Complete World History Discussion Post

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Unit 8 Discussion: The Americas
Step 1:
Imagine that you are from Teotihuacan, Tenochtitlan, OR Cuzco at its height. Write a guidebook entry to attract visitors to your chosen city.
Steer away from misleading characterizations of pre-Columbian societies and ritual sacrifice.
Give us a brief introduction to the city (include a hypothetical date) and highlight some of your city’s attractions.
Tell potential visitors what they can do, what they can see, and what they can learn about the culture.
Use the sources below (not outside sources) and your textbook to gather information. Please cite your sources in the text of your guidebook entry AND at the bottom of your post in a bibliography. (EXAMPLE ATTCHED BELOW, ALSO INCLUDE A SHORT WRITTEN SYNOPSIS OF THE BROCHURE)
Sources for Teotihuacan:

“Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan”
“A Secret Tunnel Found in Mexico May Finally Solve the Mysteries of Teotihuacán”
“Teotihuacan,” (Metropolitan Museum of Art, Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History)
“Teotihuacan,” (Ancient History Encyclopedia)
“Teotihuacan,” (Universe in Universe)

OR
Sources for Tenochtitlan:

“Tenochtitlan,” (Metropolitan Museum of Art, Hilbrunn Timeline of Art History)

“Templo Mayor at Tenochtitlan,” (Khan Academy)

“Tenochtitlan/Emperors of the Aztecs/Mexica,” (Kessler Associates)

“Cortes Describes Tenochtitlan,” (American Historical Association)

“Imperial city of the Aztecs: Mexico-Tenochtitlan” (Common place)

OR
Sources for Cuzco:

“A stairway to the stars” (Astronomy)
“City of Cuzco” (Khan Academy)
“Cuzco” (Ancient History Encyclopedia)

Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.