History of Communication—-critically analyzes three peer-reviewed secondary sources

Assignment 3: HistoriographyAssignment 3: Historiography (25% of final grade)
This is the third in a series of three linked assignments for this course. It will consist of an introduction (200–300
words) and a short essay (1000–1250 words) that critically analyzes three peer-reviewed secondary sources
related to your research question. The introduction should explain the context and significance of the final
version of your research question and offer a tentative answer to the question. The essay should compare,
contrast, and connect the three secondary sources (if still relevant, you may use the source that you used in
assignment 2); it should include a full bibliographic citation for each source (following Chicago Manual of
Style). We will cover the concept of historiography and the components of good historiographic writing in
lecture and tutorial. For more information on this assignment, please see the guidelines on Avenue.
Objectives
The aim of this assignment is for you to develop your critical thinking and research skills by a) synthesizing
primary and secondary source evidence to explain your historical research question; and b) reading and
thinking carefully to critically assess, compare, and contextualize secondary sources related to your research
question. You will also develop your writing skills by writing an informative, well-organized introduction and
a clearly presented and argued historiography.
Instructions
Part I: Background
In this section, you should reproduce your research question from Assignment 2, Part IV. Please also include the
name of your chosen document group (see Assignment 2, Part I), and full bibliographic citations (following the
Chicago Manual of Style) for the three sources you examined for Assignment 2.
Part II: Introduction
The 200-300-word introduction should function as a proposal for an imagined research paper dealing with the two
primary sources you analyzed in Assignment 2 and answering the historical research question you have been
developing in Assignments 1 and 2. After reading your introduction, the reader should know what your subject is
and why you think it is important. The introduction should include these elements:
1. Basic information about the primary sources that you analyzed and their historical context, laid out in
no more than one long paragraph.
2. Your research question rising out of these sources and their historical context. (Whether you restate or
revise the version of research question that you posed in Assignment 2, Part IV, is up to you. Your
research question should be historical in nature, engage directly with the primary sources, and relate
to the secondary sources that you discuss in your historiography.)
3. Your tentative answer to that question. The answer remains tentative (even though well-informed by
your research) because this remains a proposal rather than a finished research paper. You may draw
upon your primary source analysis, as well as your secondary sources, to support your tentative
answer. If you directly reference your primary and/or secondary sources (or course readings), then
you should use a proper Chicago Style footnote or endnote to indicate this. (These citations will not
count toward your word count.)
4. An explanation of the significance of your proposed research (e.g., what insights will it offer? Why
do you think it is important?).
Part III: Historiography
For this section, you will write a short essay (1000-1250 words) that critically assesses, compares, and connects
three peer-reviewed secondary sources directly related to your historical research question. You will use the
historiography skills that you explored in lecture and tutorial, as well as in the reading “How to Write a
Historiography.”
1. Using the guidelines in the Finding Peer-Reviewed Secondary Sources document (on Avenue), select
three peer-reviewed secondary sources that are directly related to your historical research question. They
should deal directly with the historical period you are investigating. The choice of articles/book
chapters is very important. You will do best if you use secondary sources that analyze the same or similar
questions or that are connected through the analysis of similar sources. How can you do an effective
comparison if your sources do not overlap? Do not choose more than one work by the same author. Each
source must be a peer-reviewed journal article, a chapter that has appeared in a peer-reviewed
2.
3.
4.
5.
edited collection, or a chapter in a peer-reviewed monograph. You MAY use the secondary sources
that you summarized for Assignment 2, as long as the sources still relates directly to your research
question and meet the criteria in the Finding Peer-Reviewed Secondary Sources document.
Analyze each of your 3 selected secondary sources. Read through each source carefully, taking notes.
Then, analyze the sources by answering the following questions. Although you will not have space to
fully reproduce your answers to these questions in your essay, answering them before you start outlining
your essay will help you identify what you might want to say about each source in order to set up your
comparisons and connections.
a) What point is the scholar trying to make in each article? What is the case study? What is the “big
question”?
b) What is your assessment of the quality of the research and writing in each article? Is the article
easy to understand and are the author’s arguments based on clear and abundant evidence? What
kinds of evidence impress this scholar? What evidence is used to support the argument or
arguments in the article? In your opinion, does the author really prove their argument or simply
assert a conclusion? What kinds of assumptions does the author make about their topic? Are those
assumptions warranted, or unreasonable?
c) Look for the historiographical section within each article or chapter. Has your author placed their
own analysis against that of other historians? This might be in the text, or it might be in the
footnotes. Pay particular attention if the author of your first article explicitly compares his work to
that of your second or third article. If you see this kind of overlap, does the author seem to treat the
work of the other scholar fairly?
Write a well organized, clearly argued historiographic essay. In order to effectively compare and connect
your three sources, your essay should address the following questions:
a) What are the similarities and differences in the approaches the scholars take to the topic? Can you
suggest factors that might have influenced the approaches the scholars take?
b) How do these works relate to what you understand other approaches to the topic have been? Can
you think of other approaches to the question that the scholars do not take, given their evidence
and arguments? (Note: you may reference course readings and lecture when you address these
questions. Just be sure to cite them using a proper Chicago Style footnote or endnote.)
c) If the scholars use similar evidence and reach different conclusions, can you explain why? If the
scholars use different evidence, does some of the evidence seem stronger or more appropriate?
d) Whose argument is most persuasive? Why?
Your essay should include an introductory paragraph that (briefly!) provides the context for your
discussion (e.g., your research question and the historical context it addresses) and includes a thesis
statement. Your thesis statement should articulate an argument that you will be persuading your reader to
accept.
As in Assignment 2, you should do much more paraphrasing that direct quotation. Too much quotation
will be an indicator that you have not adequately synthesized your sources in your analysis.
Following your essay, you should include a bibliography that lists all sources referenced in alphabetical
order. Each of these BIBLIOGRAPHIC citations should follow the Chicago Manual of Style.
Hints
1. Your introduction should be divided into 2 or possibly 3 paragraphs. Many students will probably devote
the first paragraph to addressing element 1 and a second paragraph to elements 2-4.
2. The Spigel reading (week 10) utilizes advertisements as primary sources to help develop and answer
historical research questions. This reading can serve as a model for your work. Further, it offers valuable
information about the kinds of evidence and insights that advertisements can provide.
3. Although you will need to give your reader enough of the “story” in your article so that they can follow
your argument, you will not do well on this assignment is all you do is summarize each article or chapter.
Figuring out how to convey the right amount of story (summary) concisely and with connection to your
analysis is an important skill (and one you’ve practiced in assignment 2).
4. Give yourself plenty of time to select, examine, and think about the secondary sources.
5. Writing an excellent historiographic essay takes time, especially given the word limit. Your writing
process should include outlining your essay, a first draft, and plenty of time for revision and editing.
6. Read your introduction and essay aloud to yourself. This is a good way to catch silly mistakes and
infelicitous turns of phrase.
Evaluation: This assignment is worth 10% of the final course mark. Here is the breakdown for evaluation (out of
100%):
5%
Assembly and formatting
• Are name, student number, course number, tutorial section, and TA name in upper right hand corner?
• Are all of the required elements included in the following order: part I (reproduction of research
question, name of document group, full bibliographic citations for the two primary sources and secondary
source from Assignment 2), part II (200-300-word introduction), and part III (1000-1250 word
historiographic essay).
• Is the assignment formatted in double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, left justified, 1-inch
margins? Do the bibliographic entries use hanging indents?
• Is the electronic submission in Word or PDF format? Has it been submitted without the rubric?
• SAVE YOUR FILE: 3HC3_Assignment2_Lastname
10% Spelling, grammar, and quality of prose
• Do the part II introduction and part III historiographic essay use proper spelling and punctuation?
• Do the introduction and historiographic essay use proper grammar, including no run-on sentences or
sentence fragments?
• Is the prose clear and easy to understand? Does it avoid wordiness, awkward phrases, and other barriers to
comprehensibility?
• Are the introduction and historiographic essay the correct length?
10% Citations
• Do citations of secondary sources within the introduction and historiographic essay follow Chicago
Manual of Style guidelines for footnotes or endnotes?
• Are all uses of outside sources properly cited? When you quote directly, are your direct quotations placed
within quotation marks? When you paraphrase, do you cite your sources? Improper citation is a form of
plagiarism. (NOTE: If you plagiarize the work of others, you risk earning zero credit on this
assignment or more serious consequences.)
• Do the citations for all sources follow Chicago Manual of Style guidelines for bibliographic citations?
• Is the Part III bibliography in alphabetical order? Does it include all works cited in the historiographic
essay?
15% Organization
• Is the Introduction broken into more than one paragraph? Does the paragraph break(s) make sense? Is the
information in the introduction presented in a logical order?
• Does the Historiographic Essay have a clear thesis that asserts an argument? Does it have an introductory
paragraph that contains the thesis and (briefly!) provides the context for your discussion? Do each of the
body paragraphs explore a single major point in support of the thesis? Does each paragraph have a topic
sentence? Does it have a concluding paragraph that sums up the main arguments of the essay?
• Is each paragraph at least three sentences long?
Content
20% Part I: Introduction
• Does the introduction provide basic information about the primary sources analyzed and their historical
context?
• Does the research question relate directly to the primary sources? Is it historical? Is it clear, focused,
appropriately complex?
• Does the tentative answer to the research question draw clear connections between the historical research
question, the primary sources, and the secondary sources that are discussed in the historiography?
• Does the introduction explain the significance of your proposed research?
• If relevant, does the introduction reference appropriate secondary and primary sources?
40% Part II: Historiography
• Do the three secondary sources selected for analysis fulfill the criteria laid out in Section II? (Note: To
receive credit, each secondary source must fulfill the criteria. There will be a significant reduction in
credit for each source that fails to fulfill the criteria.)
• Do the three secondary sources analysed related directly to the historical research question described in
the Introduction?
• Does the essay make a compelling argument that progresses logically from the introduction to the
conclusion? Are assertions supported with evidence?
• Does the essay identify key similarities and differences between the approaches taken by each author?
Does it suggest factors that contributed to these differences?
•
•
•
•
Does the essay situate the selected sources in relation to other approaches that have been or could be
taken to the topic?
Does the essay discuss how the sources use different evidence—or how they use the same evidence
differently? Does it take a stand on which evidence (or approach) is the strongest or most appropriate?
Does the essay evaluate the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the selected sources, including taking a
stand on which argument is most persuasive?
As relevant, does the essay reference appropriate secondary sources?
How to Write a Historiography
Contents
• What is a Historiography?
• Why Write a Historiography?
• How to Write a Historiography
• Example 1
• Example 2
What is a Historiography?
A historiography is a summary of the historical writings on a particular topic – the history of the slave trade, or the history of
the French Revolution, for example. It sets out in broad terms the range of debate and approaches to the topic. It identifies
the major thinkers and arguments, and establishes connections between them. If there have been major changes in the
way a particular topic has been approached over time, the historiography identifies them.
Contents
Why Write a Historiography?
In writing on a topic, historians essentially enter into a dialogue with those who have written on the topic before. A
historiography sets out the main points of that discussion, and serves to situate the author’s work within this larger context.
This adds authority and legitimacy to a history essay as it confirms the author’s familiarity with his or her topic, and forces
the author to acknowledge and explain disagreements with others. It also serves to bring the reader up-to-date on the most
important works and debates on the topic.
Contents
How to Write a Historiography?
The most important step in writing a historiography is to become familiar with the history of your topic in broad terms. A
good historiography is written from a position of authority on a topic.
A historiography is best situated early on in an essay, preferably in the introduction in order to familiarize the reader with
the topic and to set out the scope of previous work in broad terms.
Your historiography should establish:
o
o
the major thinkers on the topic, and
their main arguments (or theses).
Your historiography may also explain:
o
the perspective from which the authors are writing (e.g. Marxist, feminist, etc.)
o
the type of history they have written (e.g. political, social, cultural, economic, etc.)
A good historiography will present this information in a way that shows the connections between these major works. For
example, does one work respond to an argument set out in another? Does it expand on that argument or disagree with
it? A good historiography will also situate the author’s work within the dialogue, explaining whether his or her thesis builds
on or rejects the work that has come before.
Contents
Example 1
The following example is from “Women on the Third Crusade,” by Helen Nicholson:
With the modern interest in “putting women back into medieval history”, the role of women in crusading has received some
attention. [This sentence identifies the scope of her inquiry and the perspective – she is situating her essay within a dialogue
about the role of women in medieval history.] Yet historians disagree profoundly over the extent and nature of women’s
involvement. For example, Ronald Finucane, noting the various accounts of women taking part in crusades, observed that
“there are clear indications that women sometimes took a more active part in the fighting.” [Here she identifies a major
argument in the role of women in crusades, clearly identifying the author’s thesis.] However, Maureen Purcell, while
admitting that women took part in crusades, denied emphatically that they were true crusaders, crucesignata, except for a
brief period in the second half of the thirteenth century. When they accompanied a crusade, they did so as pilgrims rather
than as crusaders, and they certainly did not fight. [Here Nicholson identifies an important counter-argument, explaining
where the two authors agree and disagree.] James Brundage commented on the various roles women played in the armies
of the First Crusade, supporting the fighting men with food and water, encouragement and prayer. He noted that some
women were killed in action, but not that they actually took an active role in the fighting. [This author does not address the
debate directly, but adds additional information to the discussion.] James Powell studied the role of women in the Fifth
Crusade, and argues that women certainly did take the cross and went in person “to fulfill their vows by carrying on
important functions,” such as serving as guards in the camp, killing fugitives, and perhaps tending the sick and wounded.
However, he was not sure whether they took part in the general fighting. [This author’s work suggests the question that
Nicholson attempts to answer in her essay.]
So did women take part in the Third Crusade, and did they fight? … Overall, it seems likely that women sometimes fought
on crusade… [The author presents her thesis.]
Nicholson, Helen. “Women on the Third Crusade.” In Journal of Medieval History 23, no. 4 (1997): 335-349.
Contents
Example 2
The following example contains excerpts from the introduction to a chapter on slave life in Peter Kolchin’s work entitled
American Slavery, 1619 – 1877.
Until fairly recently, most historians of slavery paid far more attention to the behavior of the masters than to that of the
slave; slaves, the vast majority of whom were illiterate and therefore left no written records, appeared in their works
primarily as objects of white action. Scholars differed in many of their evaluations of slavery – some portrayed it as benign,
whereas others depicted it as harshly exploitative – but with the partial exception of a tiny number of black and Marxist
scholars, they focused far more on what slavery did to the slaves than what the slaves did themselves. [Kolchin sets out in
broad terms the perspective from which most historians have written about slavery until recently.]
During the first half of the twentieth century, a major component of this approach was often simple racism, manifest in the
belief that blacks were, at best, imitative of whites. Thus Ulrich B. Phillips, the era’s most celebrated and influential expert
on slavery, combined a sophisticated portrait of the white planters’ life and behavior with crude passing generalizations
about the life and behavior of their black slaves. Noting that “the planters had a saying… that a negro was what a white
man made him,” Phillips portrayed the plantation as a “school constantly training and controlling pupils who were in a
backward state of civilization”; through this educational process the slaves “became largely standardized into the
predominant plantation type.” … [Kolchin identifies a major writer on the topic and sets out his perspective and main
arguments.]
Kenneth M. Stampp’s “neo-abolitionist” book The Peculiar Institution (1956) differed sharply from Ulrich B. Phillips’s
American Negro Slavery (1918) in its overall evaluation of slavery, its main subject remained the treatment – now the
mistreatment – of slaves. Stampp took the slaves far more seriously than did Phillips, but the sources that Stampp relied
upon – plantation records, letters and diaries of slave owners, travel accounts written by Northern and European visitors
who almost invariably stayed with white hosts – revealed more about the behavior and thought of the masters than of the
slave, whom he portrayed as “culturally rootless people.” [Kolchin introduces another historian’s approach to the material
and compares it to the previous historian’s work.]
The depiction of antebellum slaves as victims reached its peak in Stanley M. Elkins’s 1959 volume, Slavery: A Problem in
American Institutional and Intellectual Life, one of those rare historical works that not only arouse intense controversy but
also promote sharp reversals of historical interpretation. …Elkins argued that the unusually harsh conditions faced by
Southern slaves produced a “closed” environment that stripped them of their native African culture, prevented the
emergence among them of any meaningful social relations, and turned them into childlike “Sambos” who almost completely
internalized the values of their masters. …
Despite its ingenuity, the Elkins thesis soon came under withering attack from critics who blasted it as contrived, illogical,
and unsupported by empirical evidence. … Research by scholars seeking to test the Elkins thesis provided increasing
evidence that antebellum slaves lived not in a totally losed environment but rather in one that permitted the emergence of
enormous variety and allowed slsaves to pursue important relationships with persons other than their masters, including
those to be found in their families, churches, and communities. [Kolchin identifies this work as pivotal. He sets out Elkin’s
thesis and the response to Elkins’ work.]
Ironically, however, that thesis – and the controversy it provoked – played a major role in redirecting historical scholarship
on slavery. As historians sought to rebut Elkins’s assertion of slave docility, they found it necessary to focus far more than
they previously had on the slaves as subjects in their own right rather than as objects of white treatment. … As the focus of
historical attention shifted increasingly to the slaves, historians found themselves forced to exploit “new” kinds of historical
sources, which had previously been little used, to shed light on the slaves’ world. Scholars probed archaeological remains,
analyzed black folklore, and toiled over statistical data culled from census reports and plantation records, but in their efforts
to explore slave thought and behavior they found two kinds of sources especially useful: autobiographies of former slaves…
and interviews with former slaves… [Kolchin explains how Elkins’ thesis impacted the study of slavery, namely in a shift of
focus and the use of previously unexamined sources.]
… Although these scholars do not agree with one another in all particulars, the great majority of them have abandoned the
victimization model in favor of an emphasis on the slaves’ resiliency and autonomy. As I suggest below, I believe that some
of these arguments for slave autonomy have been overstated and eventually will be modified on the basis of future
evidence. [Kolchin identifies the prevailing contemporary approach to the study of slavery and his position on the issue.]
Kolchin, Peter. “Antebellum Slavery: Slave Life.” In American Slavery, 1619 – 1877, 133-138. New York: Hill and Wang,
1993.
Contents
Adapted from Dr. Christina Baade
CMST 3HC3 WINTER 2019
Assignment 3 Feedback Form
Author: ___________________________
Reviewer: ________________________
Instructions
1. Look at the 3 secondary sources. Do they meet the assignment guidelines?
2. Read through the essay once before you begin making comments. At this stage, don’t write any comments,
although it can be helpful to make a few marks as you read: √ = good point; X = mistaken point; ? = unclear;
and circle occasional spelling/grammar mistakes (if there are a lot, don’t do this after the first page).
3. Now, go back over the essay more closely. Evaluate the essay based on the parameters listed below, and note
your comments on this sheet. Be as specific as you can be in your comments.
• What works well?
• What needs more work? Can you offer constructive ideas for improvement?
Note: If you can’t comment because the essay is incomplete, write “N/A” in the blank space.
Introduction
• Does the introduction provide basic information about the primary sources analyzed and their historical
context?
• Does the research question relate directly to the primary sources? Is it historical? Is it clear, focused,
appropriately complex?
• Does the tentative answer to the research question draw clear connections between the historical research
question, the primary sources, and the secondary sources that are discussed in the historiography?
• Does the introduction explain the significance of your proposed research?
• If relevant, does the introduction reference appropriate secondary and primary sources?
Historiography
• Do the three secondary sources analysed related directly to the historical research question described in
the Introduction?
• Does the essay make a compelling argument that progresses logically from the introduction to the
conclusion? Are assertions supported with evidence?
• Does the essay identify key similarities and differences between the approaches taken by each author?
Does it suggest factors that contributed to these differences?
• Does the essay situate the selected sources in relation to other approaches that have been or could be
taken to the topic?
• Does the essay discuss how the sources use different evidence—or how they use the same evidence
differently? Does it take a stand on which evidence (or approach) is the strongest or most appropriate?
• Does the essay evaluate the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the selected sources, including taking a
stand on which argument is most persuasive?
• As relevant, does the essay reference appropriate secondary sources?
3. Within the essay itself, comment on the following.
Transitions. Are there good transitions between paragraphs? Do sentences within paragraphs flow logically? Are
words or phrases used redundantly (especially at the beginnings of sentences)?
Clarity. Are there places where it is hard to follow what the author is trying to communicate? Are there sentences
that are worded awkwardly worded?
Mechanics. Proper spelling and punctuation? Subject-verb agreement? No run-on sentences or sentence
fragments?
Citation. Are other people’s ideas adequately documented and credited? Consistent citation format?
**For more details on evaluation and assignment, see Assignment 3 Guidelines on Avenue.
Do the three secondary sources selected for analysis in the historiographic essay fulfill the criteria laid out in the Assignment 3 guidelines?
Y
N
(deduct 6 points for each secondary source that does not fulfill the criteria)
A- to A+
B- to B+
C- to C+
D- to D+
F
Assembly &
Formatting
(5%)
All elements present:
-Required information in
upper-right-hand corner;
-assignment elements in
correct order
-correct spacing, font, margins,
indents
One element missing:
-Required information in
upper-right-hand corner;
-assignment elements in
correct order
-correct spacing, font, margins,
indents
Two elements missing:
-Required information in
upper-right-hand corner;
-assignment elements in
correct order
-correct spacing, font, margins,
indents
Three elements missing:
-Required information in
upper-right-hand corner;
-assignment elements in
correct order
-correct spacing, font, margins,
indents
Four or more elements
missing:
-Required information in
upper-right-hand corner;
-assignment elements in
correct order
-correct spacing, font, margins,
indents
Spelling,
Grammar, Prose
(10%)
–Near-perfect spelling and
punctuation;
–Near-perfect grammar (e.g.,
no run-on sentences or
sentence fragments; consistent
verb tense; etc.);
–Exceptionally clear, highly
readable prose (e.g., no
wordiness, no awkward
phrases, apt and accurate word
choices)
–The introduction and
historiographic essay are the
correct length
–Very good spelling and
punctuation;
–Very good grammar (e.g.,
few or no run-on sentences or
sentence fragments; generally
consistent verb tense);
–Clear, readable prose (e.g.,
little wordiness, few awkward
phrases, generally apt and
accurate word choices)
–The introduction and
historiographic essay are very
close to the correct length
–Good spelling and
punctuation;
–Good grammar (e.g., some
run-on sentences or sentence
fragments; some instances of
inconsistent verb tense);
–Generally clear, readable
prose (e.g., some wordiness, a
few awkward phrases, some
unapt or inaccurate word
choices)
–The introduction and
historiographic essay are close
to the correct length
–Fair spelling and
punctuation;
–Fair grammar (e.g., several
run-on sentences or sentence
fragments; generally
inconsistent verb tense);
–Generally unclear,
unreadable prose (e.g.,
significant wordiness, several
awkward phrases, several
unapt or inaccurate word
choices)
–The introduction and
historiographic essay are
significantly too short or too
long
–Poor spelling and
punctuation;
–Poor grammar (e.g., many
run-on sentences or sentence
fragments; inconsistent verb
tense);
–Unclear, unreadable prose
(e.g., wordy, numerous
awkward phrases, numerous
unsuitable word choices)
–The introduction and
historiographic essay are much
too short or too long
Citations (10%)
— The citations for all
secondary sources referenced
follow the Chicago Manual of
Style endnote/footnote and
bibliographic guidelines
correctly;
–the Part III bibliography is in
alphabetical order and includes
all sources referenced in the
essay
–The citations for all
secondary sources referenced
in the analyses follow the
Chicago Manual of Style
endnote/footnote and
bibliographic guidelines with
only two or three incorrect
elements
–the Part III bibliography is
missing one item but is still in
alphabetical order
–The citations for all
secondary sources referenced
in the analyses follow the
Chicago Manual of Style
endnote/footnote and
bibliographic guidelines with a
few incorrect elements
–the Part III bibliography has
two or three mistakes (in
alphabetization or including
sources mentioned in the
essay)
–The citations for all
secondary sources referenced
in the analyses follow the
Chicago Manual of Style
endnote/footnote and
bibliographic guidelines with
several incorrect elements
–the Part III bibliography has
four or five mistakes (in
alphabetization or including
sources mentioned in the
essay)
–None of the citations for
secondary sources referenced
in the analyses follow the
Chicago Manual of Style
endnote/footnote and
bibliographic guidelines
–the Part III bibliography has
6 or more mistakes (in
alphabetization or including
sources mentioned in the
essay)—or there is no
bibliography
Organization
(15%)
–The introduction presents
information in an
exceptionally clear and logical
manner;
–The historiographic essay
has a clear, compelling thesis
that is strongly supported
throughout the essay;
–Each paragraph has a topic
sentence and focuses on 1
major point;
–The historiographic essay’s
1st paragraph contains the
thesis & gives a compelling
context for the essay;
–The final paragraph of the
historiographic essay sums up
the essay’s main points
–The introduction presents
information in a clear and
logical manner;
— The historiographic essay
has a clear, somewhat
compelling thesis that is
supported throughout the
essay;
–Most paragraphs have a topic
sentence and focuses on 1
major point;
–The first paragraph of the
historiographic essay contains
the thesis and provides a
helpful context for the essay;
–The final paragraph of the
historiographic essay sums up
the essay’s main points
–The introduction presents
information in a somewhat
clear and logical manner;
— The historiographic essay
has a clear but not compelling
thesis that is somewhat
supported throughout the
essay;
–Some or most paragraphs
have a topic sentence and
focuses on 1 major point;
–The first paragraph of the
historiographic essay contains
the thesis and provides some
context for the essay;
–The final paragraph of the
historiographic essay sums up
the essay’s main points
–The introduction is
somewhat unclear and
disorganized manner;
— The historiographic essay
has an unclear or
uncompelling thesis that is
weakly supported throughout
the essay;
–Some or few paragraphs
have a topic sentence and
focus on 1 major point;
–The 1st paragraph of the
historiographic essay may lack
the thesis and provides little
context for the essay;
–The final paragraph of the
historiographic essay sums up
some of the essay’s main
points
The introduction presents
information in an unclear and
disorganized manner;
— The historiographic essay
has an unclear an
uncompelling thesis (or no
thesis) that is not supported
throughout the essay;
–Few paragraphs have a topic
sentence and focus on 1 major
point;
–The first paragraph of the
historiographic essay does/
may not contain the thesis and/
or provides little or no context
for the essay;
–The final paragraph of the
historiographic essay sums up
few main points
Content: Part I
Introduction
(20%)
–The introduction provides
highly relevant basic
information about the primary
sources analyzed (in
Assignment 2) and their
historical context;
–the research question relates
compelling to the primary
sources and their historical
context and it is exceptionally
clear, exceptionally well
focused, appropriately
complex;
–the tentative answer draws
compelling connections
between the question, the
primary sources, and the
secondary sources discussed in
the historiography;
–the introduction clearly and
compellingly explains the
significance of the proposed
research;
–the introduction references
appropriate primary and
secondary sources, which
greatly reinforces the points
being made
–The introduction provides
relevant basic information
about the primary sources
analyzed (in Assignment 2)
and their historical context;
–the explanation effectively
connects the two primary
sources to the Part I research
question;
— the research question relates
closely to the primary sources
and their historical context and
it is clear, well focused,
adequately complex;
–the tentative answer draws
solid connections between the
question, the primary sources,
and the secondary sources
discussed in the
historiography;
–the introduction clearly
explains the significance of the
proposed research;
–the analysis references some
appropriate primary and
secondary sources, which
reinforces the points being
made
–The introduction provides
some relevant basic
information about the primary
sources analyzed (in
Assignment 2) and their
historical context;
–the explanation connects the
two primary sources to the
Part I research question;
— the research question relates
to the primary sources and
their historical context and it is
somewhat clear, somewhat
focused, adequately complex;
–the tentative answer draws
adequate connections between
the question, the primary
sources, and the secondary
sources discussed in the
historiography;
–the introduction somewhat
explains the significance of the
proposed research;
–the analysis references some
primary and secondary
sources, which somewhat
reinforces the points being
made
–The introduction provides
limited relevant basic
information about the primary
sources analyzed (in
Assignment 2) and their
historical context;
–the explanation ineffectively
connects the 2 primary sources
to the Part I research question;
— the research question relates
only general to the primary
sources and their historical
context and it is not very clear,
somewhat unfocused, not very
complex;
–the tentative answer draws
some connections between the
question, the primary sources,
and the secondary sources
discussed in the
historiography;
–the introduction indequately
explains the significance of the
proposed research;
–the analysis references few
primary and secondary sources
and/or the cited sources do
little to reinforce the points
being made
–The introduction provides
little or no relevant basic
information about the primary
sources analyzed (in
Assignment 2) and their
historical context;
–the explanation does not
connect the two primary
sources to the Part I research
question;
— the research question relates
poorly to the primary sources
and their historical context and
it is unclear, unfocused, not
complex;
–the tentative answer draws
few connections between the
question, the primary sources,
and the secondary sources
discussed in the
historiography;
–the introduction fails to
explain the significance of the
proposed research;
–the analysis references no
primary or secondary sources
Content: Part II
Historiography
(40%)
–the 3 selected secondary
sources relate compelling to
the research question
described in the introduction;
–The essay makes a clear,
compelling argument that
progresses logically
throughout the essay and is
strongly supported with
evidence;
–The essay identifies highly
salient similarities and
differences between the
selected sources and explains
clearly why they differ;
–The essay compelling
situates the selected sources in
relation to other approaches;
–The essay includes a
compelling discussion of
evidence used by the sources
and takes a convincing stand
on what evidence/approach is
the strongest;
–The essay includes a
compelling evaluation of the
sources’ strengths and
weaknesses and takes a
convincing stand on what
argument is the most
persuasive;
–the essay references several
appropriate secondary sources,
which greatly reinforces the
points being made
–the 3 selected secondary
sources relate closely to the
research question described in
the introduction;
–The essay makes a clear,
somewhat compelling
argument that progresses
logically throughout the essay
and is well supported with
evidence;
–The essay identifies key
similarities and differences
between the selected sources
and explains why they differ;
–The essay situates the
selected sources in relation to
other approaches;
–The essay includes a solid
discussion of evidence used by
the sources and takes a
somewhat convincing stand on
what evidence/approach is the
strongest;
–The essay includes a solid
evaluation of the sources’
strengths and weaknesses and
takes a somewhat convincing
stand on what argument is the
most persuasive;
–the essay references some
appropriate secondary sources,
which reinforces the points
being made
–the 3 selected secondary
sources relate to the research
question described in the
introduction;
publication location, and
probable audience for the ad;
–The essay makes a clear but
not compelling argument that
progresses somewhat logically
throughout the essay and is
supported with some evidence;
–The essay identifies some
similarities and differences
between the selected sources
and attempts to explain why
they differ;
–The essay somewhat situates
the selected sources in relation
to other approaches;
–The essay includes some
discussion of evidence used by
the sources and takes a stand
on what evidence/approach is
the strongest;
–The essay includes some
evaluation of the sources’
strengths and weaknesses and
takes a stand on what
argument is the most
persuasive;
–the essay references some
secondary sources, which
somewhat reinforces the points
being made
–the 3 selected secondary
sources relate poorly to the
research question described in
the introduction;
–The essay makes an unclear
or uncompelling argument that
progresses unclearly
throughout the essay and is
supported with limited
evidence;
–The essay identifies few
similarities and differences
between the selected sources
and makes little effort to
explain why they differ;
–The essay does little to
situate the selected sources in
relation to other approaches;
–The essay includes limited
discussion of evidence used by
the sources and takes an
unconvincing stand on what
evidence/approach is the
strongest;
–The essay includes a limited
evaluation of the sources’
strengths and weaknesses and
takes an unconvincing stand
on what argument is the most
persuasive;
–the essay references very few
secondary sources and/or the
cited sources do little to
reinforce the points being
made
–the 3 selected secondary
sources do note relate to the
research question described in
the introduction;
–The essay makes an unclear
or uncompelling argument that
progresses unclearly
throughout the essay and is
poorly supported;
–The essay identifies very few
similarities and differences
between the selected sources
and makes little or no effort to
explain why they differ;
–The essay fails to situate the
selected sources in relation to
other approaches;
–The essay includes little or
no discussion of evidence used
by the sources and takes no
stand on what evidence/
approach is the strongest;
–The essay includes little or
no evaluation of the sources’
strengths and weaknesses and
takes no stand on what
argument is the most
persuasive;
–the essay references no
secondary sources