“`html
| Criteria | Exceeds Standards (A, 90-100) | Meets Standards (B, 80-89.9) | Need Improvement (C, 70-79.9) | Fails to Meet Standards (U, 0-69.9) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLO 1- Strategic Thinking and Communications | Student paper presents a clear thesis and is sharply focused in its argumentation. Evidence presented is specific, relevant, and accurate. Paragraphs are concise, well-organized, and focus on a single idea. The organization is clear, logical, and progressive, making explicit the reasoning and relationship of ideas. Understandable in a rapid reading. Correct documentation of sources. | Student paper presents a thesis but it lacks clarity. There are few factual errors and overall generalizations or self-evident statements that need further explanation. Paragraphs are awkward and may focus on more than one topic. Paragraphs are awkward in progression within the context of the argument. Generally understandable in a rapid reading and generally correct documentation of sources. | In the thesis, the student does not identify a main point and fails to address the question directly. There are numerous factual errors. The argument lacks evidence and relies on generalizations as well as unsupported assertions. Paragraphs lack topic sentences and are not progressive within the context of the argument. Hard to understand in a single rapid reading. Lacks correct documentation of sources. | There is no thesis. There are gross factual errors and gross oversimplification of the argument. There is a general lack of evidence and unsupported assertions. There is a lack of nearly all logic, clarity, and progression in development of argument. The work is hard to understand in a single rapid reading. There are significant problems in grammar, mechanics, or usage. There is little to no documentation of sources. |
| PLO 2- The Profession of Arms | Demonstrates the student’s ability to integrate course material and their knowledge of warfighting into their paper. The paper will address the ethical challenges, norms, and law of warfare where relevant. | Demonstrates integration of course material and professional knowledge but lacks nuance and specifics. The paper addresses ethics, norms, and laws of warfare where relevant but in general terms and requires further explanation. | Paper lacks clear integration of course material and professional knowledge. Does not clearly address ethics, norms, or laws of warfare where relevant. | There is no integration of course material and professional knowledge in the paper. There is no discussion of ethics, norms, or laws of warfare where relevant. |
| PLO 3- The Continuum of Competition, Conflict & War | Paper demonstrates the student’s evaluation of the historical context of the national power, the spectrum of conflict, and the art and science of warfighting. Additionally, the paper will evaluate the nature and character of warfare in both the historical and contemporary context. | Demonstrates student’s evaluation of historical context of national power, the spectrum of conflict, and the art and science of warfighting. However, this evaluation lacks nuance and relies on surface level understanding of these issues. | Evaluation of historical context and national power, the spectrum of conflict, and the art and science of warfighting is not clear. Evaluation is overly general and shows an inaccurate understanding of these issues. | Lacks evaluation of historical context and national power, the spectrum of conflict, and the art and science of warfighting. Demonstrates little understanding of these issues. |
| PLO 4- The Security Environment | Analysis of the connection between the historical context and its impact on the contemporary security environment is clear and effective. Analysis demonstrates deep and nuanced understanding of the impact of history on the security environment. | Analysis of the connection between the historical context and the contemporary security environment lacks specifics and is too generalized. | Analysis of the historical context and the security environment is ineffective and demonstrates poor understanding of the historical context. | Lacks analysis of the historical context and the security environment. Demonstrates little or no understanding of the impact of the historical context on the security environment. |
“`