學生必須繳交總計四篇對於課文分析的討論報告，期中考前後各交兩篇。這些報告必須簡短（不超過兩頁），且能證明他們有能力對單一事件做剖析並對應到大的歷史背景中。報告必須在課堂討論該特定歷史事件的當日繳交。這些報告並不需要參考額外的資料；然而，如果學生要研究主題外的資料，請事先告知教授。另外，學生不許使用任何網路資料，除非是來自指定的網站或課文的線上版本。
以下為2篇學生範例報告：
Alevtina Asarina，《聖吉羅德》
(英文PDF)、
(繁體PDF)、
(簡體PDF)、
(英文DOC)、
(繁體DOC)、
(簡體DOC)
期末報告：Daniel Leeds，《中古世紀盛期「超級王子們」及國家團結》
(英文PDF)、
(繁體PDF)、
(簡體PDF)、
(英文DOC)、
(繁體DOC)、
(簡體DOC)
期末報告指定問題
巴巴拉．杜茲曼，《一個親近的鏡子》
這本「通俗」的歷史書在1978年發表之初，即贏得一般民眾的讚揚及來自歷史學家的批評回應。畢竟，杜茲曼並非獲得博士學位的歷史學家。也許，更不尋常地是她已經出版了從聖經、第一次世界大戰、到中國等不同領域的書籍。相較之下，歷史的學院派訓練模式是專注在狹隘的特定時間與地點，尤其著重在研究領域層面。對於大學生較寬廣及折衷的教學方式來說，杜茲曼的書籍或許還能被接受，但絕對不會被用在學術作品上。
現在，既然你們已經讀過這本書，可以比較真正的歷史學家與杜茲曼女士所寫的書，能否評論兩者之間的差異點？
底下幾個問題也許可以幫助你們思考這個題目：
-
歷史學家的功用？
-
誰可以成為歷史學家，為什麼？這個問題跟認證有關
-
什麼是合法的資料來源，該如何使用？
-
為何我們要作這件事？或者為什麼要麻煩自己去作歷史研究？
-
什麼是「合法的」歷史研究題材（或是你們稱的主題）？
以下是關於＜一個親近的鏡子＞的問題：
-
杜茲曼女士書中有關14世紀的歷史跟教科書上的有什麼不同？（在＜康橋中世紀讀本＞討論百年戰爭時，我們已經提過這個問題）
-
一個較大的問題…請說明「是中世紀的」（ be medieval）是什麼意思？14世紀各式各樣的災難，是否不可避免地導致中世紀的結束？意即這些災難瓦解了歐洲的精神及文化社會，迫使（知識份子及一般人民）大眾用新的方式去了解自己，即我們現在所理解的「早期現代」(early modern)的方式？或者區隔出中世紀這段期間，只是為了回顧學習事件時的人工製品？
Students are required to submit a total of four discussion papers - two due before the mid-term and two after - in which they analyse a primary source. These papers should be short - not more than 2 pages - and should demonstrate their ability to dissect a single source and place it in its larger historical context. They should be turned in on the day in which the particular source is being discussed in class. These papers will not depend on any outside reading. However, if students pursue a topic which does require some additional reading, they are asked to clear it with the professor in advance. In particular, students are not permitted to use any Internet sources, unless they are from fully refereed sites, or are on-line versions of primary source documents.
Below are two sample student papers from the course:
Saint Gerald, by Alevtina Asarina (PDF)
Final Paper: High Middle Ages, "Super-Princes," and National Unity, by Daniel Leeds (PDF)
Final Reading Assignment Questions
Barbara Tuchman B. - A Distant Mirror
This work of "popular" history was published in 1978 to much general acclaim, and resounding critique from the historical profession. After all, Tuchman was not a PhD certified historian. Perhaps even more egregiously she had already published books on a wide variety of fields ranging from the Bible, to the First World War, to China, etc. By contrast the mode of the academic discipline of history has been to specialize ever more narrowly in time and place, especially as it concerns areas of research focus. There might be room for broad and eclectic teaching of undergraduates, but certainly not for scholarly output.
Now that you have read the book for yourselves, and can compare it with both the work of "real" historians and with selections from the sources Tuchman herself employed to write the book, can you assess for yourself what all the fuss was about?
The following questions might be helpful in thinking about this:
-
What does a historian do?
-
Who gets to be a historian, and why? - this is a credentials question
-
What are legitimate sources, and how should they be used?
-
To what purpose do we engage in this stuff anyway? or Why bother studying history?
-
What are the 'legitimate' subjects (or topics you might say) of historical enquiry?
Now some specific questions for A Distant Mirror:
-
How is Tuchman's history of the 14th century different from your textbook's? (We already thought about this a bit with the Cambridge Medieval Textbook on the 100 years war.)
-
And the big one ... Given what we know about what it means to "be medieval", was it inevitable that the various disasters of the 14th c. would spell the end of the middle ages? that is, that they would so disrupt the mental and cultural worlds of Europe that communities (of intellectuals and regular folk alike) would be forced to understand themselves in new ways, ways that we now understand to be "early modern"? Or is our periodization of the middle ages (merely) an artifact of our backwards reading of events?
