Harold C. Smith Essay Contest

Harold C. Smith Foundation Christian Approaches to History Essay Contest

Have you worked on a history paper that you’re really excited about?  This is an opportunity to reflect on how Christian belief and/or practices shaped the paper. 

Essays may explore any historical subject using primary and secondary sources and should demonstrate sound historical reasoning.  The papers should also include a 750-1000 word addendum reflecting on how Christian perspectives and approaches shaped the research and writing project and/or how they would approach the project differently after reflecting about it from an explicitly Christian perspective.

Award Amounts

• 1st Prize: $1000
• 2nd Prize: $750
• 3rd Prize: $500

Deadline: February 4, 11:59pm

Submission Criteria

Student Qualifications

• The contest is open only to undergraduate students in good standing.
• A student may only win one award from the Harold C. Smith Foundation Essay Contest during his or her tenure at Wheaton College.

Essay Qualifications

• The essay must have been written by the student in a class with an HIST prefix, or in a CORE class taught by a member of the history department taken within the last two years.
• The essay may be sound historical work about any subject.  
• The addendum can reflect on how Christian perspectives and approaches shaped the research and writing project, how they might do things differently in light of explicit Christian reflection, or challenges they faced in trying to write history as a Christian.
• Your reflection should involve interaction with at least one conversation partner such as:
  • Tracy McKenzie - A Little Book for New Historians
  • Beth Barton Schweiger - "Seeing Things: Knowledge and Love in History”
  • Jay Green - Christian Historiography
  • C.S. Lewis - “Learning in Wartime,” or “Historicism”
  • John Fea - Why History?
  • Sam Wineburg - Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts or Why Study History (When It’s Already on Your Phone)
  • Mark Noll - Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind
  • Karen Johnson’s “Using Lament in the History Classroom to Engage the History of Race in America.”  Fides et Historia 50 (2), 2018: 114-123 or “A Pedagogy of Healing.” In Lament and Justice in African American History, ed. Trisha Posey.  Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2023

Please note that this list of conversation partners is not restrictive, but if you would like to converse with a different author, please clear your choice with the faculty member endorsing your paper.  In the interaction, please summarize the conversation partner’s main points.

Faculty Endorsement

• The student should obtain approval from their faculty member in whose course they wrote the essay.
• Endorsement must be received by the essay deadline.

Essay Formatting

• The essay should not include the author's name but should only have their student ID on the top.
• The citations should follow the full note Chicago Manual of Style.

Rubric

Introduction (with thesis): Draws the reader in, states the thesis, indicates a clear, specific, and manageable focus for the paper. (10%)

• 3.0: Unacceptable - Nonexistent 
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C- ) 
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C )
• 4.0: Acceptable (B-) - Exists but could be more effective
• 4.25: Strong (B) 
• 4.75:  Very Strong (A-) 
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Draws reader in, sets context, includes strong thesis

Main body organization: paragraphs support the thesis in a logical, coherent way and Chicago Manual of Style full note citation style is used. (10%)

• 3.0: Unacceptable - Unrelated collection of information
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C -)
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C )
• 4.0: Acceptable (B-) - Some organization, but weak transitions and weak logic
• 4.25: Strong (B)
• 4.75: Very Strong (A-)
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Strong transitions and good logical development

Quality of Research: quality and use of primary and secondary sources (15%)

• 3.0: Unacceptable - Very weak, little evidence of research
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C- ) 
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C )
• 4.0:  Acceptable (B-) - Adequate research, possibly some inappropriate sources.  Use of sources demonstrates charity and complexity.
• 4.25: Strong (B)
• 4.75: Very Strong (A-)
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Strong sources, evidence of thorough research.  Use of sources demonstrates charity and complexity.

Interpretation: explains significance of research to support the thesis, addresses objections (15%)

• 3.0: Unacceptable - Not present
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C- ) 
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C )
• 4.0: Acceptable (B-) - Interpretation supports thesis but has weaknesses
• 4.25: Strong (B)
• 4.75: Very Strong (A-)
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Sound historical interpretation

Conclusion summarizes the argument and significance of the paper (the 'so what' factor) (10%)

• 3.0:  Unacceptable - No conclusion
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C- ) 
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C )
• 4.0: Acceptable (B-) - General conclusion, but some points not well supported
• 4.25: Strong (B)
• 4.75: Very Strong (A-)
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Conclusion is well-supported, significance is clear

Conversation partner(s): clearly describes the views of and interacts with the conversation partner(s) (15%)

• 3.0: Unacceptable - No interaction with conversation partner.
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C- ) 
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C ) - Vague but present description of a conversation partner with little evidence.
• 4.0: Acceptable (B-)
• 4.25: Strong (B)
• 4.75: Very Strong (A-)
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Clear description of the author’s main arguments using evidence

Faith and learning self-reflection: describes their own view or approach to the project as a Christian.   (15%)

•  3.0: Unacceptable - Little to no discussion of how Christianity shaped their approach to history OR little to no attempt to place themselves in conversation.
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C-) 
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C) - Describes their approach but with only vague or generic interaction with the conversation partner. 
• 4.0: Acceptable (B-)
• 4.25: Strong (B)
• 4.75: Very Strong (A-)
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Clearly describes the author’s view or framework and places that perspective in relation to their conversation partner (s).  Shows evidence of substantial thought.

Evidence of Christian framework: Provides evidence of how their own Christian framework shaped their research, writing, and approach. (10%)  

• 3.0: Unacceptable - Little to no evidence substantiating their arguments.
• 3.5-3.75: Minimally acceptable (C-) 
• 3.75: Minimally acceptable (C ) - Offers some evidence of their interaction with their research and/or writing process from a Christian perspective.
• 4.0:Acceptable (B-)
• 4.25: Strong (B)
• 4.75: Very Strong (A-)
• 5.0: Excellent (A) - Offers concrete examples of how their frame informed their approach, or how, upon reflection, they might revise their approach given their aspirational Christian approach to history.