LEARNING OUTCOME

Excellent mastery 5

Good mastery 4

Some mastery 3

Minimal mastery 2

No mastery 1-0

HISTORICAL THINKING

Student frames historical questions in a thoughtful, critical manner

The paper addresses a clearly-stated and significant historical question. Focuses on critical analysis rather than mere description. Key terms defined. Student clarifies the significance of the question. The question is of manageable scope and logically formulated.

The paper addresses a significant historical question that is clearly stated. Focus rests largely on critical analysis. Key terms usually defined. Question is of manageable scope, posed with minimal logical flaws in framing of the question.

The paper addresses a historical question that can be identified with some difficulty. Focus shifts between critical analysis and mere description. Some key terms left undefined. Significance of question unclear; serious logical lapses in framing of the question.

Significance of question not demonstrated; commentary is largely descriptive rather than analytical; key terms often undefined; the central question in the paper is of inappropriate scope or illogically presented.

No identifiable historical question.

Student evaluates and analyzes primary sources

Demonstrates thorough awareness of origins, authors, contexts of all primary sources; consciously employs verification strategies as needed

Demonstrates some awareness of contexts of primary sources; employs some verification strategies

Offers partial evaluation of primary sources; spotty verification

Offers little to no evaluation of primary sources; no verification.

Is not aware of need to evaluate or verify sources.

Student evaluates and analyzes secondary sources, demonstrating an awareness of interpretive differences

Demonstrates careful reading from all relevant historiographical traditions; offers thorough, fair-minded, and informed assessment of historiography, summarizing main ideas clearly and accurately; places his/her own work within the historiography; raises historically legitimate critiques concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the studies.

Has read widely in several historiographical traditions; assesses and summarizes those read; places his/her own work within the historiography; at some points, critiques either inappropriate or unsubstantiated

Cites at least two different interpretations; makes an effort to place his/her own work in reference to these two interpretations; critiques often unfair, irrelevant, or misinformed

Minimal discussion of interpretation in secondary works. No effort to place his/her own work within historiography; critiques commonly unfair, irrelevant, or misinformed.

No awareness of interpretive differences.

LEARNING OUTCOME

Excellent mastery 5

Good mastery 4

Some mastery 3

Minimal mastery 2

No mastery 1-0

HISTORICAL SKILLS

Student employs a range of primary sources appropriate to the informing thesis of the paper

Makes thorough use of all relevant online and print databases to identify primary source literature; all available primary sources identified.

Makes good use of relevant online and print databases; some gaps in primary source base.

Makes some use of online or print databases; significant gaps in source base.

No evidence of using databases to establish source base; source base very limited. Major sources unknown or not employed.

No evidence of using databases; sources entirely insufficient and inappropriate to paper topic.

Student employs a range of secondary sources appropriate to the informing thesis of the paper

Makes thorough use of all relevant online and print databases to identify secondary literature; uses classic and most recent secondary literature; no major secondary sources omitted.

Makes good use of relevant online and print databases; some gaps in secondary source base.

Makes some use of online or print databases; significant gaps in source base.

No evidence of using databases to establish source base; source base very limited. Major sources unknown or not employed.

No evidence of using databases; sources entirely insufficient and inappropriate to paper topic.