Howard Community College Saudi Arabia Case Study

Question Description

Students will research and write a 5-page case study of a government not covered in class. Paper should include discussion of the principal ideologies of the state in question, its governmental structure, and the most important elements of its recent politics. This paper should deal with a contemporary case, not a historical one, although obviously historical analysis may be necessary to make sense of the current situation.

Rubric

Rubric for Instructor use only

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome2016.GE.CT.01view longer description

threshold: 3.0 pts

4.0 ptsExceeds Objective – Clearly and effectively summarizes main issues or problems and explains why or how they are questions or problems.

3.0 ptsMeets Objective – Summarizes main issues or problems, but does not explain why/how they are questions or problems.

2.0 ptsMinimally Meets Objective – Identifies a problem or issue but does not summarize or explain it clearly or sufficiently.

1.0 ptsDoes Not Meet Objective – Fails to identify and summarize the issue or problem, or does so inaccurately.

—

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome2016.GE.CT.02view longer description

threshold: 3.0 pts

4.0 ptsExceeds Objective – Clearly and effectively identifies ones own position in a comprehensive and fair evaluation of multiple perspectives on an issue or a problem; identifies the influence of context and questions assumptions of own and others perspectives.

3.0 ptsMeets Objective – Recognizes multiple perspectives, and provides some consideration for the context and assumptions of each perspective; may omit an important perspective.

2.0 ptsMinimally Meets Objective – Recognizes single perspective but neglects other perspectives in establishing own position; incompletely considers the context and assumptions of ones own position.

1.0 ptsDoes Not Meet Objective – Fails to recognize any perspective on an issue or a problem; fails to develop and express own position on an issue or a problem.

—

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome2016.GE.CT.03view longer description

threshold: 3.0 pts

4.0 ptsExceeds Objective – Identifies significant supporting data/evidence and evaluates its relevance and credibility; consistently distinguishes between fact and opinion; recognizes bias and value judgments.

3.0 ptsMeets Objective – Identifies significant supporting data/evidence and evaluates its relevance but may not evaluate its credibility; able to distinguish between fact and opinion; may be able to identify bias and value judgments.

2.0 ptsMinimally Meets Objective – Identifies supporting evidence but fails to evaluate its relevance and/or credibility; use of evidence is selective; incompletely discerns fact from opinion; may identify bias.

1.0 ptsDoes Not Meet Objective – Fails to identify data and information in support of claims; does not distinguish between fact, opinion and value judgments.

—

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome2016.GE.CT.04view longer description

threshold: 3.0 pts

4.0 ptsExceeds Objective – Thoroughly discusses implications and applies conclusions to an analysis of an argument, or to reach a decision, or to solve a problem.

3.0 ptsMeets Objective – Discusses implications and applies conclusions to analyze an analysis of an argument, or to reach a decision, or to solve a problem.

2.0 ptsMinimally Meets Objective – Identifies some implications but incompletely applies conclusions to an analysis of an argument, to reach a decision, or to solve a problem.

1.0 ptsDoes Not Meet Objective – Fails to identify implications and apply conclusions to an analysis of an argument, to reach a decision, or to solve a problem.

—

Total Points: 0.0