Germany History Short essay(Please read guidelines first) 1000 words

- 1-

Short Essay Assignments – General Guidelines History 323 / Summer II 2015

As you know, this course requires you to write weekly essays (six in all) as a significant component of your course grade. The purpose of these essays is to give you practice in interpreting primary sources and integrating them into your understanding of the historical material presented each week. Why do historians care so much about primary sources? For the most part, primary sources are not mediated (one might even say “contaminated”) by hindsight. They allow us to know with greater certainty what people at the time thought, felt, said, and did. As practitioners of a discipline that is inherently chronological, historians place great weight on these authentic voices. Classic examples of primary sources include written documents issued by courts, government officials, or foreign ministries. However, all sorts of objects can become primary sources, including monuments, peasant songs, or even newspaper advertisements. I’ve selected a pool of primary sources for you to consult over the course of this term; they can be found in a shared DropBox folder (I’ll be sending you a link). Please note that I do not expect you to read every single source all the way through. You’re welcome to read Tacitus’ entire work “On Germany,” but I don’t think that would be the best use of your time! The goal of making so many sources available is to give you flexibility. Skim around. Read more carefully once you’ve identified material that seems especially interesting and pertinent to you. Pointers on content and citations - Each week’s topic consists of a question (or really, a related series of questions). Develop your own distinctive argument in response. Open with an introductory paragraph that indicates how you plan to address the question(s) at hand. Structure your essay around points that will support the overall argument you’re making. - Resist the urge to summarize at length material from my lectures or the Schulze textbook. It’s fine for you to refer to points made in the videos – you can even “cite” them in parentheses if it seems especially relevant – for example: (VL-3, Part II). But please don’t “tell a story”! Use historical details to explain your position, not to rewrite a historical account. - Use the primary sources as the prime hunting ground to “research” your position and to serve as the main driver of your paper’s content. Here, too, don’t just repeat back the sources from start to finish. Quote from them as relevant – or summarize aspects of these documents that align with your argument. - When quoting from documents in the source material, don’t forget to make clear to the reader in the main text whose words you are citing. After the quote, indicate in parentheses where you found the material; for simplicity’s sake, you can use the source number. As an example: Writing in 1859, the founders of the National Association insisted that “it is the duty of every German man to support the Prussian government to the best of his ability.” (0207) (Note here how I’ve carefully integrated the grammar of the chosen quote into the grammar of my sentence; this is a technique for ensuring smooth reading.)

- 2-

- Although direct quotes from the sources can help to make your analysis more vivid, at times it’s more appropriate simply to paraphrase another’s views. This applies especially to visual sources, where you will have to provide a brief description of what you’re seeing. - No matter what kind of detail you mention (or quote), be certain to explain how this material serves to reinforce the broader point you’re trying to make. If your paper consists of nothing more than a string of quotes or examples, you have not addressed the question effectively. Ultimately, it is the strength of your analysis that matters most in determining the merit of your written exercises. - Resist the temptation to fill the papers with anecdotes from your own life. These are not blog entries or personal reflection papers. We are asking you to make informed judgments based on your understanding of the historical evidence. Phrases like “in my opinion” are unnecessary; it’s already clear that the paper represents your perspective. Our overall goal here is to encourage you to write in a way that puts argument and evidence front and center. - The length expectation for each paper is 1,000 words, which works out to around 3.5 double- spaced pages using a 12-point font (essential!). Submitting your paper - You will be submitting your papers electronically via “SafeAssign,” a Blackboard function. Each paper will be due by 9:00 am on the Monday following each week’s material. - It would be extremely helpful if you could submit your writing in Microsoft Word format, so that you can get direct feedback with Word’s “comments” function. - Please do not supply a bibliography accompanying your exercises; the assumption is that all of your evidence will come from the course material. It’s not necessary to enumerate each source at the end. - You do not need to include a cover sheet, or to write out your PUID. Just be sure to have the name and date on your paper, preferably at the top of the first page. Reminder: Essential course policies 1) Late essays will not be accepted. Plan your schedule so that you will have an opportunity to read over your work before submitting it. 2) Plagiarism – passing off another’s words or ideas as your own, without attribution – is a serious violation of academic integrity. Plagiarized exercises will earn a “zero” and may result in further detrimental consequences.

- 3-

Grading Rubric The following chart provides an indication of how we are evaluating your performance on the short essays. We are not using these numbers to “add up” your grade, but they will serve as a template as we offer feedback encouraging you to improve various aspects of your work. You may find it helpful to refer to this chart throughout the term. As you become familiar with the chart, we may offer feedback using numerical shorthand (for example: “solid prose with occasional slips” would be registered as II-3). Note that these five criteria (I – V) are not all equal in weight. This chart starts with the least important issue (formatting) and builds up the most important (argumentation). Poor (1) Weak (2) Good (3) Excellent (4)

I. Formatting of citations

No citations Vague references to primary source authors

Citations well- chosen but poorly presented

Citations accurate & properly formatted

II. Use of grammar

Impossible to discern what’s being said

Grammatical errors abundant throughout paper

Solid prose with occasional slips

Excellent wording & sentence structures

III. Contextual interpretation of evidence

Stark misconcep- tions about the historical period

Scant evidence of awareness about the period

Familiarity with the historical period

Robust awareness of the historical period

IV. Interpreta- tion of sources

No attempt to address specific sources

Authors’ ideas mischaracterized

Reliable depiction of authors’ views

Excellent reading of various authors’ perspectives

V. Logic and argumentation in response to prompt

No effort to address the prompt

Vague assertions; only partial response to prompt

Prompt addressed fully but without compelling case

Prompt addressed fully with a distinctive and compelling argument