Undergraduate L2 students’ performance when evaluating historical sources for reliability

Evaluating historical sources for reliability, an aspect of sourcing, is a key feature of historical reasoning. While well-studied among proficient and L1 students, the performance of L2 students and the role of their English proficiency is not as well understood. This study examines the oral and written historical reasoning of undergraduate L2 students when evaluating historical sources for reliability and writing with historical sources. In an analysis of think aloud protocols and written answers, we find that students are able to reason historically, albeit in a quite shallow manner. We identify the use of historical contextualization and forming a complete answer as two areas of difficulty and the co-existing role that language proficiency appears to play in some students' performance. A comparison of students' written and oral answers demonstrates that while most students score similarly in both modes, written answers are generally less rich in detail. Finally, we trace students’ use of the same historical sources in document-based question essays. We find that while students consistently use the historical sources as evidence, they rarely consider reliability.