Book Review: Criticism November 13, 2009
Posted by jdresner in doing history, hist 102 (Fall 2009), homework.add a comment
One of the last components of the book review is the criticisms: what’s wrong with your book? Are there sections that are unclear, or topics that should have been covered, or important questions that go unanswered, or below-average writing, or excessive detail, or unhelpful diagrams, or ….
You get the idea. The tricky bit is that this isn’t just a matter of opinion: you need to be able to back it up. WHY is this a problem? What could the author have done to make it better?
Test #2 Results November 6, 2009
Posted by jdresner in administrative, grading, hist 102 (Fall 2009), study terms.add a comment
The top terms were:
- Abraham Lincoln
- Industrial Revolution
- Napoleon Bonaparte
- Isaac Newton
- Declaration of Independence
- Charles Darwin
As with the pop quizzes, I scored each answer on a 4-point scale, then added up the results. The high score in the class was 42 out of a possible 48 (before extra credit) again, which I used as the 100% mark (which again raised everyone’s grades a lot). The median score was between B and B-. Here’s how the grade scale worked out:
| Grade | minimum points | distribution |
| A+ | 42 | |
| A | 39.8 | 20% |
| A- | 37.8 | |
| B+ | 34.8 | |
| B | 30.3 | 40% |
| B- | 27.3 | |
| C+ | 24.3 | |
| C | 19.8 | 30% |
| C- | 16.8 | |
| D+ | 13.8 | |
| D | 9.3 | 10% |
| D- | 6.3 | |
| F | 0 |
If you compare it to the last quiz, you can see some movement from B to A and some movement from D to C. But not much.
Book Context due Monday* November 4, 2009
Posted by jdresner in Schedule Change, doing history, hist 102 (Fall 2009), homework.add a comment
Under the category of “Context” the book review assignment says:
Context: What is the background of the author? Is their personal background relevant to the subject of the book? What is the historical context, the time period discussed by the book? What other books discuss the same kinds of things, and how does this book compare? Note that your textbook is an invaluable resource for comparisons and context.
Obviously, there are several different issues going on here, but they basically fall into two categories: Historical context and Historiographical context.
Historical context is about how the material in your book fits with the rest of what’s going on in the world at the time: if you’re writing about Japanese 19th century industrialization, for example (nobody is, unfortunately), you’d want to note that Japan was a late industrializer compared to other major industrial nations, that it was the age of unequal treaties, and that industrialization happened at the same time as the rise of nationalism, parliamentarianism, and imperialism.
Historiographical context, on the other hand, is about how the book fits with the rest of the books written on the same topic: what are the normal interpretations of this event and how does this book change that; who is this book arguing with, and why?
In both cases, your textbook is a good starting place, because it does look at the broader context, and because it represents a kind of “current consensus” on most issues. Sometimes the book itself will describe the context for you; sometimes you have to work at it a bit.
* Yes, the context assignment was supposed to be due Friday the 6th, but I forgot to mention it in class, so I’m pushing it back to Monday the 9th.
Study Terms for Chapters 21 through 26 October 30, 2009
Posted by jdresner in hist 102 (Fall 2009), homework, study terms.add a comment
| Chapter 21
African Association |
Chapter 22
caudillos |
| Chapter 23
Alexander Herzen |
Chapter 24
Bal Gangadhar Tilak |
| Chapter 25
Abraham Lincoln |
Chapter 26
Asante Kingdom |
A few announcements October 21, 2009
Posted by jdresner in administrative, doing history, hist 102 (Fall 2009), homework, not homework.add a comment
Reminder: No class for either section on Friday the 23rd, due to the Presidential inauguration. Students are encouraged to attend — and see your instructors in academic regalia! — at the front of Russ Hall (or in Weede, if the weather is poor) at 2.
While I didn’t require resubmission of thesis statements that missed the mark this time, I’m adding an element to the next book review assignment, the discussion of the argument and evidence of the book: you must include a clearly marked, one sentence statement indicating what you think the thesis of the work is. This is quite important for the argument and evidence discussion: if you don’t know what the author is trying to prove, you can’t evaluate the effectiveness of the argument they make or the quality of the evidence they present.
As you try to summarize and discuss your chosen books, be careful of how you use the book and any related sources you may find. Obviously, using the actual words of a source — textbook, internet or otherwise — without quotation marks or other acknowledgement is clearly and blatantly plagiarism. Weak paraphrasing can constitute plagiarism: if you don’t thoroughly alter the language of your source, it is a form of intellectual theft. Even something fully paraphrased in your own words can be considered plagiarism if you don’t acknowledge your source(s) — this is what footnotes, endnotes and parenthetical citations with works cited pages are for. Plagiarism is academic dishonesty, theft of intellectual property, and a violation of University policy, and will not be tolerated in this course.
Finally, a little 19th century union history — the struggle between wage-earning workers and capitalist owners — in early baseball.
Quick survey of the evolving uses of the term “socialism” October 15, 2009
Posted by jdresner in doing history, hist 102 (Fall 2009), not homework, resources.add a comment
At HNN, Walter Moss has a nice survey of some of the fuzzy language used by and about socialists, socialism, progressivism, etc.
Comments on Book Summaries October 12, 2009
Posted by jdresner in Schedule Change, hist 102 (Fall 2009), homework.add a comment
I’ll be handing back the book summaries today. Many of them are actually inadequate as summaries — too short, too confused or too much of your thoughts and not enough of the book’s content. If I’ve included “Try Again” or “revise and hand in again” in the comments on your summary, then I will be expecting to see a more complete — or clearer, or more focused, etc. — summary handed in with your statements of the book’s thesis.
In order to make it easier, I’ve moved the Thesis statement due date back to Monday the 19th, giving you most of an extra week. The Thesis statement should be just that, by the way: a sentence or short paragraph clearly stating what the author’s purpose is in writing the book, what they hope to prove by the evidence and argument they provide. Sometimes that thesis will be explicitly laid out by the author in a form you can quote; sometimes (especially with autobiographical writings or seemingly straightforward surveys of major events) it is more work for you to figure it out.
Finally, a note on form: I don’t insist that you all use the Chicago Manual of Style footnote method for history papers, but if you quote something, then I expect to see a citation including a page number. It can be in parentheses, footnote or endnote, but a quotation without a specific source, including a page number, is a grave error.
Test #1 Results October 5, 2009
Posted by jdresner in administrative, grading, hist 102 (Fall 2009), study terms, textbook.add a comment
The most popular term, by far, was “Columbian Exchange” followed by “Martin Luther,” “Abolition” and “The Bill of Rights.”
As with the pop quizzes, I scored each answer on a 4-point scale, then added up the results. The high score in the class was 42 out of a possible 48 (before extra credit), which I used as the 100% mark (which raised everyone’s grades a lot). The median score was a B or B-. Here’s how the grade scale worked out:
| Grade | minimum points | distribution |
| A+ | 42 | |
| A | 39.8 | 15% |
| A- | 37.8 | |
| B+ | 34.8 | |
| B | 30.3 | 45% |
| B- | 27.3 | |
| C+ | 24.3 | |
| C | 19.8 | 20% |
| C- | 16.8 | |
| D+ | 13.8 | |
| D | 9.3 | 20% |
| D- | 6.3 | |
| F | 0 |
This looks pretty good, but remember two things. The extra credits were a very helpful: most people got both right, and each grade scale was only three points or a bit more. The top score is very likely to go up in later tests, which means that everyone has to improve just to stay even.
Finally, I was, as I noted, very disappointed by the number of answers which parroted back the textbook’s sidebar definitions. Here are a few examples of how those definitions compare to answers which actually got good scores (3.5 or 4 out of 4) below the fold. My favorite example is the last one: notice how the textbook sidebar definition almost entirely fails to mention what makes Cornwallis important in this chapter, but the student definition ignores all the irrelevant stuff and goes right to significance? Note that the student definitions aren’t perfect but they very clearly cover the context, often mention and define related terms, and are especially good on significance, why the term/person/etc. mattered:
Study List for Test #1 September 25, 2009
Posted by jdresner in administrative, hist 102 (Fall 2009), homework, study terms.add a comment
Here is the collected list of terms from the chapters to be covered by Test #1. As I said previously, I will give you a few terms from each chapter and you will answer twelve, including at least one from each chapter.
| Chapter 15 Altepetl Chapter 16 Catholic Reformation Chapter 17 Abbas I |
Chapter 18 Carolina Chapter 19 Abolitionist Chapter 20 Aurangzeb |
Extra Credit Opportunity: Hispanic Heritage Month Movie Week September 23, 2009
Posted by jdresner in extra credit (F09), hist 102 (Fall 2009).add a comment
You only need to attend one to get extra credit, but you are welcome to attend more. All movies are in the Student Center; screenings begin at 7pm.
- Monday, September 28 – El Norte: After the Guatemalan army destroys their village of San Pedro, two teenage Quiche Mayan Indian siblings journey north through Mexico to the United States to start a new life.
- Tuesday, September 29 – Piñero: Tells the story of the explosive life of a Latino icon, the poet-playwright-actor Miguel Piñero.
- Wednesday, September 30 – Mambo Kings: In the early 1950s, two Cuban brothers must flee Havana after getting into a violent dispute with the mobster owners of a club where they performed. Eventually ending up in New York, they work at menial jobs while attempting to revive their musical careers.
- Thursday, October 1 – Mi Familia: Traces over three generations an immigrant family’s trials, tribulations, tragedies, and triumphs.
