General Comment

Far too many of the essays read like cut and paste jobs in which students expanded their project by simply incorporating material from web sites. Many students did not provide footnotes and a bibliography despite being told to do so: see http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/hisilg/essays2005.htm. Students should at very least have referred to the readings set for the Project being expanded.
 

Good Answer

Students  expanded a Project in a methodical fashion.

Students demonstrated a grasp of the general theme of the module addressing the issue of how film presents history and the issue of how history is presented in other fashions, such as written works.

Students expanded their initial project by consulting the feedback on those projects, the set readings, additional readings, and combining that material with their own thoughts on the matter.

Students who received a grade of 75% or above articulated their argument in a clear and concise fashion. In general these students developed an analysis based on specific examples from the relevant films.

Students who received a grade between 60% and 74% generally had an argument, but could have improved their paper in a number of ways including: structuring their essay in a more focused manner, developing their points in a clearer fashion, having better written expression, displaying a better grasp of the relevance of the particular films to the topic under discussion, making specific references to the films, and in general showing a better understanding of Film and History, or some combination of the preceding points.

Poor Answer

Students did not answer the question set by a Project.

Students simply listed good or bad points about films without making any argument.

Students demonstrated no understanding of the module's concern with the nature of history and simply described films.

Essay demonstrated a complete lack of reading on the students' part except for some dubious internet sites and perhaps at best Rosenstone.