Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Assessment

The assessment for this first-year 30 CATS option module is as follows:

  • 1000 word historiographical review (10%)
  • 2000 word primary source analysis (30%)
  • 3000 word essay (50%)
  • Seminar participation (10%)

All deadlines are available on Tabula. For full details of examination and assessment, please see: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/undergraduate/assess-courseworkLink opens in a new window.

 

GENERAL ASSESSMENT ADVICE

Under the University’s policies on plagiarism, you may not reproduce work that you have already presented for a summative piece – as this would be counted as self-plagiarism and is a serious issue that may lead to penalties on your work or studies (see here for more details: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/undergraduate/assess-plagiarism/#plagiarism). In practice, what this means is that you should explore different topics in each of the written assessments in this module (1000 word historiographical review, 2000 word primary source analysis, and 3000 word essay).

All word limits for assessments are absolute (i.e., they are word limits – there is NO 10% extra allowance!), and these do NOT include titles, footnotes, or bibliography. Essays that exceed the word limit will be penalised according to the department’s policies.

See the History department’s pages on Academic Referencing and Style Guide, and the MHRA Style Guide for advice on how to format your work. You should also take a look at the History department’s advice pages on marking assessment criteria, advice for essay writing and how to avoid plagiarism.

Your seminar tutors are available to speak with about any assessments or element of this module. You can either email them with questions, or speak with them in their weekly office hours (contact your seminar tutor for details of their office hours).

 

1000 WORD HISTORIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW (10%)

This assessment is asking you to write a 1000-word review of one article or book chapter from the ‘essential reading’ list for any seminar in this module (i.e., any of the articles or chapters to be read for our seminar discussions). This can be chosen from ANY week of the module, and DOES NOT have to be from a week we've already done – but it of course can be if that's what you choose! NOTE: this should NOT be a chapter from a textbook style of book or a review article (a list of unsuitable readings can be found hereLink opens in a new window) – DO NOT USE ONE OF THE SOURCES ON THIS LIST AS THE FOCUS OF YOUR REVIEW!!

This historiographical review is designed to develop your skills in critically reflecting on a piece of academic historical writing, considering its argument and approach, and demonstrating some understanding of how it fits within a wider historiographical field. While slightly different from a ‘traditional’ essay, you are doing many of the same things and presenting an argument that is your verdict on this article/chapter. Essentially, the question you’re answering in this assessment is: how does the author make their case, how successfully, and how does it relate to other writing on this topic?

For this assessment, in addition to the article/chapter that you are reviewing, you should read AT LEAST TWO MORE articles/chapters/parts of books that you think are important for understanding and placing your article/chapter within a broader context and the wider literature on the topic. Remember to include, at the top of your review, details about your chosen article/chapter: the author; article/chapter title; journal/book title; and year of publication.

When writing your review, you might consider the following:

  • What is the subject matter of the article/chapter?
    • What question(s) does it raise, and what is the main argument being put forward?
    • Remember that you might be writing for people that haven’t read this specific article/chapter, so you need to introduce it – a good review will essentially be a short summary then commentary.
  • How does the article/chapter situate itself in a broader literature?
    • Does it refer to an existing debate with this topic – and, if it does, how does it seek to change or challenge the way other historians have understood the issue?
  • Does the author use primary sources as evidence for their argument?
    • If they do, which primary sources are used?
    • Are these sources actually helpful to answer the question(s) the article/chapter raises? Why or why not?
    • Does the article/chapter use the sources in an effective manner? (i.e., is the argument supported by the evidence presented by the article/chapter ?)
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s argument?
    • How would you critically evaluate their argument?
    • Is it an argument that you find persuasive?
    • Does the argument itself perhaps raise other questions that need to be addressed?

Most academic journals contain regular reviews of historian’s work (e.g., Journal of British Studies, Twentieth Century British History, Contemporary British History). While these are usually reviews of whole books, rather than articles or chapters, they are fundamentally the same idea as what you are being asked to do in this assessment – you can search academic journals and find some book reviews to act as inspiration for your own article/chapter review!

You also might find this blog post helpful about writing critical reviews: https://gcgosling.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/the-art-of-criticism/.

 

2000 WORD PRIMARY SOURCE ANALYSIS (30%)

This assessment is asking you to choose and analyse TWO primary sources related to twentieth century Britain from the collections of the Modern Records Centre (MRC). The MRC, located on campus behind the library, is one of the main archives in the country for the history of twentieth-century Britain and holds huge amounts of original material relating to this module – we’re fortunate it’s so easily accessible for us!

    One of our seminars will take place in the MRC, which will help prepare you for this assessment by introducing their collections and how to locate and analyse their primary sources. You can choose ANY two sources from their collections, either related to each other or on separate topics, just as long as they are related to twentieth century Britain. You are strongly encouraged to visit the MRC’s reading room to use primary sources that have not been digitised, as these have been less widely used and so can add originality to your analysis - but the MRC do have a number of sources available online if you are unable to visit in person.

    Because you are being asked to analyse two primary sources in 2000 words, you should split your response into two sections of roughly 1000 words each to focus analysis on each source separately (although you can, if applicable, note any relevant connections/similarities between your two chosen sources). Your source analysis should follow a standard essay format (e.g., introduction, argument, conclusion, include footnoted references, etc.), but should be a focused evaluation of a particular source. Rather than a ‘traditional’ essay, where you choose a question to answer or theme to explore, in this assessment the primary sources themselves should drive the content of your analysis.

    In both of your two sections, your source analysis should:

    • Briefly introduce and describe the primary source chosen and its historical significance.
    • Critically analyse the source. For example: Who produced the source, when, and for what reasons? What message is the source trying to convey?; Is there anything we can learn from analysing the language use or way the source is presented?; How might the background of the author or context within which it was produced affect the source?; Who was the intended audience for the source, and was this the same as the likely actual audience?; What format/genre (e.g., letter, speech, etc.) is the source and how might that affect it?; etc.
      • This is NOT an exhaustive tick list that you need to complete, but just some of the kinds of questions to ask of your sources.
      • Chances are there will be some aspects you will not be able to answer (e.g., your source might be anonymous or have no attributed author). That’s OK, but try to think about the impact of this on how we as historians can use this source. For instance, in our example here of a primary source where we don’t know the author, how might this impact its historical use? If we can speculate (with supporting evidence!!) on who the author might have been, how could this affect the source’s historical significance?
    • Reach some conclusions about what the source can and cannot tell us about the topic more generally, and its significance/usefulness as a historical source for us as historians. What can historians learn from studying it? What can it NOT tell us? How does it contribute to our understanding of twentieth century British history?
    • Remember: the best answers will not simply study the primary source in isolation but will also do a bit of secondary reading to contextualise the source and critically comment on its relation to the broader historiography of the topic.

    You also might find this blog post about writing a source commentary helpful: https://gcgosling.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/source-commentary/

     

    3000 WORD ESSAY (50%)

    The third assessment for this module is a more ‘traditional’ essay, building on what you’ve done for the other written assessments. You will combine elements of historiography with primary source analysis to answer a historical question based on the topics and themes covered in this module. You can either select an essay title by choosing ANY seminar question used throughout the entire module, available on the module’s Moodle page and Talis Reading List, or you are welcome to formulate your own essay question/title – but you MUST approve it with your seminar tutor first. A good place to start would be to think about which topic/theme you want to write about, and then look at the related seminar questions to choose from – if none of them are exactly what you want to do, you can speak with your seminar tutor to formulate your own essay question/title.

     

    SEMINAR PARTICIPATION (10%)

    The final assessment for this module is the quality of your participation and engagement over the duration of the module as a whole. This mark will be decided in part by your seminar tutor assessing your contributions in our weekly seminars, but also through a your submission of a structured self-evaluation form (of up to 1000 words). This form contains a set of questions prompting you to self-reflect on various aspects of your seminar contributions, as well as a suggestion of the mark you feel you deserve for your participation and engagement over the course of the module. The mark will be one of the points on the university’s 20-point marking scale, and marking criteria for ‘seminar contribution’ can be found here: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/undergraduate/assess-coursework/#seminarcontribution.

    The best self-evaluation forms will include strong elements of critical reflection. This assessment is asking you to really think about your overall input to the module and our seminars, to identify what you think you have achieved and contributed, as well as reflecting on challenges faced and lessons you have learned about your own performance. This assessment is NOT simply about the quantity of your contributions to this module (i.e., how often you spoke or answered questions in seminars), but about the quality of your engagement (for instance: clarity of expression; how respectful and inclusive you have been, such as allowing others to speak and respectively engaging with their opinions or perhaps encouraging contributions by posing questions that help develop conversations; your reading and preparation for seminars; etc.). Similarly, the self-evaluation forms achieving the highest marks will be those that do not simply list what you think has gone well, but also reflect on what you have learned to do differently or identify areas that you think you could develop in the future (and suggestions for how you might do so).

    • Be critical: just saying what you did is not enough – ‘So what?’ is the question that should guide your reflections.
    • Keep it formal(ish): you can take a less formal approach than usual essays, but this is still a scholarly and critical piece of work.
    • Be specific: select pertinent and significant examples/aspects and relate these to your experience and seminar contributions.

    Download the HI180 Seminar Contribution Self Evaluation Form hereLink opens in a new window.