape public memory, so its history after creation may become part of your inquiry.

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vDN5NtL9Yo|500|center}}

{{BR}}
== Maps as Arguments ==

Maps are selective representations. Examine title, scale, projection, legend, labels, boundaries, place names, symbols, orientation, blank spaces, and intended use. Ask what information the map maker had, what audience needed the map, and what political or commercial interests may have shaped it.

A map can be accurate in one respect and misleading in another. Historical boundaries may be disputed, approximate, or imposed by outsiders. Treat maps as arguments about space, not just containers of neutral geographic facts.

{{BR}}
== Oral Histories and Memory ==

Oral histories preserve voices, experiences, emotions, vocabulary, and memories that may not appear in written archives. They are especially valuable for questions about lived experience. However, memory changes over time, interviews are shaped by questions and relationships, and later knowledge can influence how earlier events are remembered.

Source an oral history by recording who was interviewed, who conducted the interview, when and where it occurred, the purpose of the project, and any editing or transcription decisions. Corroborate factual claims when possible, but do not treat a memory as worthless simply because it is retrospective. It may provide evidence about both the remembered event and the later act of remembering.

{{BR}}
== Digital Source Criticism and Lateral Reading ==

Historical claims now circulate through websites, social media, video platforms, digitized archives, and AI-generated media. A polished page or realistic image is not proof of accuracy. When you evaluate an unfamiliar online source, '''lateral reading''' means leaving the page to investigate who is behind it, what reputation or expertise they have, and whether independent sources support the claim.

Check whether a page identifies evidence, whether citations lead to the sources claimed, whether images have been reused out of context, and whether dates and quotations can be verified. For digital images and videos, look for provenance, earlier versions, institutional catalog records, and signs of editing or synthetic generation. Metadata can help, but metadata can also be missing or altered, so it should be corroborated.

{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJwiRz-t0A|500|center}}

{{BR}}
= A Repeatable Source-Criticism Routine =

You can use the following routine whenever you meet a new historical source. It combines ideas used in historical-thinking frameworks with practical document analysis.

{| class="wikitable"
! Stage
! Your focus
! Strong result
|-
| Historical question
| Define what you are trying to find out
| A question narrow enough to guide evidence selection
|-
| Source
| Identify creator, date, place, audience, purpose, and genre
| A sourced description before interpretation
|-
| Context
| Reconstruct relevant circumstances
| An interpretation connected to its historical setting
|-
| Close reading
| Examine words, images, structure, omissions, and details
| Specific observations instead of vague impressions
|-
| Corroboration
| Compare independent evidence and trace source dependence
| A tested claim rather than a single-source conclusion
|-
| Claim
| Explain what the evidence supports
| A clear answer connected to relevant evidence
|-
| Qualification
| State limits, uncertainty, and alternative explanations
| A conclusion that does not claim more than the evidence allows
|}

A useful complementary approach from the Library of Congress is to move among '''observe, reflect, and question'''. The National Archives also provides document-analysis guides for written documents, photographs, maps, posters, cartoons, video, sound recordings, and artifacts. These tools are strongest when they lead beyond description toward historical argument.

{{BR}}
= Interactive Tasks =

{{BR}}
== Quiz: Test Your Knowledge ==

{{MC}}

'''What best describes historical thinking?'''
(Analyzing evidence to build and test claims about the past)
(!Memorizing every date in a textbook)
(!Accepting the oldest source as automatically true)
(!Choosing the account with the most confident language)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Which question is most central to sourcing?'''
(Who created this source and why)
(!How attractive is the page design)
(!How long is the source)
(!How many difficult words appear)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What does contextualization require?'''
(Placing a source in the circumstances of its time and place)
(!Removing every opinion from a source)
(!Translating every source into modern slang)
(!Using only sources created by governments)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is corroboration?'''
(Comparing evidence across sources to test a claim)
(!Copying a quotation into an essay)
(!Deciding that all eyewitnesses agree)
(!Treating every source as equally useful)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What determines whether a source is primary for an inquiry?'''
(Its relationship to the research question and subject being studied)
(!Its length)
(!Its location in a museum)
(!Its use of formal language)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What can a propaganda poster often show especially well?'''
(The message its producer wanted an audience to receive)
(!The exact private opinion of every citizen)
(!A complete record of battlefield events)
(!An unbiased measurement of public support)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What should you do when two historical sources disagree?'''
(Investigate their sourcing context and supporting evidence)
(!Count the sources and accept the larger group)
(!Discard both sources immediately)
(!Choose the source with the most dramatic wording)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''Why should photographs be source criticized?'''
(Framing captions selection and editing can shape meaning)
(!Photographs never record real people or places)
(!Every old photograph is digitally generated)
(!Photographs cannot be primary sources)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What is lateral reading?'''
(Leaving a website to investigate who is behind it)
(!Reading only the first paragraph of a page)
(!Opening several pages from the same website)
(!Looking only at the visual design of a source)

{{E}}
<br>

{{MC}}

'''What makes a historical claim strong?'''
(Relevant evidence clear reasoning and appropriate qualification)
(!A large number of adjectives)
(!Complete certainty about every detail)
(!One quotation without context)

{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Memory Game ==

<div class="memo-quiz">
{|
|-
| Sourcing || Identifying who created a source and under what circumstances
|-
| Contextualization || Placing evidence in its historical time and place
|-
| Corroboration || Comparing sources to test agreements conflicts and independence
|-
| Provenance || Tracing where a source came from and how it was transmitted
|-
| Presentism || Interpreting the past mainly through assumptions from the present
|-
| Perspective || A position that shapes what a creator notices knows and communicates
|-
| Lateral reading || Leaving an online source to investigate its creator and reputation elsewhere
|-
| Qualification || Stating limits uncertainty or conditions on a historical claim
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== Drag and Drop ==

<div class="lueckentext-quiz">

{| class="wikitable"
! Match the correct terms.
! Topic
|-
| '''Sourcing'''
| Creator audience purpose and date
|-
| '''Contextualization'''
| Historical circumstances around the source
|-
| '''Close reading'''
| Language images details and omissions
|-
| '''Corroboration'''
| Comparison with other evidence
|-
| '''Provenance'''
| Origin preservation copying and transmission
|}
{{E}}

<br>
<br />

{{BR}}
== Crossword Puzzle ==

<div class="kreuzwort-quiz">
{|
|-
| Provenance || What word describes the history of a source's origin and transmission?
|-
| Context || What surrounding historical setting helps you interpret a source?
|-
| Corroboration || What process compares sources in order to test evidence?
|-
| Perspective || What word describes a creator's position or point of view?
|-
| Authenticity || What quality asks whether a source is what it claims to be?
|-
| Evidence || What do historians use to support claims about the past?
|}
{{E}}
<br>

{{BR}}
== LearningApps ==

<iframe> https://learningapps.org/index.php?s=Historical+Thinking+and+Source+Criticism </iframe>

{{BR}}
== Cloze Text ==

<quiz display=simple>
{'''Complete the text.'''<br>
|type="{}"}
Historians begin by asking who created a source, a practice called { sourcing }. Placing a document in the circumstances of its time and place is { contextualization }. Comparing independent sources to test a claim is called { corroboration }. The history of a source's origin and transmission is its { provenance }. A source's usefulness depends on the historical { question } being asked. A government poster can be valuable evidence about official { messaging }. Photographs require criticism because framing and { captions } can shape interpretation. Online investigation often improves when you use { lateral reading }. Strong historical arguments connect claims to relevant { evidence }. Responsible conclusions also state uncertainty and source { limitations }.
</quiz>

<br>

{{BR}}
= Open-Ended Tasks =

{{BR}}
=== Easy ===
# [[English:Source Detective Card|Source Detective Card]]: Choose one historical object, document, image, or map and create a one-page source card that identifies its creator, date, audience, purpose, context, useful evidence, and unanswered questions.
# [[English:Caption Comparison|Caption Comparison]]: Find one historical photograph with two different captions or descriptions and write 150–200 words explaining how the wording changes the viewer's interpretation.
# [[English:Perspective Analysis|Perspective Analysis]]: Select a historical poster or speech excerpt and create an annotated image or short text showing how audience, purpose, symbols, and language reveal perspective.
# [[English:Context Timeline|Context Timeline]]: Create a visual timeline that places one source at the center and adds at least four relevant events or conditions before, during, and after its creation.

{{BR}}
=== Standard ===
# [[English:Oral History Interview|Oral History Interview]]: With informed permission, interview an adult about an event or change they personally experienced, transcribe a short section, and explain what the memory can show and what should be corroborated.
# [[English:Museum Source Study|Museum Source Study]]: Visit a museum, archive, local heritage site, or virtual collection, select one source, and produce a source-criticism report using provenance, context, close reading, and limitations.
# [[English:Corroboration Matrix|Corroboration Matrix]]: Gather three sources about the same historical event, build a comparison matrix of agreements and conflicts, and write a justified conclusion about one claim.
# [[English:Digital Verification Video|Digital Verification Video]]: Produce a two-to-three-minute screencast that demonstrates lateral reading while checking the creator, evidence, and reputation behind an online historical claim.

{{BR}}
=== Advanced ===
# [[English:Microhistory Project|Microhistory Project]]: Investigate a narrowly defined local person, place, object, or event using at least five sources of more than one type and present an evidence-based narrative with explicit uncertainty.
# [[English:Archive Silences Investigation|Archive Silences Investigation]]: Choose a historical topic and examine whose voices are well documented, whose are difficult to find, and how alternative source types could reduce gaps without inventing evidence.
# [[English:Conflicting Accounts Essay|Conflicting Accounts Essay]]: Write a 700–900 word essay that explains why two or more accounts disagree and argues which evidence is strongest for a specific historical question.
# [[English:Source Criticism Exhibition|Source Criticism Exhibition]]: Curate a six-source physical or digital exhibition with labels that explain provenance, context, perspective, corroboration, and the limits of each source.

{{:Open Task - Create a MOOC}}

{{BR}}
= Learning Assessment =

# [[English:Evidence-Based Source Critique|Evidence-Based Source Critique]]: Analyze an unfamiliar primary source and explain what it can and cannot establish about a clearly defined historical question.
# [[English:Corroborated Historical Claim|Corroborated Historical Claim]]: Use at least three sources to write a claim-evidence-reasoning paragraph that distinguishes independent support from repeated or dependent evidence.
# [[English:Conflict Resolution in History|Conflict Resolution in History]]: Compare two conflicting accounts, identify reasons for disagreement, and defend a conclusion that weighs provenance, context, access, purpose, and corroboration.
# [[English:Question-Dependent Reliability|Question-Dependent Reliability]]: Evaluate the same source for two different historical questions and explain why its usefulness or credibility changes with the question.
# [[English:Digital Provenance Check|Digital Provenance Check]]: Trace an online historical image or quotation back toward an earlier or institutional source and document each verification step and remaining uncertainty.
# [[English:Historical Argument Reflection|Historical Argument Reflection]]: Revise a short historical argument after receiving new evidence and explain precisely which claim changed, which evidence caused the change, and why revision strengthens historical reasoning.

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= Evidence of Learning =

{| class="wikitable"
! Area
! Evidence you can produce
|-
| Knowledge
| You accurately explain primary and secondary sources, sourcing, contextualization, corroboration, close reading, provenance, authenticity, perspective, archival silence, and question-dependent reliability.
|-
| Skills
| You source documents before overinterpreting content, place evidence in context, compare independent sources, trace provenance, evaluate digital claims, and distinguish observation from inference.
|-
| Products
| Your source cards, timelines, comparison matrices, annotated images, interviews, essays, videos, or exhibitions make evidence and reasoning visible.
|-
| Argumentation
| Your historical claims use relevant evidence, address conflicting information, explain why some evidence deserves more weight, and avoid claims stronger than the sources allow.
|-
| Transfer
| You apply source criticism to unfamiliar documents, museum objects, maps, photographs, online posts, AI-generated media, and claims encountered outside history class.
|-
| Reflection
| You can revise a conclusion when new evidence appears and explain how your own assumptions, research choices, and source availability affect interpretation.
|}

<br>
<br>

{{BR}}
= OERs on the Topic =

<iframe> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_thinking </iframe>

<iframe> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism </iframe>

For additional open and freely accessible learning resources, explore the [https://www.inquirygroup.org/history-lessons Digital Inquiry Group History Lessons], the [https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/worksheets National Archives Document Analysis guides], the [https://www.loc.gov/programs/teachers/getting-started-with-primary-sources/ Library of Congress primary-source resources], and the [https://www.mnhs.org/library/learn/primary-secondary-sources Minnesota Historical Society guide to primary and secondary sources].

<br>

{{BR}}
= Linked Learning Areas =

{| align=center
{{:D-Tab}}
'''[[English:Historical Thinking and Source Criticism|Historical Thinking and Source Criticism]]'''
# [[English:Historical thinking|Historical thinking]]
# [[English:Source criticism|Source criticism]]
# [[English:Primary source|Primary source]]
# [[English:Secondary source|Secondary source]]
# [[English:Historical method|Historical method]]
# [[English:Historiography|Historiography]]
# [[English:Media literacy|Media literacy]]
# [[English:Information literacy|Information literacy]]
# [[English:Propaganda|Propaganda]]
# [[English:Oral history|Oral history]]
# [[English:Digital literacy|Digital literacy]]
|}

[[Category:English]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Social Studies]]
[[Category:Media literacy]]
[[Category:Information literacy]]
[[Category:Critical thinking]]
[[Category:Research skills]]
[[Category:Grades 9-10]]
[[Category:Secondary education]]

{{BR}}
= aiMOOC Projects =
[[Category:English]]
[[Category:Historical Thinking and Source Criticism]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Social Studies]]
[[Category:Media literacy]]
[[Category:Information literacy]]
[[Category:Critical thinking]]
[[Category:Research skills]]
[[Category:Grades 9-10]]
[[Category:Secondary education]]
[[Category:AI_MOOC]]
[[Category:GPT aiMOOC]]
{{MT}}

English:Historical Thinking and Source Criticism - Versionsgeschichte

Glanz: aiMOOC über GPT aiMOOC Action erstellt