Aims, Objectives, and Assessment

Assessment, 2025-6

Marking criteria

For information about the marking conventions used when assessing your work, please see the 'Marking' section of the Assessment pages in the undergraduate student handbook, where you can find specific history department marking descriptors for the University's 20 point scale: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/undergraduate/assessments-markingLink opens in a new window.

Contact Hours

Contact hours for this 30 CATS second-year option module are as follows:

• Module duration: Twenty-two weeks
• Lectures: Twenty one-hour lectures
• Seminars: Twenty one-hour seminars
• Tutorials: Essay feedback, long essay preparation, and revision session

Feedback

Written feedback (via Tabula) and optional individual tutorials (via Teams, in office hours or by appointment) will be provided to all students taking this module.

---

1,500 word essay (worth 10%)

This assignment is a problems-based essay with a focus on historical debate. You should make an argument in answer to a set question, by discussing the research of other historians. The questions are listed hereLink opens in a new window on Moodle, under Assessments. The focus of your answer should be on what we have studied in Term 1 up to reading week – i.e. sixteenth-century through to 1625.

This is not a review of a book or debate. The goal is not to simply describe what historians have said. Nor is it to only provide examples for your line of argument. You also need to think about alternative arguments which could be made, and explain why these are less convincing.

You do not need primary sources but must use a minimum of five high-quality secondary sources.

You must demonstrate good academic practice: citing high-quality sources and formatting those references correctly, explaining the ideas of the relevant historians and how they link to the question clearly, and accurately.

What is high-quality secondary literature?

A high-quality secondary source, in an academic context, is one which is written by an expert, based on extensive research, with the appropriate citation of sources.

High-quality secondary literature should be peer-reviewed, that means a historian’s work has been checked by two or more other experts in the field, before being published. Typically these will be: articles in peer-reviewed journals, chapters in edited volumes, and academic books (also called monographs). Most academic journals and books are peer-reviewed. With journals, it can be worth checking whether it is a “student journal”, particularly if you found it for free online, because these are not peer reviewed to the same standard.

In some modules you will find that citing newspapers, blog posts etc is very useful, because you are discussing modern-day opinions or more recent historical phenomena. In this instance they are actually being used as primary sources, not secondary literature.

Many of the following resources can be invaluable to improving your general understanding of a topic, and can therefore be helpful in your studies. However, you should not cite the following in your essays unless told to do so:

BA/MA dissertations/theses – these are increasingly easy to find online, but avoid them. Though footnoted and assessed, we have no way of knowing how well these students actually did on this assessment. These documents do not tell you how inaccurate their work may have been!

Podcasts/lectures – these are difficult to cite accurately, often disappear off the internet, and have not necessarily been peer-reviewed (i.e. checked by other experts). They will also be taking a very broad overview, and therefore not give you as much depth of understanding.

Blog posts/Websites – these typically are written by non-experts without any references. Sometimes you will find one written by a scholar, and it may even have good footnotes, but these will still have been written for a broader audience, have not been peer-reviewed, and again, often lack the necessary depth.

Wikipedia/Non-Scholarly Encyclopaedias – these can point you in the right directions. As many of you are aware, Wikipedia can be untrustworthy because it is the product of many anonymous hands. There are peer-reviewed scholarly encyclopaedias available via the library, these are typically published by academic publishers like Oxford or Cambridge University and are fine to use. For example, the Oxford Dictionary of National BiographyLink opens in a new window is a high-quality source. The Encyclopaedia Britannica and other free online encyclopaedias, however, are not written for a specialist audience, or fact-checked to the same extent, and are, therefore not high quality.

 

Why are we focusing on what historians are saying?

Many students often miss that a key aspect of writing in an academic style is to be able to discuss the scholarship, otherwise known as the historiography, or secondary literature. We want you to be able to clearly explain the ideas in the scholarship and use them to help prove your own points – points those other scholars might not have been trying to make. This helps improve critical thinking and is a valuable skill for anyone looking to enter careers in politics, law, or journalism.

It is also one of the things AI does not do very well, because it cannot actually understand the meaning of what it reads, it predicts what “sounds” right. The point of a good essay is not merely to write good rhetoric (what sounds right), but to write a good argument (with evidence to support the rhetoric). This may be challenging for you, especially if you have not studied this period of history before, but practicing it will help you to develop your reading skills and make it easier to understand both the period, and academic writing, going forward.

What are we looking for?

A solid 2.1 essay will be able to link the question to relevant and high-quality secondary literature, clearly explaining how that scholarship helps us to answer the question. It will consider some counterarguments to their own, and back up its claims about both historical fact, and the opinions of scholars, with footnotes indicating which parts of their reading backs them up. The writing and presentation may have errors, but will be easy to follow and contain all the key information we need to check your references.

A work may be more likely fall into a 2.2 or lower if:

• The argument goes very off-topic, or it is often unclear why information is being discussed.
• Poor quality sources have been used.
• There is no consideration for counterarguments, or analysis of the points being raised.
• The prose might be heavily descriptive, rather than analytical.
• The writing and presentation are so full of errors that it is hard to read, and hard to check the references.

A high-standard essay will not only will have chosen very relevant, high-quality secondary literature. They will centre the argument on that scholarship, effectively analysing it throughout the essay, to provide a convincing answer to the question. It will demonstrate good critical thinking skills. This does not mean thinking negatively per se – it means they will weigh up the evidence, considering various aspects, and explaining how it interacts with other ideas. The writing will be mostly without error, and the presentation will be at least good enough to check the references with ease.

Resources for referencing and presentation:

Citations within the History Department must use footnotes, not in-text citations – in other words, you cannot use APA or Harvard style. There are videos online on how to insert a footnote using WordLink opens in a new window if this is something you have not done before.

A bibliography should be included for all your essays, please note it is formatted differently than footnotes and organised alphabetically by surname.

The History UG Handbook contains a useful section on how to present and reference your essays, these contain links to guidebooks for the styles of footnotes you should use (Chicago, MHRA). https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/undergraduate/essaywriting/#referencingLink opens in a new window

Resources for direct quoting, paraphrasing, and avoiding plagiarism:

To not quote or paraphrase appropriately is poor academic practice, and if you demonstrate significant levels of poor academic practice as your studies progress this can constitute academic misconduct. So, if you struggle with these things, check out the following resources, ask your tutors questions, and pay attention to your feedback to improve.

Examples to Avoid PlagiarismLink opens in a new window contains information on how and when to use quote marks.

The Library has a series of coursesLink opens in a new window and it is worth checking to see if they are running any in-person workshops.

To help you understand paraphrasing see: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/psych/people/fsch/fsch/studentresources/plagiarism.pdfLink opens in a new window

What marking criteria will be used? The marking criteria are the same as for any other written piece of work, which will be connected to the specific departmental marking descriptors.

Guidance and support. The first three seminars will have a deep focus on the secondary literature, so you can get to know a few texts very well, and understand how to approach the other readings for your essay. You are encouraged to meet with your seminar tutor by appointment or in office hours to discuss your ideas, and/or to email with queries.

---

Primary Source Analysis, 3,000 words (worth 40%)

This assignment requires you to write a commentary on a primary source, or two linked primary sources, using 8 other items of high-quality secondary literature to provide context and perspective on the source.

How do I select my source/s?

You can take any of the primary sources set out for the classes on the weekly reading lists, or choose another from the primary source databases and collections listed on the 'Early Modern Primary SourcesLink opens in a new window' page. We do not need to have covered them in class, or be doing so in future seminars. It must be dated to c.1558-1714, it should relate to Britain and Ireland (either at home or abroad), and it should speak to themes and historical events discussed in the module.

Why a primary source commentary?

From week 7 onwards we discuss primary sources in every seminar, so this assignment builds on the skills and the type of analysis you routinely conduct in class. This assignment is intended as an opportunity for you to engage deeply with a source, or group of sources, and to get feedback and advice on approaches to incorporate primary material into your analysis. It will also help you prepare for future essays, including your final year dissertation, where close engagement with primary material is a basic requirement.

What question shall I use?

You do not need a question, but you should still produce an analysis with a clear point. It may be helpful to think of this as an argument for how and why this source could be (or has been) useful to historians, or for how it helps us to understand a particular theme related to this module. Your title should be a full reference to the primary source(s) being discussed e.g. Nicholas Sander, 'Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, 1585', in Early Modern Catholicism: an anthology of primary sources, ed. by Robert S. Miola (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 405-408. There is a short guide on how to reference primary sourcesLink opens in a new window, but if you are still unsure, please contact your seminar tutor.

What makes a good commentary?

You will need to do some research around the author and source itself, rather than just taking its contents at face value. It is expected that you will consult at least 8 other items of high-quality secondary literature to provide context and perspective on the source.

You should use secondary literature to help back up the claims you are making about the source, for example: the creator’s motivation, how popular it was, why it was written, or the historical event it is referring to. You may also want to use secondary literature to discuss broader methodological issues with using this type of source. EG: if we are using a portrait, art historians point out that these are not necessarily realistic depictions, and discuss various conventions or tropes popular at the time.

There is an excellent collection of essays by Laura Sangha and Jonathan Willis (eds.), Understanding Early Modern Primary Sources (London: Routledge, 2016). This is aimed at students and goes through seven categories of primary material, e.g. legal records, diaries, literary works, visual sources etc. It also addresses what types of sources can be used to help explore major themes.

Use the introduction to establish the key things we, as a reader, need to know about this source to interpret it. It may be useful to think about the classic questions: Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How? Establish what type of source this is and its genre: is it a letter, a book, a painting? What is the most important context for understanding not only what this source says or does on the surface, but understanding its meaning(s) at the time, and how it has been interpreted by scholars today?

You should then select some key points which will help make the case for why this source is valuable. This might be to do with how special or representative it is, or what it tells us about a key historical event, or a particular cultural attitude, etc. In order to demonstrate the source’s importance, you will need to provide examples from the source and contextualise these examples using the secondary literature.

The essay should conclude in one paragraph, by drawing together the key takeaways to identify the most significant benefits and limitations to using the source.

High-quality answers will think critically about the source. They will not just assert that a source is biased, but explain how we can identify the creator’s perspective, the evidence available for why they had that perspective, (or why the source is the way it is,) and how that can help us better understand the source, the historical subject of study (i.e. the module themes), and the scholarship. High-quality answers will not only use secondary literature to contextualise the source, but to discuss how the source might relate to wider historiographical debates relevant to this module.

Some things to consider:

• How the source is constructed: this might be the language or wording used, the keywords, phrases or concepts invoked. They might be the symbols or figures depicted, the composition, or the materials and techniques used in making an object. Think about how and why these are important, what meanings they might have.
• Source Context: Is this part of a larger series of texts, images, or objects? Does this larger corpus have significance? How does the piece relate to other sources in this corpus? Was it representative? innovative? unusual? Influential?
• Creator’s Context: Who wrote this and what do we know about them – is it important? What do we know about the aims of the author(s)? If this is all a mystery, can we still deduce something about who produced this?
• Audience: Do we know, or can we make an argument for who this was aimed at, or intended for? Did it reach unintended audiences? Do we know, or can we present evidence for, how it may have been received or interpreted at the time?
• Historical Context. When was it created and is this significant? How does the source relate to the period as a whole, and what is its broader historical significance?
• Historiography: In assessing the significance of the source, it is worth considering this in relation to the wider historiography. Does the piece raise historiographical or methodological questions? Does it relate to a historiographical debate? What are the key debates to which this relates? How have historians interpreted it or sources like it?

How should I present it?

Aside from the title (see query regarding question above), this assignment should be presented in the same way as any other written essay - written in continuous prose and divided into paragraphs. Citations should be used throughout, including for the primary source under discussion. Those using an image or a material source should pay attention to how the guide linked below instructs you to reference these in the essay’s main text, as it is slightly different to how you footnote textual/documentary sources.

All primary and secondary works cited, should be listed alphabetically by author in a bibliography at the end. If you have chosen to focus on a visual image or an object, please include a copy of the image either in the main body of the essay or as an Appendix. This should have a caption denoting which number image it is (e.g. Figure 1), and a full reference to the object or image. If you are unsure how to format this see the short guide for referencing primary sources.

If in doubt – ask your tutor!

What marking criteria will be used? The marking criteria are the same as for any other written piece of work, which will be connected to the specific departmental marking descriptors.

Guidance and support. Every seminar from week 7 onwards will have an element of primary source analysis built into the curriculum, so you will become familiar with the types of questions and ideas you can use when approaching your sources. You are encouraged to meet with your tutor by appointment or in office hours to discuss your ideas, and/or to email with queries.

---

3,000 word essay (worth 40%)

This assignment follows the same format to a 'traditional' essay, where you will be expected to engage with relevant historiographical debates/ideas and arguments of historians, and to incorporate relevant examples from primary sources. The essay is a 'synoptic' assignment, which means that it is encouraging you to think about the contents and material of the module as a whole, rather than focusing on a specific week or theme. It is expected that you will cover a broad chronological period and look comparatively across the Three Kingdoms (England and Wales, Ireland and Scotland) and, where relevant, to Britain's wider empire.

Where do I find the question?

Please choose a question from this question pageLink opens in a new window.

The questions are deliberately broader to enable you to think about material we have covered across the module. You can also devise your own question by talking to the module convenor or your seminar tutor. Do not come up with your own question without prior approval. This is important to ensure that you are meeting the learning outcomes of the module.

What else should I include?

Combine elements of historiography (how historians have approached this subject) with primary source analysis. Aim to cite a range of secondary readings. Don't just rely on texts available electronically - make use of the library. Avoid citing blog posts and other work available through search engines online, as this will not be subject to the academic standards or integrity we would expect for work of this level. Refer back to the criteria for high quality secondary literature in the assignment instructions for Assessment 1.

Feedback

Written feedback (via Tabula) will be provided to all students taking this module. You are also encouraged to discuss your feedback with your tutor in an individual meeting (via Teams, in office hours or by appointment). You will be marked according to the standard History Department marking criteria for essays.

Marks will be awarded on the 20-point Marking ScaleLink opens in a new window.

---

Participation / Engagement Mark (10%)

This aspect of the module's assessment will be based on your contributions to seminars over the whole year. The mark is decided by your seminar tutor assessing your contributions in weekly seminars throughout the year.

The best preparation you can do for this part of the module assessment is do the seminar reading, turn up to seminars, and contribute to the discussion in class (this can be small group as well as whole-class discussion). Participation might also include following any instructions you are provided by your seminar tutors, e.g. contributing to a module forum.

What marking criteria will be used? The departmental 'seminar contribution' marking criteria will be applied to this assignment. It follows the University 20 point scale and is available here: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/undergraduate/assessments-marking/#seminar-contributionLink opens in a new window.