UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
223 SECOND-YEAR WRITING SEMINAR COURSE PROPOSAL FORM
1. List the full title of this course (e.g. HIST 223 Second-Year Writing Seminar 3-3-0):
CLST 223 Second-Year Writing Seminar 3-3-0
Was Alexander Great?
2. Provide the Catalogue Description to be used for this course (you may use the
description listed in “FAQ about 223” as your department’s description or you may adapt
it to fit your department’s needs):
The Second-Year Writing Seminar invites students to create and participate in a
collaborative research community formed around a stimulating course topic as
determined by the professor. The seminar encourages students to continue practicing and
reflecting upon the conventions of reading and writing appropriate for liberal arts
learning, in particular the ability to evaluate, synthesize, and present primary and
secondary sources in a research project. As it introduces students to the conventions of
academic research and its presentation in both oral and written forms, the course’s focal
point is the creation of a required 10-15 page formal research paper.
3. Briefly (one paragraph), how will the curriculum benefit from this particular offering
of 223?
“Was Alexander Great?” ultimately asks students to contemplate the complex system of
values, beliefs and practical concerns that affects our estimation of an individual’s
contribution to the global community, whether ancient or contemporary. This course will
provide students with a framework of reference within which to evaluate contemporary
issues such as effective leadership and the problems inherent in “civilizing” nations that
are perceived as underdeveloped as well as in imperial expansion.
4. A concise explanation (one to two single-spaced pages) of how the proposed course
will fulfill each of the following criteria (“FAQ about 223” features sample course
designs for 223):
(1) Writing Assignment Design and (2) Treatment of Writing as a Developmental Process
Course Objectives
In “Was Alexander Great?” students will enhance their ability to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
use library and internet resources accurately and efficiently;
evaluate the reliability of source materials on the internet;
identify the thesis and supporting arguments of a secondary text;
analyze critically the thesis and supporting arguments of a secondary text;
formulate their own reasoned arguments in support of a thesis;
1
6.
7.
communicate their own thesis and supporting arguments both orally and in
writing;
produce a polished piece of formal writing.
Attainment of Objectives
Objectives 1-2: Students will participate in workshops on using library and internet
resources accurately and efficiently and on evaluating the reliability of source materials
on the internet.
Objective 3: Students will write semi-formal summaries in which they identify the thesis
and supporting arguments of the main texts under consideration in the course (three in
all). These exercises will help prepare students to critique arguments—the student must
be able to identify the thesis and supporting arguments at stake before engaging in
meaningful analysis.
Objective 4: Students will write three semi-formal critiques of articles on/reviews of the
main texts under consideration. In their critiques students will objectively and
thoughtfully analyze the thesis and supporting arguments presented by the author. These
assignments will prepare students to engage effectively with secondary scholarship when
writing their final papers. In addition, reading and evaluating other authors’ views of the
main texts may open students’ eyes to new ways of looking at the main texts and issues
under consideration and may assist students in formulating their own views.
Objectives 5, 6, and 7
Students will compose a formal 15-page paper in stages during the last third of the
semester. First, students will submit a thesis statement and annotated bibliography. The
semi-formal writing assignments (summaries and critiques), the workshops on writing a
research paper and on using library and internet resources, and additional workshops on
writing a thesis statement and annotated bibliography will all serve to assist the student in
this first stage of composition. Students will have the opportunity to integrate the
instructor’s comments on the thesis statement and bibliography into the first draft of the
paper. Second, students will submit a first draft of the paper both to a peer and to the
instructor for written and oral evaluation. Students will have the opportunity to integrate
the peer’s and the instructor’s comments on argument and style into the final draft of the
paper. Finally, students will submit a final draft of the paper. Reading days are built into
the final weeks of the course in order to provide students with the time they will need to
reflect thoughtfully on their papers as well as an the critiques of the first draft.
Objective 6: Students will give an oral presentation of their work at the end of the
semester (see also part 5 below).
(3) Written Feedback from the Instructor and (4) Evaluation of Writing
Please refer to the “Evaluation and Assessment” section of the syllabus, which sets out
clearly and fully the instructor’s criteria for assessing all writing assessments as well as
the kinds of feedback students can expect (both oral and written, from both the instructor
and peers).
2
(5) Oral Presentation
Students will give a 15-minute informal, oral presentation of their work at the end of the
semester. This will provide each student with an opportunity to receive one final set of
feedback on his/her ideas before submitting the final draft of the paper.
5. Please append a proposed syllabus centered on a particular topic (e.g. Gender in
Media, Ethics in Accounting), which should include a statement of course objectives, a
sequence of class activities, references to writing assignments, and weight of writing
assignments in relation to the final course grade. If more than one topic will be offered
in the department’s initial offering of 223, please include the same materials on additional
topics.
Please see the attached syllabus.
6. Please append at least three writing assignments planned for use in this course.
These are included in the syllabus under “Evaluation and Assessment”.
7. Given that the course is capped at 19 students, what is the anticipated enrollment per
offering for the next three years?
19 students per course; 1 course per semester
During which term will this course first be offered?
Fall 2006_ Spring 20___ Summer 20___
During which semesters will this course regularly be offered?
Fall 20__X_ Spring 20_X__ Summer 20___
8. Which W-I certified full-time faculty members will staff this course? (for certification
requirements, please see “Writing Intensive Certification” at
http://www.cnu.edu/admin/provost/forms.html)
Dr. Jana Adamitis will teach the Alexander course. Dr. Pollio and Dr. Buszard may
contribute additional 223 courses on different topics in the future.
9. Does the course involve a particular classroom, special equipment, or costs beyond
those usually associated with a course at CNU? If so, please explain.
No.
10. In addition to counting toward the general education requirement, will this particular
course (e.g. HIST 223) be required for the major? If so, why?
At present there is no major in Classical Studies.
3
Christopher Newport University
Dept. of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures
Dr. J. Adamitis
WAS ALEXANDER GREAT?
CLST 223 SECOND-YEAR WRITING SEMINAR
Alexander of Macedon lived to be only thirty-three years old. Within his short life, he
created the largest empire the western world had yet witnessed and set in motion a
cultural exchange between east and west that would prove to be a watershed for the
development of western civilization. A legend in his own time, Alexander was revered
by the ancient Greeks and Romans for his military prowess, so much so that posterity
granted him the cognomen “Great”. The “greatness” of Alexander remained virtually
unquestioned for centuries, yet recently this view has come under fire. Does Alexander
deserve the title “Great” for his imperial accomplishments, or was he a power-hungry
tyrant whose military exploits warrant criticism rather than praise? Students will grapple
with this very question in “Was Alexander Great?”
The course begins with a discussion of the concept of “greatness” in general that will set
the stage for the semester-long evaluation of Alexander. Students enrolled in the
President’s Leadership Program and Military Science (ROTC) are strongly encouraged
to apply their studies of leadership and military theory to their examination of Alexander
in this course. Students will devote the first part of the semester (approximately twothirds) to reading and analyzing selections from three accounts of Alexander’s life, each
of which presents a unique perspective on the conqueror: Sir William Tarn’s Alexander is
a Victorian gentleman whose noble goal was to civilize the people he conquered; Brian
Bosworth’s Alexander is a blood-thirsty, power-hungry tyrant who deserves
condemnation rather than emulation; and Paul Cartledge’s Alexander is a mixture of the
two, a harsh conqueror whose ends justify his means. The second part of the semester
will be devoted to research workshops and to oral presentations of students’ research
projects, but it will also include a screening and discussion of Oliver Stone’s
controversial “Alexander”.
Students should note that “Was Alexander Great” is not a history course. This course
focuses on the concept of greatness, specifically as it applies to Alexander’s status as a
“Great Man”, and asks students to formulate and support a stance on whether or not
Alexander deserves this title.
4
Learner Objectives
In general, students will continue to practice, reflect on, and improve their writing skills
as they works toward producing a polished research paper. More specifically, students
will enhance their ability to:
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
use library and internet resources accurately and efficiently;
evaluate the reliability of source materials on the internet;
identify the thesis and supporting arguments of a secondary text;
analyze critically the thesis and supporting arguments of a secondary text;
formulate their own reasoned arguments in support of a thesis;
communicate their own thesis and supporting arguments both orally and in
writing;
14. produce a polished piece of formal writing.
Evaluation and Assessment
(refer to the syllabus for due dates)
Participation
Summaries
Critiques
Peer Evaluation
10%
10%
10%
10%
15-page Paper: Three Contributions to Course Grade
Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliography
10%
First Draft
20%
Final Draft
20%
Oral Presentation
10%
Participation
Students are expected to come to class on time and prepared, and to contribute to class
discussions consistently, thoughtfully and respectfully.
Summaries (submitted via InSite)
One page maximum. Students will write summaries of the biographies under
consideration as they relate to the concept of greatness. The first summary will be on
Tarn, the second on Bosworth, and the third on Cartledge. The summaries should include
a statement of the biographer’s stance on the issue of Alexander’s “greatness” (or lack
thereof) and a brief account of the biographer’s supporting evidence for his stance.
Summaries will be assessed according to the following criteria:
1. is the statement concerning the biographer’s stance and accurate and complete?
2. is the account of the biographer’s supporting evidence accurate?
5
3.
4.
5.
does the account of the biographer’s supporting evidence take into
consideration the entire reading assignment (as opposed to a small portion of
it)?
is the organization of the summary coherent?
is the summary well-written from a stylistic point of view (this includes
spelling and grammar)?
The instructor will provide written feedback via InSite.
Critiques (submitted via InSite)
Two pages maximum. Students will critique articles on each of the biographies covered
this semester: Ernst Badian’s criticism of Tarn’s Alexander the Great, Parker’s
assessment of Bosworth’s Alexander in the East, and Preston’s review of Cartledge’s
Alexander the Great. The analysis of each article should respond to the following
question:
Is the author’s argument valid? Why or why not?
The analysis should begin with a paragraph in which the student articulates his/her
evaluation of the article clearly and concisely. The body of the paper should consist of
arguments supporting the evaluation presented in the opening paragraph.
Please note that I am not asking whether or not you agree with the authors of these
articles. I am asking you to evaluate objectively the arguments presented in the article.
The analyses will be assessed as follows:
1. does the thesis represent thoughtful reflection upon and analysis of the article?
2. is the thesis statement articulated clearly and concisely?
3. are the arguments presented in the body of the paper relevant to the thesis?
4. are the arguments presented logically and coherently?
5. are the thesis and arguments objective?
6. is the analysis well-written from a stylistic point of view (this includes spelling
and grammar)?
The instructor will provide written feedback via InSite.
Peer Evaluations (submitted via InSite)
Every student will evaluate the first draft of a peer’s paper. This evaluation will include a
written critique of the student’s work that will be submitted to both the instructor and the
student whose work is being evaluated. In addition, students will discuss their
evaluations with one another during an in-class workshop.
The Peer Evaluations will be assessed according to the same criteria as the “Critiques”.
Please keep in mind that the Peer Evaluations are objective evaluations of the author’s
arguments in support of his/her thesis concerning the greatness of Alexander. Whether or
6
not you agree with the author’s personal stance on what constitutes “greatness” is
irrelevant.
The instructor will provide oral feedback to both writer and evaluator.
15 Page Paper: General Information
Students will formulate a thesis concerning the “greatness” of Alexander and support that
thesis with relevant and cogent argumentation. There are a variety of ways in which the
student can approach the concept of “greatness”. PLP students, for example, might want
to consider Alexander’s greatness from the perspective of leadership theory; similarly,
students in Military Science might want to evaluate Alexander’s effectiveness as a
military leader. Other students might want to examine Alexander’s “greatness” from a
philosophical, moral or ethical standpoint.
In your paper you will need to do four things:
1. clearly articulate your stance on the concept of “greatness” at the beginning of
the paper;
2. clearly and succinctly articulate your evaluation of Alexander within the
framework of your concept of “greatness” (also at the beginning of the paper);
3. argue coherently in support of your evaluation of Alexander, using secondary
sources to support your claims.
4. write a concluding paragraph that sums up your main arguments clearly and
concisely and arrives at some conclusion regarding Alexander’s “greatness”.
The writing of the paper will progress in stages: students will begin by articulating their
thesis and engaging in preliminary research. They will then write a first draft of the
paper that will be critiqued by both a peer and the instructor. Finally, they will compose
a polished final draft of the paper that addresses the concerns raised in the critiques and
that refines and/or supplements the arguments presented in the first draft.
In lieu of a final exam, students will present their research to the class during the final
weeks of the semester.
Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliography
Before beginning the first draft of the paper, students must first clearly articulate their
thesis statement and perform preliminary research so that they can position their own
thesis within a larger scholarly framework.
The thesis statement should contain two components:
1. a clear articulation of the student’s stance on “greatness”;
2. a clear articulation of the student’s evaluation of Alexander within the
framework of his/her stance on greatness.
The annotated bibliography should contain the following:
1. full bibliographical references for a minimum of 5 sources beyond those
covered in the class readings;
7
2.
3.
4.
a summary of each source (thesis and supporting evidence);
a critique of each source;
a brief statement on how each source is relevant to student’s thesis.
The Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliography will be assessed according to the
following criteria:
1. is the student’s stance on “greatness” clearly articulated?
2. does this stance reflect thoughtful reflection upon the concept of “greatness”?
3. is the student’s evaluation of Alexander clearly articulated?
4. does the evaluation reflect thoughtful reflection upon the “greatness” of
Alexander?
5. does the annotated bibliography contain five sources beyond those covered in
class?
6. are these sources clearly relevant to the paper’s thesis?
7. are the summaries of the sources accurate and clearly presented?
8. do the critiques of the sources reflect thoughtful reflection upon the author’s
arguments?
9. are the critiques objective?
10. are the arguments on the critiques presented clearly and concisely?
The instructor will submit a written evaluation via InSite.
First Draft
Students will submit a first draft of the paper to both a peer and the instructor for
evaluation. The first draft must be at least 10 full pages in length and must include a
bibliography.
The first draft will be assessed according to the following criteria:
1. is the student’s stance on “greatness” articulated clearly, and does it represent
thoughtful reflection on this concept?
2. does the thesis represent thoughtful reflection upon the issue of Alexander’s
“greatness”?
3. is the thesis statement articulated clearly and concisely?
4. are the arguments presented in the body of the paper relevant to the thesis?
5. are the arguments presented logically and coherently?
6. are sources cited accurately?
7. is the analysis well-written from a stylistic point of view (this includes spelling
and grammar)?
A peer will provide both written and oral feedback to the student. The instructor will
provide oral feedback to the student on his/her work.
Final Paper
The final paper will be assessed according to the same criteria as the First Draft with one
very important additions:
1. Does the final paper take into consideration the suggestions and criticisms
8
2.
3.
made by the peer evaluator and the instructor on the first draft?
Does the final paper represent thoughtful reflection upon these suggestions
and criticisms?
Does the student incorporate these suggestions and criticisms into the paper in
a clear and cogent manner?
Oral Presentation
Each student will present his/her research to the class during the final weeks of the
semester. These presentations will be summaries of the student’s work, not a reading of
the final paper in its entirety. Students will be allotted 15 minutes for the presentation.
One can read approximately seven double-spaced pages in this time frame at a reasonable
pace. Students are required to provide a one-page handout containing their thesis
statement and a bulleted outline of their supporting arguments to the class members.
The oral presentations will be assessed according the following criteria:
1. does the presentation accurately represent the student’s thesis and supporting
arguments;
2. is the presentation clear and concise?
3. is the presentation audible and appropriately paced?
4. is the presentation accompanied by a handout containing the thesis statement
and a bulleted outline of their supporting arguments to the class members?
It should go without saying that attendance at the oral presentations is not optional.
Bibliography
Badian, E. 1958. “Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind” Historia 7: 425-444
Bosworth, B. 1998. Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph (reprint)
Cartledge, P. 2004. Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past
Hansen, Victor Davis. 2004. “Alexander the Greatest” Times Literary Supplement,
9 October 2004 (online)
Parker, V. 1997. “Bosworth’s Alexander: A Review Discussion” (online)
Preston, P. 2004. “Alexander the Bloody Brutal” The Observer, 1 August 2004 (online)
Tarn, Sir William. 1948. Alexander the Great
9
Schedule of Topics
NB: The readings in Tarn, Bosworth, and Cartledge are selected passages only. These
will be chapters or subsections of chapters that focus on a single episode in Alexander’s
life and reflect clearly the author’s stance on Alexander’s “greatness”.
Introductory Material
Week 1: Workshops
Workshop on Using InSite
Research Workshop I: Wadsworth Handbook 11: “Writing a Research Paper”
Week 2: Introduction to the Life of Alexander the Great
The instructor will present an overview of Alexander life and accomplishments in
order to provide students with a basic chronology of Alexander’s journey that will
assist them in comprehending the course readings. Clips from Michael
Wood’s documentary “In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great” will accompany
the lectures.
Week 3: How Great Was Alexander—and in Whose Opinion?
Read and discuss Victor Davis Hansen’s review article on modern biographical
treatments of Alexander’s “greatness”: “Alexander the Greatest”
(Times Literary Supplement, 9 October 2004)
NB: Your summary of Tarn is due at the end of week 4, before we begin the class
discussion. Use this weekend and the beginning of next week to read the assignment in
Tarn and to compose your summary.
Week 4: Research Workshop II; Tarn’s Alexander
Wadsworth Handbook 12, “Doing Library and Field Research” (Workshop at
Smith Library: meet in the foyer)
Summary of Tarn due on InSite
Discussion of Tarn, Alexander the Great (selections)
Week 5: Tarn’s Alexander and Badian’s critique
Discussion of Tarn, Alexander the Great (continued)
Critique of Badian due on InSite
Discussion of Badian’s article
NB: Your summary of Bosworth is due at the end of week 6, before we begin the class
discussion. Use this weekend and the beginning of next week to read the assignment in
Bosworth and to compose your summary.
Week 6: Research Workshop III and Bosworth
Wadsworth Handbook 13-14, “Doing Internet Research” and “Evaluating Web
Sites” (in-class workshop)
Summary of Bosworth due on InSite
10
Discussion of Bosworth, Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph
(selections)
Week 7: Bosworth’s Alexander and Parker’s critique
Discussion of Bosworth’s Alexander (continued)
Critique of Parker due on InSite
Discussion of Parker
NB: Your summary of Cartledge is due at the end of week 6, before we begin the class
discussion. Use this weekend and the beginning of next week to read the assignment in
Cartledge and to compose your summary.
Week 8: Reading Day and Cartledge’s Alexander
Reading Day: begin work on Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliography
Summary of Cartledge due on InSite
Discussion of Cartledge’s Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past
Week 9: Cartledge’ Alexander and Preston’s Review
Discussion of Cartledge’s Alexander (continued)
Critique of Preston due on InSite
Discussion of Preston
Week 10: Research Workshop IV and Screening of “Alexander”
In-class workshop on Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliographies
Please bring a draft of your thesis statement to class as well as your
bibliographical references.
Thesis Statement and Annotated Bibliographies due by Friday at midnight
Week 11: “Alexander”: Screening and In-class Discussion
First Draft due on InSite by midnight on Friday
Week 12: Reading Day and Peer Evaluations
Reading Day
Peer Evaluations: In-class one-on-one discussions among evaluating and
evaluated peers
Week 13
Reading days
Week 14
Oral presentations
Week 15
Oral presentations
Final Draft Due on InSite by midnight on the Monday of Exam Week
11