Grades for HIST 489

 

There will be little of mathematics in the determination of grades for the seminar. Evaluation of work such as this is highly qualitative, and so in awarding grades, I won't be using numbers. I'm willing to quantify only to the degree of specificity demanded by the conventions of letter grades. I will, however, give you clear expectations and ongoing feedback through the semester. Evaluation may be qualitative, but it will be definite.  Generally, half your grade will be determined by the quality of your research paper, and half will be determined by the quality of your work in process toward that end product. I will keep a portfolio for each of you. Here is what will go into your portfolio, and how your work will be evaluated.

 

Process

Activity

Basis for Evaluation

Evidence

Attendance & participation in seminar sessions

Attendance at classroom sessions

Attendance and evaluative notes on participation to be recorded

Leading of discussions and conduct of exercises as assigned

General participation in oral transactions

Contributions to group research

Completion of tasks assigned within the group

Reports posted to wiki and peer evaluations

Leadership in the group

Written process work, done in timely fashion according to specs, revised as required

Wiki Maintenance

Timely and competent creation and updating of pages

Book review

Word docs, first draft and final draft

Outline for paper

Word doc

Introduction for paper

Word doc

Conclusion for paper

Word doc

Paper

Writing of paper

First draft

Word doc

Final draft

Word doc

Presentation of paper

Effective reading to peers, followed by handling of questions and discussion

Evaluative notes to be recorded

 

Criteria for Evaluation of Paper

 

A. Research

 

  1. Does the paper cite good secondary sources useful for historiographic context of the work?
  2. Does the paper use adequate and credible sources for historical context of the narrative?
  3. Does the main body of the paper rest on rich primary sources?

 

B. Organization

 

  1. Does the paper have a sound introduction that captures reader interest and states a clear, appropriate thesis?
  2. Does the paper have a sound conclusion that confirms the thesis, relates findings to the historical literature, and evaluates the significance of the findings?
  3. Does the paper provide firm background for the narrative, setting historiographic and historical context?
  4. Is the main body of the paper organized in a way that is coherent, logical, and appropriate to the subject?
  5. Are paragraphs structured and sequenced, with strong topic sentences and effective transitions, so that the reader is carried easily through the narrative?

 

C. Composition

 

  1. Does the paper observe all the common conventions of usage—correct grammar, punctuation, parts of speech, sentence structure?
  2. Does the paper observe the peculiar conventions of historical rhetoric—voice, point of view, tense, quotation, and paraphrase?
  3. Does the paper observe the conventions of format for a historical manuscript?

 

D. Annotation

 

  1. Is the factual material used in the text adequately covered by notes?
  2. Are the notes written in proper format, in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style and specifications for the seminar?

 

 

Home Page HIST 489