Document-based questions train students to build an argument from primary sources, which is exactly what reading Machiavelli demands. A DBQ built from The Discourses can include a passage from Machiavelli, an excerpt from Livy, and a later reaction from another thinker. Students must weigh each source, say what it claims, and use it to support their own position.

The first task is choosing documents that actually speak to each other. A set might include Discourses I.4 on Roman tumults, a passage from Livy describing a plebeian secession, and a short excerpt from Rousseau or Montesquieu on political conflict. When the sources disagree or complicate one another, students have something to argue about, and the prompt does not collapse into summary.

Keep each document short enough that students can read, annotate, and cite it under time pressure. Around 150 to 250 words per source works for most classes, with a brief headnote giving the author, date, and context. Too much text turns the exercise into a reading speed test, and too little leaves nothing for students to analyze.

Write a prompt that demands synthesis

A strong DBQ prompt asks for a judgment, such as evaluate the extent to which Machiavelli believed political conflict strengthened republics. The phrase to what extent signals that the answer is a matter of degree and invites qualified claims. Students who simply say yes or no without nuance usually score lower than those who explain where Machiavelli's argument holds and where it weakens.

• A defensible thesis that answers the prompt directly
• Use of at least three documents to support the argument
• Explanation of the author's point of view or purpose for at least two documents
• Outside knowledge about Roman history or Renaissance Italy that adds context
• Sourcing and contextualization that shows how the documents relate to one another

Grade document use, not just document mentions

Students often drop a source into a sentence and move on, as if citing it were enough. Your rubric should separate mentioning a document from using it, which means quoting or paraphrasing a specific idea and linking it to the thesis. A comment like what does this passage show about your claim pushes the student to finish the thought.

Pay attention to sourcing as well. A student who notes that Machiavelli was writing for friends in a Florentine discussion group, long after losing his government post, brings context that changes how the passage reads. Rewarding that kind of observation encourages students to treat sources as made things written by people with purposes.

Manage the grading load for a DBQ

DBQs are slow to grade because each essay uses several sources and many scoring criteria. A practical approach is to read for the thesis and argument first, then scan for document use and contextualization in a second pass. Marking evidence directly on the page in the margin speeds up the final scoring and gives students visible proof of where they earned or missed points.

Departments that give the same DBQ across sections benefit from a shared scoring guide with sample responses. Teachers can pick three anonymous essays, score them separately, and compare. This kind of calibration turns a time-consuming task into a more reliable one and makes it easier to explain grades when parents or students ask.

Close the loop with revision

A DBQ is most valuable when students get to revise after receiving feedback. Even rewriting the thesis and one body paragraph can produce visible growth. Ask students to highlight where they changed their document analysis, so the revision is a skill-building task and not just a way to raise a grade.

Faster feedback makes revision realistic. If essays come back after three weeks, the unit has moved on and students barely remember their argument. Using structured comment banks or AI-assisted first-pass feedback, then adding your own judgment on the strongest and weakest points, can shorten that turnaround to a few days.