The final paper must be 6-8 pages long. All margins must be 1”, and the font must be 12
point, Times New Roman or similar. Your citations must be in text citations (footnotes)
using the Chicago Manual of Style. A citation guide has been posted in Blackboard. It must
include a separate bibliography and images. Images must be captioned according to Art Bulletin style guidelines (look at how the images in your book are caption, use that as a model), and the images should be at the end of the paper before the bibliography. Do not embed your pictures in the text of the paper. It must be free of grammatical and spelling errors. The final paper must have a minimum of seven sources in the bibliography.
Papers will be graded based upon the quality of the mechanics of writing, the quality of the research, and the quality of the analysis. An A paper, or work that is excellent, will exhibit
clarity, a logical structure, a strongly articulated thesis, highly effective support of that
thesis using ample visual analysis and historical documents as evidence. The quality of the research will be evaluated both in terms of depth and breadth. All research must be
documented accurately using Chicago Style. Any work that is plagiarized, whether intentional or not, will result in sanctions including a reduction in grade, up to and including a
permanent F for the course.
6 citations – must include at least one monograph, one scholarly journal article, and one historically contextual source.
While the internet has greatly facilitated the spread of knowledge and the availability of
research, it also contains a staggering amount of pure garbage. One main problem is that it
completely lacks quality control. Furthermore, although websites such as metmuseum.org,
theartstory.org, khan academy, etc. may be useful starting points for your research projects,
these are all websites written for a general audience. As students pursuing degrees in art,
design, or art history you are not a general audience. Thus, you can’t use websites in any academic research you submit for this class, you will receive a zero for said assignment.
Websites are not the same thing as the library databases such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, Lexis Nexis, etc. which are digital storehouses for academic articles. Finally, absolutely no
Wikipedia. None. While the internet has greatly facilitated the spread of knowledge and the availability of research, it also contains a staggering amount of pure garbage. One main problem is that it completely lacks quality control. Furthermore, although websites such as metmuseum.org, theartstory.org, khan academy, etc. may be useful starting points for your research projects, these are all websites written for a general audience. As students pursuing degrees in art, design, or art history you are not a general audience. Thus, you can’t use websites in any academic research you submit for this class, you will receive a zero for said assignment. Websites are not the same thing as the library databases such as JSTOR,
Google
Scholar, Lexis Nexis, etc. which are digital storehouses for academic articles. Finally,
absolutely no Wikipedia. None.
– Central thesis is clearly communicated, worth developing; limited enough to be
manageable.
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePaper is interesting, appropriate for the
course level, demonstrates the sophistication of thought
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePaper is well organized, and sentences and paragraphs transition smoothly from one to the next.
– Paper includes clear introductory and concluding paragraphs.
Uses evidence appropriately and effectively, providing sufficient evidence and explanation to convince.
– Outcome Sentences are well-phrased, varied, and flow smoothly from one to another.
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriter uses art historical terms
to demonstrate knowledge and mastery of them.
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResearch/sources show depth and breadth, are appropriate for the course level
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence from sources is well integrated and synthesized – footnotes do not read like a book report
– Grammar use (verb endings, subject-verb agreement, plural forms, etc.) is correct.
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMechanics (punctuation, capitals, quotations, titles of artworks etc.) are handled correctly.
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeImages are of appropriate quality, they are captioned correctly, not embedded in the paper, and are referred to by figure number.
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePaper is cited properly, format of footnotes and bibliography is correct
– This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuotes used sparingly and well integrated into the paper