So here's the thing about essay questions: they have to satisfy a few very practical purposes in a very short amount of time. One of those is giving the students an opportunity to show you that they've been reading, paying attention, understanding. So there ought to be a few obvious examples or arguments in the reading or class that they should be able to bring in. (I find it very useful to say explicitly, "use examples from the readings or lecture" to avoid them just going on tangents).

But here's the other thing: you need a question that will produce a spectrum of outcomes that will be relatively straightforward to grade. So questions that are too open-ended can be a huge problem. The worst one I ever had to grade was: "What's modern about modern physics?" (for a class on the history of physics). This produced essays with no relation to one another because it was so out there — there was no obvious way to tackle in and every student did their own thing.

As for your exact question, I think it's waaaaaay too open ended and HUGE. I mean, that's a big task you're giving them. You could write whole books on that. In fact, people have! Where does the student start when answering such a question? And how do they do it in an hour or less?

The kinds of essay questions I like are along the lines of this one from a Cold War history of science class I taught last year: "In the 1960s and 1970s, there were significant popular 'resistances' to the established discourse about the Cold War model of expertise. What kinds of resistances were there, what motivated them, what forms did they take, and what were the results? Make an interpretive argument about why these resistances occurred when they did, and what their lasting legacy was for thinking about the Cold War."

Here's the logic behind a question like this: 1. set up a framework; 2. ask a specific question; 3. make a demand about what kind of argument they need to address. I find this works best for this kind of assignment, where time is limited.

Here's another one: "What were the 'lessons' of World War II for American scientists and policymakers with regards to the importance of science and technology? Choose a few specific individuals and talk about how they were or weren’t able to implement their visions of what US science policy should be in the postwar period."

Again, very focused, with an inherent answer structure ("Choose a few specific individuals...") implied.

One more: "When Eisenhower left office 1961, he warned that the United States needed to be wary of the effects of a 'military-industrial complex.' A few months later, Kennedy gave his 'Moon Shot' speech arguing that 'no single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish,' as going to the Moon. How do these very different perspectives reflect different aspects of the Space Race?"

Again, I'm giving them a very specific framework and asking them to address a specific question. There are many ways to answer this question, but all within the same framework.

These kinds of questions produce a solid, straightforward range of answers. The students who haven't read or understood the information do poorly. The students who have examples at the tips of their fingers, or arguments from the readings they can reference, do well. The clever few who can do all of that and say something unsurprising do very well. This is more or less what I want out of answers: three-ish straight categories (roughly corresponding to As, Bs, and Cs, with room for shading up/down with +/-) of answer. Which you don't get when the question is too open-ended. (The best experience one gets regarding exams is having to grade a lot of them.)

For your class, I'd pick something specific, either from the history or readings. E.g. "Author X claims that 'the Columbian Exchange did X, Y, and Z.' Do you agree? Give examples from class to support your position." Much more straightforward.

Hope that helps.

I agree with r/restricteddata, but keep in mind these are freshmen. So, early on in college most people use terms like 'economic, social, political, cultural' as a catch-all without really knowing how to use any of them correctly. If you still want to try to have these kids focus on these aspects - the economic, political, and social changes - you could have them choose several of each to look at. 'Provide at least two examples of economic and political changes that Europeans brought to North America. Be sure to indicate whether these changes were felt by the _____ or _____ tribes.' You would have to phrase it more around what you know they could talk about, but I would think you're trying to elicit a response like "For the Native Americans living in ______, two of the political changes brought about were democratic tribal meetings, and the legalization of popsicles. The legalization of popsicles war important because it allowed people to eat tasty treats all the time.' etc. etc.

But I would just make sure to be specific on at least how many examples, and in what context or where, and in what time period. Just don't get too crazy with the question. Leave it broad enough for them to show they've read the entire semester, or term, or whatever, but specific enough for them to use one chapter they know really well.

If you have the time+$, David Hackett Fischer has a wonderful book called Historians' Fallacies where he addresses the problems with essay questions like yours and what essay questions should be asking instead. It's not a bad book to read for other reasons too.

While I don't know the period that well (taught western civ a couple times as a TA) and I don't know the resources you've given the students, that seems like a very broad question to me. That's what Diamond's guns germs and steel attempts to answer.

Is this for a midterm, a final? What kinds of themes and resources will you employ in the class?