Learn

Learning preferences

Make learning more comfortable. Changes apply immediately.

Enlarges page content, including diagrams and their labels. You can also use your browser’s zoom.

Choose the colours that are easiest for you to distinguish. Applies to lesson diagrams and lab plots. Labels, shapes, hatching and line patterns also distinguish meanings. Source photographs and raw image brightness stay unchanged; mask-only views are available for image overlays.

ExampleComparisonSample link

Saved in this browser on this device. Preferences are separate from progress backups.

college · HANDS-ON COURSE

Historical methods and public history

Design a small archival investigation and defend its interpretation and public presentation.

Introductory survey and inquiry sequence. Independent primary-source reading, scholarly bibliography and human-reviewed research are required for the proposed project. This site does not award college credit.

Preparation and direct entry
  • Comfort reading contextualized sources; inquiry units are available directly.
  • No prior coding or fieldwork is required.

Open any lesson. Recaps explain assumed concepts without locking access.

0/5 lessons completed · 0 marked skipped. Skips do not reduce this course's completion denominator or award understanding. Shared lesson work is reused across paths; project evidence belongs to this course.

Lesson sequence

Each linked investigation opens on its own page. Your selected course stays with you as you move between lessons.

  1. Investigation 1 of 5· 1 · Questions and time

    Build a question and a chronology

    About this lesson

    Turn a broad topic into a question that dated evidence could answer.

    Open investigation

  2. Investigation 2 of 5· 2 · Sourcing

    Who made this source, and for whom?

    About this lesson

    Use provenance and intended audience to evaluate what a document can show.

    Open investigation

  3. Investigation 3 of 5· 3 · Evidence and archives

    Corroboration without counting copies

    About this lesson

    Distinguish independent corroboration from repeated reporting and explain archival silence.

    Open investigation

  4. Investigation 4 of 5· 4 · Causal reasoning

    Compare causes without rerunning the past

    About this lesson

    Build a causal explanation that distinguishes conditions, triggers and rival explanations.

    Open investigation

  5. Investigation 5 of 5· 5 · Public history

    Build an exhibit that can be revised

    About this lesson

    Communicate a historical interpretation while preserving evidence, uncertainty and revision.

    Open investigation

Cumulative projectSaved workspace · human review remains separate
CUMULATIVE PROJECT

Curated archive with a methodological defense

Develop an independently framed question and a small accessible exhibit using at least two source types and two scholarly interpretations.

Evidence and review criteria

  • The question names a place, period and population, and the chronology is accurate.
  • Claims use identified evidence; source creator, purpose, context and limits are explained.
  • The explanation tests an alternative and distinguishes association, causation and value judgment.
  • Different experiences are represented without fabricating missing testimony or treating a group as uniform.
  • The artifact includes citations, accessible text descriptions and a visible revision after new evidence.
  • The methodological defense explains selection, survival and interpretation limits.

Use your lesson captures and citations. This saved workspace supports a reviewer; it does not automatically grade your writing or certify proficiency.

Review examples and quality criteria

These are authored teaching examples for practicing review, not calibrated scoring standards. Apply your course’s specific rubric above. Different conclusions can be defensible when evidence supports them; factual and numerical errors still require correction.

Claim needing revision

The author lived then, so the account proves what everyone thought.

More defensible reasoning

The account supports a claim about this author’s stated position in this setting. Its audience and purpose may shape what is emphasized. Compare a contemporaneous source from a different position before extending the claim to a wider population.

Why the revision helps

The revision preserves the primary source’s value while restricting the population claim. A stronger completed response would name the actual author, date, audience and contrasting passage.

Assess the artifact, with assistance recorded separately
CriterionDeveloping evidenceSupported evidenceWell-substantiated evidence
Question and contextA broad topic or undefined population.A focused question, time/place and relevant definitions.A justified scope with context that changes the interpretation.
Sources and claimsNames a source but does not connect its contents to a claim.Cites specific records and explains provenance and relevance.Weighs limitations, corroboration and meaningful disagreement.
Mechanism and analysisGives a conclusion with missing steps or unclear units.Shows a valid causal chain, calculation or interpretation.Tests a credible alternative and explains sensitivity or uncertainty.
Transfer and revisionRepeats the worked answer despite changed facts.Adapts the reasoning to the unfamiliar case.Explains why the change matters and what evidence would reverse the conclusion.

Use “missing” when no relevant evidence is supplied. Do not average these descriptions into an automatic pass score. Record whether the learner followed an example, used guidance or worked independently, and review quality separately.

  1. Locate one specific claim and its supporting source or calculation.
  2. Check the context, units and intermediate reasoning.
  3. Identify one plausible alternative and the evidence that distinguishes it.
  4. Ask for a revision or an unfamiliar application; explain the reason for the request.

The saved project remains a draft or a local submission. This page does not record instructor certification or infer understanding from response length.

Loading project draft…

Export this project with your evidence
Separate application casesVersioned evidence · earlier work remains intact

Apply your reasoning to a separate case

These versioned cases add distinct evidence to the portfolio. Earlier drafts and local submissions remain intact. Write your explanation before revealing review notes when you want to retain a pre-feedback attempt.

NEW APPLICATION · VERSION 1

Was the bridge the cause of the town's growth?

Use this packet for a fresh written application. All records below are original fictional teaching materials. They test reasoning under stated conditions and do not establish actual historical or population facts. Your original course-project draft remains separate.

Record map

Citation ID: social:independent:local-history:v1-map

Fictional archive: the 1902 town map shows 40 dwellings east of the river and 20 west. A bridge opened in 1905. The 1912 map shows 70 east and 50 west. Both maps use the same surveyed boundary.

Record accounts

Citation ID: social:independent:local-history:v1-accounts

A 1912 merchants' brochure calls the bridge the sole cause of growth. A factory payroll shows 80 jobs added in 1904. The brochure's purpose was to attract businesses; the payroll omits informal work.

Record new-boundary

Citation ID: social:independent:local-history:v1-new-boundary

A 1922 map counts 180 dwellings but includes a newly annexed village with 40. No 1902 population counts are available.

This case is shared across paths that use it. Revisiting it in another course retains drafts and known review-note exposure; it is not a new unseen assessment.

Loading application evidence…

NEW APPLICATION · VERSION 1

Did an approved petition produce a remedy?

Use this packet for a fresh written application. All records below are original fictional teaching materials. They test reasoning under stated conditions and do not establish actual historical or population facts. Your original course-project draft remains separate.

Record intake

Citation ID: social:independent:petition-outcomes:v1-intake

A fictional harbor office has a complete intake register of 20 distinct petitions for reimbursement in one year. Each received exactly one final grant or refusal before the cutoff date. Twelve decision records survive: nine grants and three refusals. The other eight decisions are missing. Only granted petitions can receive reimbursement under the stipulated procedure; each petition requests one payment.

Record delivery

Citation ID: social:independent:petition-outcomes:v1-delivery

For six of the nine known grants, dated follow-up establishes status at the cutoff: four payments delivered, one still pending and one cancelled without payment. The other three known grants have no surviving payment-status evidence. Missing evidence is not proof of nonpayment. No payment-status evidence survives for the eight petitions with missing decisions.

Record circulation

Citation ID: social:independent:petition-outcomes:v1-circulation

A harbor bulletin announces that the new office made reimbursement universally accessible. Two newspapers explicitly reproduce that bulletin; neither supplies independent interviews or counts. The intake register contains people who submitted petitions, not everyone with a possible claim. A later archive catalogue warns that, in a different year, the intake register itself has missing pages.

Record caption

Citation ID: social:independent:petition-outcomes:v1-caption

A proposed exhibit says: three independent reports prove everyone could obtain reimbursement; 75% of all petitioners were paid because nine of twelve surviving decisions were favorable; and a granted decision proves the payment arrived. No comparison office, pre-reform outcomes or evidence about nonapplicants is supplied.

This case is shared across paths that use it. Revisiting it in another course retains drafts and known review-note exposure; it is not a new unseen assessment.

Loading application evidence…

Course references