Due by 23:59 on Tuesday, April 21 (late policy: 4/100 points per day).
This exercise asks you to reflect on what you have learned in this course and to bring that learning to bear on the world around you. It consists of two components: a written reflection and a video reflection. Please submit your written reflection via Turnitin alongside a link to your video. Do not upload the video file itself.
The Task
Begin by identifying a contemporary problem—something ongoing or recurrent that you have encountered in the news, in public debate, or in your own experience. This should be broad enough to have historical dimensions: not a single event, but a pattern, tension, or condition that persists across time, and significant enough to have received coverage in reputable news sources or to have been the subject of serious public debate. To illustrate the kind of connection I have in mind, consider the following examples: the tension in early Chinese thought between Legalist reliance on law and Confucian cultivation of civility that may speak to contemporary debates over whether social order is best maintained through legal enforcement or shared norms and values; the debates over monopolies that may resonate with ongoing arguments about state intervention in the economy and the general roles of the government; and Confucian anxieties over the spread of Buddhism that may echo contemporary concerns about foreign cultural influence and the perceived erosion of national or traditional values. These are illustrations, not options—your chosen problem should emerge from your own engagement with the world around you, and you are welcome to draw on any part of the course.
Component 1: Written Reflection (1,100–1,300 words)
Your written reflection should be organized around the following elements:
Opening (2–3 sentences): Identify your chosen problem and provide a specific reference to where you encountered it (e.g., a news article, a documentary, a public debate), and explain what initially suggested a connection to this course. This justification is part of the assessed work.
Reflection: Explain how what you have learned in this course—through specific assigned primary sources and course themes—has changed or complicated how you understand your chosen problem. Your reflection should:
- reference at least three assigned primary sources (three distinct documents, not multiple citations from the same source), with direct quotations and page numbers, at least one of which must come from before the midterm conversation and at least one from after;
- include at least one quotation from Hansen, with page number, that supports, complicates, or frames your reflection;
- engage explicitly with at least one of the following course themes: patterns of unity and diversity or of change and continuity in early Chinese society—identify the theme by name and show how it shapes your analysis rather than simply mentioning it in passing;
- close with a brief discussion of what the study of early China cannot tell us about your chosen problem, and why that matters.
Please provide in-text citations for all quotations and examples drawn from course materials (e.g., “Legalist Teachings,” p. 33; Han Yu, “The Original Way,” p. 360; Hansen, p. 143). For your contemporary source, a simple reference in your opening sentences is sufficient (e.g., a title and date for a news article, or a URL). No bibliography is required.
Component 2: Video Reflection (2–3 minutes)
Record a short video in which you explain the reasoning behind your written reflection: why you chose your problem, why you selected the primary sources you did, and what the connections revealed that you did not expect. The video should be conversational—as if you were explaining your thinking to an interested non-specialist. Speak freely rather than reading from your written reflection; notes or a brief outline are fine, but the video should feel like a genuine conversation rather than a scripted performance. The goal is to hear your thinking in your own voice, not a polished performance. Please submit a link to your video (via Zoom, YouTube, Google Drive, or a similar platform) alongside your written reflection, and ensure the link remains accessible through the end of the grading period.
No special equipment is required. Your video should be audible and your face visible throughout. Production quality will not be assessed (no need for illustrations/slides).
Assessment
This exercise will be assessed on the quality of your historical thinking across both components. The written reflection accounts for 70% of the grade and the video reflection for 30%.
The written reflection will be evaluated on the relevance and specificity of your chosen problem and its connection to the course materials; the quality of your source analysis, including your use of primary sources and Hansen; your engagement with course themes; and the clarity and honesty of your reflection on the limits of the comparison.
The video reflection will be evaluated on your ability to explain and justify your choices—of problem, sources, and connections—in your own voice, and the degree to which it reflects genuine understanding of the materials.
AI tools may be used for grammar checking or sentence-level clarity in the written component, but all source selection, analysis, interpretation, and argumentation must be your own. The use of AI tools for translation is not permitted. Please include a brief statement at the end of your written reflection indicating any AI tool use (e.g., “I used Grammarly for grammar checking” or “No AI tools were used”).
Rubric
Written Reflection (70%)
| Excellent | Good | Adequate | Weak | Insufficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Problem and connection | The chosen problem is clearly identified and compellingly justified; the connection to the course is specific, historically grounded, and non-obvious | The problem is clearly identified and the connection to the course is plausible and reasonably specific | The problem is identified but the justification is general or underdeveloped; the connection to the course is asserted rather than demonstrated | The problem is vaguely identified or the connection to the course is superficial or forced | The problem is absent, incoherent, or bears no meaningful connection to the course |
| Source analysis | At least three primary sources and one Hansen quotation are used with precision and insight; quotations are well chosen and page references are provided throughout | Primary sources and Hansen are used accurately and with reasonable specificity; quotations are appropriate and page references are mostly provided | Primary sources and Hansen are present but used unevenly; quotations are sometimes too general or insufficiently connected to the reflection | Fewer than three primary sources are used, or quotations are missing, inaccurate, or lack page references | Primary sources and/or Hansen are absent or used in a way that suggests unfamiliarity with the materials |
| Course themes | Engagement with unity/diversity or change/continuity is sustained, specific, and analytically productive; the theme genuinely organizes the reflection | Engagement with the chosen theme is clear and mostly sustained, with some specific grounding in the materials | The theme is invoked but engagement is intermittent or remains at a general level | The theme is mentioned but not meaningfully developed | The theme is absent or the reflection shows no awareness of the course’s organizing concerns |
| Limits and reflection | The closing reflection is specific, intellectually honest, and shows genuine awareness of the limits of historical comparison; the student is comfortable with uncertainty | The closing reflection is present and thoughtful, with some specificity about what early China cannot tell us | The closing reflection is present but brief or generic; limits are acknowledged without being examined | The closing reflection is perfunctory or missing; limits are not seriously considered | No reflection on limits is attempted, or the student treats the historical comparison as straightforwardly applicable |
Video Reflection (30%)
| Excellent | Good | Adequate | Weak | Insufficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explanation of choices | The student explains their chosen problem and source selections with clarity, specificity, and confidence; the reasoning is persuasive and clearly their own | The student explains their choices clearly and with reasonable specificity; the reasoning is coherent and mostly convincing | The student explains their choices but with some vagueness or inconsistency; the reasoning is present but underdeveloped | The student struggles to explain their choices or relies heavily on reading the written reflection aloud; reasoning is thin or unclear | The student cannot explain their choices in any meaningful way, or the video consists entirely of reading the written reflection |
| Quality of understanding | The video conveys genuine and confident familiarity with the course materials; the student speaks about sources and themes in their own words with insight | The video conveys solid familiarity with the materials; the student speaks about sources and themes competently | The video suggests partial familiarity with the materials; understanding is evident but uneven | The video suggests limited engagement with the materials; the student has difficulty speaking about sources or themes beyond surface impressions | The video suggests little or no familiarity with the course materials |