Contextual and Content Analysis (50 points)

• by groups, analyze the context and content of a particular primary source

• prepare a 10-15 minute powerpoint presentation (15-20 slides) of the contextual and content analysis

• the contextual analysis should include:

• historical context of the source
• time, place, situation at the time source was written/made
• author’s background, intent, perspective, authority on the subject

• the content analysis should include:

• author’s main argument or thesis
• biases, inconsistencies, shortcomings of source
• evaluation of author’s claim based on evidences presented or other available evidence at the
time
• comparison with other similar sources, from a different perspective
• source’s relevance and meaning during the time it was written
• material’s relevance at present

• primary sources to choose from:

1. Pigafetta’s First Voyage Around the World
2. Juan de Plasencia, Customs of the Tagalogs
3. Dasalan at Tocsohan
4. Pag-ibig sa Tinubuang Lupa
5. Kartilla ng Katipunan
6. Ang Dapat Mabatid ng Mga Pilipino
7. Jones Law
8. Benevolent Assimilation

• presentation dates (face-to-face sessions)

• print and submit a filled out copy of the rubrics on the day of presentation
• upload PPT to the Read_ph Canvas during online session
 READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
SECTION: _________________ PRIMARY SOURCE: ___________________________________________________________

5 4 3 2 1

CONTEXTUAL • The presentation effectively • The presentation provides the • The presentation provided a • The information provided about • There is no discussion of the x3
ANALYSIS provides all important important background sufficient background on the the background of the material is background of the material.
background information on the information on the material (who, material (who, what, when, incomplete or incorrect.
material (who, what, when, what, when. where, why). where, why).
where, why) in an accurate and
detailed manner.

• The presentation of the author’s • The presentation of the author’s • The presentation of the author’s • The background of the author There is no discussion about the
background and context is background and context is clear background is clear but not was not clearly explained. author’s background.
exhaustive, clear and accurate. and accurate. accurate

CONTENT ANALYSIS • The main argument and other • The main argument and some • The main argument and • Some of the important elements • There is no adequate discussion x3
important elements of the important elements of the important elements of the of the document are identified of the content of the document.
document are correctly identified document are identified and document are identified and and explained.
and analyzed. analyzed. explained.

• The contents of the document are • The contents of the document are • The contents of the document are • There is an attempt to correlate • There is no attempt to correlate
correlated with a number existing correlated with some existing correlated with a few existing the contents of the document but the contents of the document to
documents on the topic. documents on the topic. documents on the topic. incorrectly. other documents on the topic.

• The presentation effectively • The presentation sufficiently • The presentation discusses the • The presentation identifies some • The presentation is not useful in
discusses the relevance of the discusses the relevance of the relevance of the material in relevance of the material in comprehending the relevance of
material in understanding major material in understanding major understanding major understanding major the material in understanding
episodes/themes in Philippine episode/themes in Philippine episodes/themes in history. episodes/themes in Philippine Philippine history
history, as well as in developing a history, and also attempts to history, but the discussion is
historically-grounded relate the material to largely superficial or incomplete
understanding of contemporary contemporary
events/themes/issues. events/themes/issues.

• The presentation was able to • The presentation was able to • The presentation was able to • There was an attempt to identify • There was no attempt to identify
identify the biases, identify the biases, identify a few biases, the biases, inconsistencies, and the biases, inconsistencies, and
inconsistencies and shortcomings inconsistencies and shortcomings inconsistencies, and shortcomings shortcomings of the document shortcomings of the document.
of the document of the document. of the document. but incorrectly.
comprehensively.
ORGANIZATION AND • The presentation is very well- • The presentation is very well- • The presentation is adequately- • The presentation is loosely • The presentation is done a x3
PRESENTATION structured, providing a logical structured, providing a logical structured organized. It is not evident how haphazard manner, lacking a clear
sequence to the discussion within sequence to the discussion. one topic is related to another. organization and structure.
the prescribed time period.

• Audio-visual aids are well- • Audio-visual aids are effective, • Audio-visual aids are helpful in • Audio-visual aids are mostly not • Audio-visual aids are not used, or
executed, paying careful leading to an appropriate generating an understanding of helpful in the presentation. are not really helpful in the
attention to the combination of understanding of key information key information and ideas. Visual aids either lack important presentation.
elements (text and graphics) and ideas. information, or are too text-
heavy.

TOTAL
FOR PEER EVALUATION (5 POINTS)
Evaluate the performance of each group member using the rubric for COOPERATION AND CONTRIBUTION.
1. On the 1st column, list down the name of each member in alphabetical order.
2. Using columns 2 to 5/6, each member (except the one whose name is listed on the particular row) will give a grade for that particular member, based on the rubric for COOPERATION and CONTRIBUTION.
3. On column 7, the leader will indicate the average peer evaluation score each member received from the group.

CRITERIA 5 4 3 2 1
COOPERATION AND • Member contributed more than • Member contributed what was • Member contributed less than • Member gave minimal • Member did not contribute and
CONTRIBUTION what was required and required and cooperated with the what was required and contribution and barely did not cooperate with the
cooperated well with the group. group. somewhat cooperated with the cooperated with the group. group.
group.

PRINT NAME OF MEMBER GRADE FROM GRADE FROM GRADE FROM GRADE FROM GRADE FROM AVERAGE OF FINAL SCORE
( in alphabetical order) PEER 1 PEER 2 PEER 3 PEER 4 PEER 5 GRADE ASSESSMENT
FROM PEERS 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

______________________________________
SIGNATURE OVER PRINTED NAME
LEADER