In a well constructed essay (see the instructions below for specific requirement

In a well constructed essay (see the instructions below for specific requirements) thoroughly answer the following question based on what you have learned from the Week 1 to 7 discussions: What are main points of the following historical approaches and how were these approaches often a reaction to (often challenging) previous historical approaches? PLEASE USE THE REFERENCES AT THEN END.
Make sure you discuss the key points of each approach, what it focused on, what it hoped it would explain in terms of History, and how it challenged previous approaches (which means you should look at these approaches in a chronological way). The approaches to discuss are:
• Empiricism
• Materialism (Marxist, class-based, and Economic History)
• the Social Science approaches (History with Laws)
• the New Social and New Cultural Histories
• Gender
• the “posts” (Postmodern, Poststructural, and Postcolonial).
Length and Content: Your paper should be six (full) to eight pages long. Use an essay format with organized paragraphs with topic sentences, no bullets or outline forms. This is a formal essay so you will need a thesis paragraph with a thesis sentence as well as a conclusion paragraph and supporting points that address the paper question and key aspects of that question. As there are six main approaches you will need to discuss, your discussion of each approach should be between three-quarters and a full page long.
Format: Your paper should be double spaced with 1″ margins all around. Font size should be 10 or 12 with an easily readable font such as Times New Roman, Garamond, Arial, Calibri, or Avenir. Papers should be submitted in .doc or .docx format.
Thesis: You should have a thesis sentence in the first paragraph that tells the reader what you will argue. A thesis is a statement that provides an overarching answer to the question and introduces your main points of argument. Your thesis should explain the point of these approaches and how they developed in relation to each other in a big picture way. Start your discussion of each approach or related group of approaches with a sub-thesis that states what the approach(s) are about in a big way. A strong thesis statement is central to a strong paper. It is important enough that its presence or absence can mean the difference between an A or a B for a paper. Remember that in History we start off by telling our readers our argument and then present our facts to prove that argument.
Supporting Points: Your paper needs supporting points which both prove your thesis sentence and address the key aspects of the historical approaches we have studied. Make sure that your supporting points are presented in full paragraphs (4-8 sentences long) with a topic sentence for each paragraph. Also make sure that you present your supporting points in an organized manner. Your supporting points should come from the course readings.
Quotes: You may use short quotes from the readings in this final assessment paper, but they should not be longer than a sentence. Instead of stringing together a series of quotes as your supporting points, present the information in your own words. It is OK to use a short illustrative quote, but the best way to demonstrate that you understand the approaches is to present that information in your own words.
Citations and Sources: For this paper you should use short parenthetical citations with the author(s) last name and page number. Just use the author(s) last names. For multi-author sources, use both last names. Use only the course materials. Do not use outside sources as this paper is designed to measure your understanding of the course materials. You must cite any idea you found in one of the course readings. Because of that, your paper will need several citations, probably at least one or two per supporting point paragraph.
Helpful Notes: The final exam paper is designed to demonstrate your understanding of the historical approaches (the discussion 2s) we have discussed in Weeks 2 to 7 as well as the general need for historical approaches that we discussed in Week 1. So the discussions are the best places to review before writing your paper (along with the applicable readings). Look at what you wrote in the Discussion #2s of each week as that is what the content of your paper should be about. This paper is not about what is History, we covered that in our midterm paper, instead this assessment is about the approaches that historians have developed to help us approach and better understand the past.
Use the rubric to ensure that you are working toward the grade that you aim to achieve. Here are some other key items in grading:
1. Thesis: Does it thoroughly answer the question at the top of these instructions?
2. Supporting Points and Coverage of Key Points: Does the paper cover in some depth all of the historical approaches we have covered in the discussions and readings that are listed above? Does the paper demonstrate a solid knowledge of the approaches?
3. Use of Course Materials: Does the paper include supporting citations from the applicable course readings? Are the facts from the course materials correctly cited with parenthetical citations? Are the quotes less than a sentence in length?
4. Conclusion: Does the conclusion sum up the paper’s thesis and key supporting points rather than providing a vague philosophical point?
5. Presentation: Does the paper use fully formed paragraphs, have correct spelling and correct grammar, and is the paper clearly written?
6. Submitted by Due Date: Was the assignment submitted by the due date?
7. Overall, your paper’s grade will reflect your ability to demonstrate your understanding of the approaches to History we have studied in Weeks 1 to 7.
Below is a of references that NEED to be used please.
Fogel, Robert William. “A Quantitative Approach to the Study of Railroads in American Economic Growth: A Report of Some Preliminary Findings.” The Journal of Economic History 22, no. 2 (1962): 163–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2114353.
Stearns, Peter N. “Long 19th Century? Long 20th? Retooling That Last Chunk of World History Periodization.” The History Teacher 42, no. 2 (2009): 223–28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40543675.
.
Palmer, Bryan D. “Marxism and Radical History.” In Methods & Theory/Periods/Regions, Nations, Peoples/Europe & the World, edited by Peter N. Stearns, 49-60. Vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of European Social History. Detroit, MI: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001. Gale eBooks (accessed May 5, 2024). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/apps/doc/CX3460500018/GVRL?u=umd_umuc&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=c3e863ec.
Burke, Peter. “The Annales Paradigm.” In Methods & Theory/Periods/Regions, Nations, Peoples/Europe & the World, edited by Peter N. Stearns, 41-48. Vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of European Social History. Detroit, MI: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2001. Gale eBooks (accessed May 5, 2024). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/apps/doc/CX3460500017/GVRL?u=umd_umuc&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=30759ae2.
Riehm, Grace E., Lydia Brambila, Brittany A. Brown, Lauren Collins McDougal, Danielle N. Effre, Robbie Ethridge, Morgan Komlo, et al. 2019. “What Is Ethnohistory?: A Sixty-Year Retrospective.” Ethnohistory 66 (1): 145–62. doi:10.1215/00141801-7217401.
McPherson, James M. 2003. “Revisionist Historians.” Perspectives 41 (6): 5. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=10850244&site=ehost-live&scope=sit
Scott, Joan W. “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis.” The American Historical Review 91, no. 5 (1986): 1053–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/1864376.
Caplan, Jane. 1989. “Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, and Deconstruction: Notes for Historians.” Central European History 22 (3/4): 260–78. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.4546152&site=eds-live&scope=site.