Architectural history paper
History Paper 2 Assignment
My topic is Teodoro Gonzalez and Ricardo Legorreta
In the paper, I need to compare and analyze Teodoro Gonzalez and Ricardo Legorreta’s two monumental public buildings. (The teacher said that there needs to be monumental public buildings.)
Insert the appropriate architectural image
The resources referenced need to be valid and legal, and you may need to go to the library to find them.
Appendices
A Plagiarism
B Sample Paper Layout
C University of Idaho Website Evaluation Criterion
D Grading Criteria
The objective of this assignment is to allow a more in-depth analysis of historical issues through the comparison of two historical architects, or the critical analysis of an historical topic. Students will present a thesis, or propose a historical question for which a “case” will be made within the body and conclusion of the paper. From the research, students are encouraged to find and examine historical patterns and dialectics.
Three parts that need to be completed:
Annotated List of 4- 6 Potential References. Read each source, take notes, and write the annotation (a two - three sentence description of the significance and relevance of each source).
Paper Outline
Final Draft
Omissions Policy References: If a list of potential references is not turned-in, then 2 points will be docked off the final paper grade.
First Draft: If a first draft and Outline are not turned-in, then one-half letter grade will be deducted from the final paper grade. If only an outline is turned-in for a first draft, then 2 points will be deducted from the final paper grade.
Citation Style. APA See https://www.mendeley.com/guides/apa-citation-guide
Late Policy: One point per day will be docked for late final papers.
Paper Organization:
Length of paper: 2000 min -2500 max words. Paper must be double spaced for ease of grading. Paper size should not exceed 5mb. Images should be used sparingly and only be included if they clearly illustrate points made in the paper. Papers are limited to SIX low resolution photos. A web page can be used to reference a photo.
For reviewer understanding and grading, the paper needs be organized under the following subtitles:
Title, Class, Author, Date
Introduction
Thesis Statement and/or Historical Question
Body of paper that reflects upon or supports the thesis or answers historical question(s)
Conclusion.
Bibliography APA Style https://www.mendeley.com/guides/apa-citation-guide
Example Paper Layout
Title (Title, Your Name, Class, Date)
Acceptable Title: The Spiritual Expression of Structure and Form in the Works of Mies van der Rohe and Louis Kahn. (Sufficient detail and focus)
Unacceptable Title: The Works of Mies van der Rohe and Louis Kahn (vague and too general)
Introduction: A brief background of your topic that sets the context for your thesis statement or historical question.
Thesis Statement or Historical Question A thesis statement or an historical question will be the main organizational focus of your paper. If you choose a thesis statement, the paper should narrowly focus and briefly state the essential points or central argument of the paper. If you choose to ask a historical question(s), then the paper should narrowly focus itself around and substantially answer the central question(s)
Acceptable Thesis: The urban projects of Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan demonstrate two commonalities and two major differences. Commonalities include the use of ornament without geometric formalism and floor plan layouts influenced by the planning of Violet le Duc. Differences include ……………………
Unacceptable Thesis: Wright and Sullivans’ work was influential because they were both exceptional designers. (This is known as a “Truism”)
Acceptable Thesis: In comparing high rise development in both New York and Chicago in the late 1800’s, both were influenced by the price of city lots, the invention of the elevator, the abundance of steel as a building material and the ego of the clients. Differences in the development of New York and Chicago high rise design include …………….
Unacceptable Thesis: This paper will cover the history of the American high-rise. (Too vague)
Acceptable Historical Question: Since Frank Lloyd Wright spent the early part of his career working under Louis Sullivan, and Louis Sullivan was deeply influenced by Islamic Ornament, was Frank Lloyd Wright’s early ornamental work influenced by Islamic Ornament?
Unacceptable Historical Question: What influenced the work of Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan? (Too General…more appropriate for a book)
Note: During the course of your research, you will start to see patterns of relationships form between facts that may develop into questions. From your research, your questions may turn into more definitive answers so you might consider turning the answer into a thesis statement. In the above question… “What influenced the work of Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan” (which may be an appropriate question to ask before researching your paper), you may find three definitive answers. If this is the case, then your thesis statement might be written as: The ornamental work of Frank Lloyd Wright and Louis Sullivan were influenced by three main factors: transcendental philosophy, the philosophy of Alfred E. Neumann, and Viking ornament.
Body: This forms the bulk of your paper which expands upon and supports the thesis statement. It should prove, or make the case for your thesis statement. If you choose to ask a question, then the body needs to answer the central question.
Conclusion: For this portion of the paper, your concluding remarks may comment on, but are not limited to:
A restatement of the thesis or central question(s) with further thoughts that may provoke future research OR
A restatement of the thesis or central question(s) with an assessment of the strength or weakness of the body of evidence OR
A commentary on the difference between your research and another historian’s research. OR
A commentary on the strongest evidence that supports your thesis or question.
Acceptable Conclusion: In conclusion, the most plausible evidence for the building of the high-rise is the influence that America’s bankers had on the price of land, etc…
Unacceptable Conclusion: In conclusion, the truth of the matter is that the American high-rise overwhelmingly demonstrates the superiority of the United States as the greatest country in the world, if not the entire universe.
NOTE: After writing your first and subsequent drafts, you may find that your conclusion can best be used in place of your Thesis.
NOTE: The comparisons should be in the body of the paper not solely in the conclusion. If the comparison of the two architects is written solely in the conclusion, then the paper is guaranteed to receive a “C-” grade, or lower.
Bibliography: APA Style Papers need to cite four to six reputable sources. Information referenced from books and journals are highly encouraged (and more credible) while information derived from websites like Wikipedia are generally suspect. Books and journals are considered more substantial and reliable because they are written by those who have acquired an expertise on the subject and are refereed and peer reviewed by other authoritative scholars. In contrast, information derived from websites can be written by anyone. However, this does not mean that all website information is untrustworthy. Some sites are peer reviewed and written by reliable authors or organizations and there are an increasing number of online journals. The University of Idaho Library “Website Evaluation Criteria” accessed through the library home page -- and placed at the end of this assignment -- lists criteria that should be met before referencing a website. If you choose to list an internet source in your bibliography, the website must answer to the “University of Idaho Website Evaluation Criteria” Examples of both reliable and suspect websites are listed in Appendix C.
Note: Due to the amount of work required to successfully complete this assignment and to obtain access to the library books of your choice, it will be important to begin as early as possible in order to secure enough time to receive books from Interlibrary Loan. The Washington State Library may also be used as a source for books and periodicals.
Appendix A:
Plagiarism
Plagiarism will not be tolerated. See http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~beth/REM357_syllabus_files/UI%20Academic%20Honesty.pdf for details and consequences:
The text below is extracted from the College of Environmental Science website on Academic Honesty. For full text see: www.uidaho.edu/cogs/envs/currentstudents/academichonesty
How can you avoid plagiarism?
Identify the sources you use both in the text (in parentheses or footnotes depending on the style) and in a list of literature cited at the end. In scientific writing, we typically summarize (write only the important ideas and cite the source) or paraphrase (write all the ideas in our own words and cite the source). Both summarizing and paraphrasing allow us to synthesize ideas from multiple sources. Scientists use direct direct quotes sparingly (typically only once or not at all in a paper). If you quote three or more words from someone, include those words in quotes and cite your source(s).
Some examples, below, will help you to understand the differences between plagiarizing (unacceptable) and summarizing (acceptable) or paraphrasing (acceptable). If you need additional information on writing, or how to avoid plagiarism, consult the resources available through the University of Idaho Library (http://www.lib.uidaho.edu/instruction/elec_style_guides.htm). Other potentially useful web sites, in addition to those cited above, include the UI English Department policy on plagiarism (http://www.class.uidaho.edu/english/comp/plagiarism.htm). Sites for detecting plagiarism include http://www.plagiarized.com and http://www.canexus.com/eve/index.shtml.
If you are uncertain about how to cite sources, or have other questions about potential cases of plagiarism, visit with your course instructor prior to handing in an assignment. For more on how to avoid plagiarism, see http://www.guilford.edu/about_guilford/services_and_administration/writing/plagiarism/suggestions.html.
Examples of summarizing, paraphrasing, quoting, and plagiarizing:
1. From: Force, J.E. and G.E. Machlis. 1997. The human ecosystem. Part II: Social indicators in ecosystem management. Society & Natural Resources 10: 369-382.
Original text: "Social indicators are statistics collected for policy analysis and decision making….Social indicators, like the other social science methodologies, have several limitations…The selection of indicators is far from value-free."
Summarized (Acceptable): Social indicators are useful despite their limitations (Force and Machlis 1997).
Paraphrased (Acceptable): Despite their limitations, social indicators are useful to decision makers (Force and Machlis 1997).
Plagiarized (NOT Acceptable): Social indicators are statistics collected for policy analysis and decision making. Social indicators, like the other social science methodologies, have several limitations. The selection of indicators is far from value-free. (This is not acceptable because it is copied word for word from the original, the words are not in quotes, and the source is not cited).
Plagiarized (NOT Acceptable): Social indicators are used in policy analysis and decision making (Force and Machlis 1997). Indicators have limitations. For instance, they are not value free. (This is not acceptable because many of the phrases are exactly the same as the original, and the sentence structure is very similar with only a few word substitutions).
2. From: Franklin, J. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes. Ecological Applications 3(2): 202-205.
Original text: "…we must increase our emphasis on ecosystem- and landscape-level approaches over species-based approaches if we truly intend to maintain the majority of existing biological diversity…We must see the larger task—stewardship of all of the species on all of the landscape with every activity we undertake as human beings—a task without spatial and temporal boundaries."
Summarized (Acceptable): Franklin (1993) argued that biodiversity conservation must emphasize ecosystems over species.
Paraphrased (Acceptable): Landscape-scale approaches are critical to successful land management because species-level approaches cannot ensure conservation of biological diversity (Franklin 1993).
Plagiarized (NOT Acceptable): Franklin (1993) feels that to conserve most of our current biological diversity, we must emphasize ecosystem- and landscape-level approaches over species-based approaches.
3. Heyerdahl, E.K., L.B. Brubaker, and J.K. Agee. 2001. Spatial controls of historical fire regimes: a multiscale example from the Interior West, USA. Ecology 82(3): 660-678.
Original text: "As a consequence of excluding fire, spatial variation in climate, topography, and vegetation no longer influences fire regimes as it did before ~1900, either regionally or locally…This dramatic change in fire frequency has profoundly affected forest composition and structure in the Blue Mountains…These changes in forest composition and structure have shifted the fire regime of dry forests from frequent low-severity fires to infrequent, high-severity fires that kill large areas of ponderosa pine…."
Summarized (Acceptable): As a result of fire suppression, fires are less frequent and more severe now than they were before 1900 in the Blue Mountains (Heyerdahl et al. 2001).
Paraphrased (Acceptable): Heyerdahl et al. (2001) documented a change in fire regimes since 1900 in the dry forests of the Blue Mountains of Oregon. They attribute the occurrence of less frequent but more severe fires to fire exclusion, and identify the ways in which the influence of climate and topography have changed.
Misinterpreted (NOT Acceptable): According to Heyerdahl et al. (2001), fire exclusion has resulted in less frequent and more severe fires, as well as dramatic changes in forest composition and structure. They expect fires to kill large areas of ponderosa pine. (Note that this is an incorrect interpretation of the source, since the authors limited their statement to ponderosa pine forests in the Blue Mountains (not all forests everywhere), and that Heyerdahl et al. (2001) don’t mention expectations).
Plagiarized (NOT Acceptable): Forests have changed greatly in the Blue Mountains. Where frequent low-severity fires once burned, infrequent, high-severity fires now kill large areas of ponderosa pine (No source is cited).
The above text was extracted from: www.uidaho.edu/cogs/envs/currentstudents/academichonesty
Appendix B: Sample Paper Layout
The Spiritual Expression of Structure and Form in the High Rise Construction of New York and Chicago
Meghan Craig
Arch 386
April 15, 2013
Introduction: A brief background of your topic that sets the context and introduces your thesis statement or historical question.
Thesis: (Sample) In comparing high rise development in both New York and Chicago in the late 1800’s, both were influenced by the price of city lots, the invention of the elevator, the abundance of steel as a building material, and the ego of the clients. Differences in the development of New York and Chicago high rise design include …………….
Body (Sample) At first glance, New York and Chicago high rises have few similarities as these photos show. http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TNY1073.jpg and http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/174/262174.jpg However, upon further inspection their designs possess a similar ….
Paragraph II
One detail that both share are their ……. (Sandy). Stone is a common material for the…
Paragraph III
A major difference that Anderson points out is that these details ”focus skyward forming a coherent whole” (1981, p 29)
Paragraph III, IV, etc…
Conclusion: Although New York and Chicago high rises differ in many respects from the use of materials and foundational design, Sanderson points out that the use of materials is immaterial.
Bibliography APA Style Order: Entries should be arranged in alphabetical order by authors' last names. Sources without authors are arranged alphabetically by title within the same list.
Anderson, T. (1981). The soul of a new machine. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Anderson, T (1999) The soul of an old machine, Montreal, Big, Black & Company
Mead, P (2000). Light and air in Southern California high rises . San Diego: Sandy & Company
Sandy, D. (1998) The high rise reconsidered Amsterdam: Little, Black & Co
Appendix C
University of Idaho Website Evaluation Criteria |
Authority
Purpose : What do you think the purpose of the site is? Consider what benefits the author or sponsor derives from this site. Audience: At what audience is this website directed? Accuracy/Objectivity
Content: Is the content informative and useful and does the website cover the topic adequately? Currency Can you tell when the site was last updated or if the information seems up-to-date? Check "Page Info" on Netscape or type javascript:alert(document.lastModified) into the URL address box
Summary: What is your overall assessment of the site? Useful? Good reliable source? Joke? Junk? Useful only to show a particular viewpoint? Would this be a good source of information for a research paper? For another approach, visit the website evaluation section of the UI Library's Library and Web Research Tutorial at www.lib.uidaho.edu/tutorial/s409.htm Many other Web sites discuss Web evaluation criteria:
|
Appendix D
History Paper Grading Criteria
Evidence of Plagiarism………………………………...........Yes No If Yes, then paper …. receives 0% and is reported ……. to the Dean of Students…. Meaningful and Focused Title ……………………….……….……….Yes No
Thesis Statement or Central Question: …...Clearly stated and easy to find ……………………………………………………………Yes No …….Detailed and meaningful focus ………………………………………………...…...…....Yes No
I
If No then proceed to Conclusion
s the paper a meaningful comparison? ………………...Yes No If NO, then the …...Note: If the paper is two separate reports on two highest grade is a 75% …...designers with minimal or no comparison in the …...body and conclusion, then the paper is not a meaningful …… comparison.Body of Paper: Body elaborates and supports thesis or question ………... Yes Mostly Sometimes
Evidence of critical thinking & comparisons……................Yes Mostly Sometimes to support thesis or that answers central question(s)
Comparisons are clearly stated … reader is not required….. Yes Mostly Sometimes to guess or infer the comparisons from the body.
All bibliography sources referenced in text………………………………..………Yes No
Conclusion: summarizes and provokes further thinking ……………… Yes No
Bibliography: At least four reputable sources that are referenced in the paper. If internet sources are used then they meet the U of I website criteria listed in the assignment……………………………………………....Yes No
Clarity and Credibility Deficiencies:
1 = Writing is unclear or not credible sometimes and occasionally affects the paper’s readability
2 = Writing is unclear or not credible many times, and oftentimes affects the paper’s readability
3 = Writing is unclear or not credible frequently enough to make the paper unreadable
Clarity Deficiencies
1 2 3 Grammar, Spelling, Etc… 1 2 3 Use of jargon or obscure language (overly complicated language)
1 2 3 Hard to link one thought to the next. (Stream of consciousness)
Credibility Deficiencies
1 2 3 Exaggerated claims (Hyperbole) 1 2 3 Unsupported claims
1 2 3 Use of clichés (overused meaningless phrases) 1 2 3 Truism (obviously true statements that add nothing to the argument)
1 2 3 Contradictory statements that are unresolved
1 2 3 Other __________________________
- 11 -