Syllabus Entrance
Printer Friendly
Email Syllabus

HIS 332 World War II
McMullin, Ivy (Lee)


Mission Statement: Park University provides access to a quality higher education experience that prepares a diverse community of learners to think critically, communicate effectively, demonstrate a global perspective and engage in lifelong learning and service to others.

Vision Statement: Park University, a pioneering institution of higher learning since 1875, will provide leadership in quality, innovative education for a diversity of learners who will excel in their professional and personal service to the global community.

Course

HIS 332 World War II

Semester

U1T 2012 DL

Faculty

McMullin, Ivy (Lee)

Title

Adjunct faculty

Degrees/Certificates

PhD Adult education
MA history
MA foreign language education

Office Location

on-line

Office Hours

on-line

Daytime Phone

512-331-7678

E-Mail

Lee.McMullin@park.edu

Semester Dates

March 19-May 13, 2012

Prerequisites

None

Credit Hours

3


Textbook:

Robert H. Abzug. America Views the Holocaust (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin Press, 1999). [ISBN: 0-312-13393-6]
 
Hannah Arendt. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. (New York: Penguin Books, 2006) [ISBN: 978-0-14-303988-4]
 
John Keegan. The Second World War. (New York: Penguin Books, 2005). [ISBN: 978-0-14-303573-2]
 
Wladyslaw Szpilman. The Pianist: The Extraordinary True Story of One Man’s Survival in Warsaw, 1939-1945. (New York: Picador, 1999). [ISBN: 978-0-312-26376-8]

Textbooks can be purchased through the MBS bookstore

Textbooks can be purchased through the Parkville Bookstore

Additional Resources:

McAfee Memorial Library - Online information, links, electronic databases and the Online catalog. Contact the library for further assistance via email or at 800-270-4347.
Career Counseling - The Career Development Center (CDC) provides services for all stages of career development.  The mission of the CDC is to provide the career planning tools to ensure a lifetime of career success.
Park Helpdesk - If you have forgotten your OPEN ID or Password, or need assistance with your PirateMail account, please email helpdesk@park.edu or call 800-927-3024
Resources for Current Students - A great place to look for all kinds of information http://www.park.edu/Current/.
Advising - Park University would like to assist you in achieving your educational goals. Please contact your Campus Center for advising or enrollment adjustment information.
Online Classroom Technical Support - For technical assistance with the Online classroom, email helpdesk@parkonline.org or call the helpdesk at 866-301-PARK (7275). To see the technical requirements for Online courses, please visit the http://parkonline.org website, and click on the "Technical Requirements" link, and click on "BROWSER Test" to see if your system is ready.
FAQ's for Online Students - You might find the answer to your questions here.


Course Description:
HIS 332 World War II: MLL - This seminar studies World War II's causes and course, the Holocaust, military technology, the home and fighting fronts, and post-war reconstruction. The seminar examines the experiences of combatants and non-combatants in the wars two major theaters as well as the experiences of occupation and resistance. The seminar shall include an inquiry of period literature. (European/Classical Concentration) Offered as required. 3:0:3

Educational Philosophy:
The professor’s educational philosophy values interaction among class participants based on lectures, readings, quizzes, dialogues, examinations, videos, web sites and writings. The professor will engage each learner in the lively exploration of ideas, issues and contradictions. The focus throughout is not on "doing" assignments but on learning - that is, gaining new information and understanding its meaning and significance for the present and for the human condition.  The professor will also encourage the development of evidence-based thinking.

Class Assessment:

 Each student is responsible for completing:

    *      Discussion of the readings (due each Week): 120 points

    *      Critical Book Review of The Pianist (due in Week 3): 50 points

    *      Midterm Exam (due in Week 4): 100 points

    *      Critical Book Review of Eichmann in Jerusalem (due in Week 5): 50 points

    *      Holocaust Paper (due in Week 6): 100 points

    *      Proctored Final Exam (due in Week 8): 100 points

    *      Total Points for Term: 520 points

Proper Citing/Noting of All Material:

Students are required to cite/note all material, including material from the books required for this course as listed above in the textbook area, based on the Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition) or MLA Style (6th Edition). Proper citing/noting is required for the assignments of: weekly discussion threads, critical book reviews, and the holocaust paper. Students are required to be familiar with the sections on plagiarism and fabrication contained in this syllabus.

Grading:

Weekly Discussions: Your comments in discussion should be written in your own words. To support your comments you may use brief quotations from our textbooks or other scholarly sources. Students are required to cite/note all material, including material from the books required for this course as listed above in the textbook area, based on the Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition) or MLA Style (6th Edition). There are three discussion topics each week, worth 5-points each, for a total of 15 discussion points. During the weeks in which you have major assignments, the discussion is reduced to two topics worth 7.5 points each, and a modified rubric is posted on that week's discussion page. You must use the textbook by John Keegan or outside resources in all your answers.

Discussion Grading Rubric: Early in the week, post your main response to the question in each discussion topic, your responses will be graded on the following criteria:

Discussion Thread Grading Rubric

Category

0-10 pt

10.1 - 12 pt

12.1 - 13.5 pts

13.6-15  pts

Promptness and Initiative

Does not respond to most postings; rarely participates freely

Responds to original question postings by Sunday evening at 11:59 PM MST; limited initiative; replies with peer responses by Sunday at 11:59 PM MST

Responds to original question postings by Saturday evening at 11:59 PM MST; requires occasional prompting to post, replies with most peer responses by Sunday at 11:59 AM MST

Consistently responds to original question postings by Friday evening at 11:59 PM MST; demonstrates good self-initiative; replies with most peer responses by Saturday at 11:59 AM MST

Delivery of Post

Utilizes poor spelling and grammar in most posts; posts appear “hasty”. Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings.

Errors in spelling and grammar evidenced in several posts. Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings.

Few grammatical or spelling errors are noted in posts. Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings.

Consistently uses grammatically correct posts with rare misspellings. Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings.

Relevance of Post

Posts topics which do not relate to the discussion content; makes short or irrelevant remarks. Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings. 

Occasionally posts off topic; most posts are short in length and offer no further insight into the topic. Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings.    

Frequently posts topics that are related to discussion content; prompts further discussion of topic. Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings.    

Consistently posts topics related to discussion topic; cites additional references related to topic. Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings. 

Expression within the post

Does not express opinions or ideas clearly; no connection to topic. Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings. 

Unclear connection to topic evidenced in minimal expression of opinions or ideas. Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings.   

Opinions and ideas are stately clearly with occasional lack of connection to topic.  Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings.

Expresses opinions and ideas in a clear and concise manner with obvious connection to topic. Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings.    

Contribution to the Learning Community

Does not make effort to participate in learning community as it develops; seems indifferent

Occasionally makes meaningful reflection on group’s efforts; marginal effort to become involved with group

Frequently attempts to direct the discussion and to present relevant viewpoints for consideration by group; interacts freely

Aware of needs of community; frequently attempts to motivate the group discussion; presents creative approaches to topic

Substance and length of posts

Posts lack substance.

Primary posts were less than 100 words, not including “cut and pastes.”

Secondary posts were less than 50 words per postings.

Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings.

Primary posts were between 100-125 words, not including “cut and pastes.”

Secondary posts were between 50-75 words per posting.

Failed to incorporate proper citations/noting for postings.

Primary posts were between 125-150 words, not including “cut and pastes.”

Secondary posts were between 75-100 words per posting.

Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings.

Primary posts were between 150-200 words, not including “cut and pastes.”

Secondary posts were between 100-125 words per posting.

Incorporated proper citations/noting for postings.

Overall student performance is based on all categories and may be high in some areas and low in others.

A total of 15 points per week are possible for each week.
 
 

Critical Book Reviews: Students are required to complete two critical book reviews over assigned novels. The critical book reviews shall develop the student’s skills in reading and analyzing historical monographs and articles, and primary sources. To assist in bringing the critical book review into a sub-field of history, the student will be required to read and integrate a minimum of three articles from major historical journals (JSTOR, American Historical Review, Reviews in American History and/or Journal of American History) into the critical book reviews. The reviews will be typed, double-spaced, font size of 12, Times New Roman typeset, citations in proper Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition) [history majors] or MLA Style (6th Edition) [non-history majors] including a properly formatted bibliography (does not count toward the total word count required), proper grammar, punctuation, spelling, margins of one-inch on all four sides, contain a proper title page (as attached to this syllabus), page numbered, be submitted in Microsoft Word, placed in the appropriate assignment DROPBOX on eCompanion prior to 2359 hours on the assigned due date of this particular assignment, and be 1,000-1,500 words. The student is held responsible for fully understanding what constitutes plagiarism, and Park University’s and the professor’s regulations regarding consequences of plagiarism detection and fabrication.

Total Possible on each Assignment: 50 points

Critical Book Review Format:

The object of writing a book review, of 1,000-1,500 words, on a historical text is to point out the conclusions that the author presents in the work, and to assess the validity of the conclusions.

Writing a book review as an assignment in a history course has at least four important objectives:

  • Effective writing;
  • A substantive knowledge about a particular historical topic;
  • An understanding of the nature and use of historical research; and
  • An ability to think critically about the work of others.

A book review goes beyond mere summary to inquire into the overall worth of a work. 

In order to do a competent review, it is best to read quickly through the novel for general content, noting anything that seems significant and/or controversial. Then go back and consider more thoroughly the basic structure and thesis of the work. As you are reading, keep several questions in mind:

  • What is the subject and purpose of the work (general text, new interpretation, propaganda)?
  • How qualified is the author to deal with the topic? Find out about the author’s education and past experience in order to judge whether he/she is especially qualified as an expert in the field.
  • What is the author’s point of view on the subject? Try to discern if there are any reasons why the author may be presenting a biased approach.
  • How does the author’s point of view compare with that of other historians who have written on the same topic? 
  • How valid is the author’s point of view and how competently is the argument presented? 
  • Assess how important the work is in relation to the material already available on the subject and whether the author has fulfilled the purpose for which the work was intended.

Remember, you are posing as an expert and it is your job to be critical. However, do not expect the author to have written the work you have in mind. Pay particular attention to what the author says is the focus of the work in the Introduction and judge how well the stated goals are carried out.

Organization of a Book Review:

When quoting from or referring to a particular section of the work you are reviewing, give the page number in a formal citation. If you draw upon other resources, be sure you cite according to the proper format.

You are not held to any specific order in presenting your review. However, you will find that it is helpful to check that you have discussed the following in some logical sequence:

  • Statement of the purpose and general content of the work.
  • Discussion in detail of the author’s main conclusions and an assessment of their validity, including a comment on sources and a comparison with other authors.
  • Overall assessment of the value of the work to historical literature and of the merits and shortcomings of the work as you see them.

The following outline is only a suggestion:

I.          Introduction

            A.        Purpose of the work.

            B.        Author’s Qualifications and Viewpoint.

II.        Critical Summary

A.                Thesis of the Work.

B.                 Summary of contents, indicating how the thesis is developed (Use examples. While this will generally be the longest part of the review, you should make sure that your review does not become a mere summary without analysis)

III.       Style and Presentation

A.                Organization of the Work.

B.                 Writing Style (word choice, paragraph structure, readability, and length)

IV.       Conclusion

A.                Historical contribution of the work (How does the work fit into the prevailing interpretation of the subject? Does it break new ground? Does it answer a troublesome question? Does it revise older interpretations? Does it merely clarify and simplify the standard point of view?)

B.                 Overall worth of the work (Would you recommend the work? For what type of audience would it be best suited? Did the author accomplish his/her purpose?)

When we are familiar with the format and the hidden meanings of sentences we know that we are reading a particular text genre – in this case a book review. Essentially we can always tell we are reading a book review from the language and the structure that it employs. Writers of book reviews typically progress through four stages, as follows:

1. They introduce the book by:
    • outlining the general topic
    • indicating who the book is for
    • placing the book in its field.
2. Next, they often outline the content of the book by:
    • giving a general view of its the organization
    • stating the topic of each chapter/section.
3. Then they highlight parts of the book by:
    • selecting particular chapters or themes for evaluation
    • critiquing the argument of the book.
4. And finally, they evaluate the book by:
    • commenting on aspects of the content
    • indicating how it meets the readers’ needs
    • remarking on its format, price, and value for money
    • making recommendations for purchase or otherwise.

Some of the things said about such reviews were that they were:

    • pointless, uninformative, indecisive and boring
    • a mere listing of the contents
    • pretentious, unkind, careless
    • personally abusive about the author’s credentials
    • written to cherish the reviewer’s ego.

Generally speaking, book reviews were not highly regarded if they simply outlined the content of a book, in a chapter by chapter format. On the other hand, approximately 55 per cent of the respondents recalled reading an outstanding book review. Here it was thought that such reviews:

    • gave a balanced critical evaluation of the text
    • made seemingly dull topics interesting
    • were well written, succinct, and informative
    • displayed awesome scholarship
    • made people want to buy the book.

_____________________________________

SAMPLE HEADER FOR A CRITICAL BOOK REVIEW:

Kathleen Gorman, ed.Boy Soldier of the Confederacy: The Memoir of Johnnie Wickersham. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2006. vii + 169 pp. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8093-2722-5.

Grading Rubric for the Critical Book Reviews:

Critical Book Review Rubric

Criteria

Did Not Meet Expectations

Met Expectations

Score Received




_____/50

Summary

Summary was mainly an outline of the work and did not discuss themes or major ideas or characters of the work. The summary provided 3 or less excerpts from the work. There was one direct quote “thrown in” for effect.

[0 points]

Summary consisted of a discussion of major themes, ideas, and characters which provided at least 4 excerpts from the work. The Review combined ideas from the work into new sentences using the student’s own words.

[5 points]


Quotations

The summary contained direct quotations from the work without citation of page numbers and contained 6 or more quotations.

[0 points]

All direct quotations from the work were noted by citing page numbers in parenthesis, e.g. 15 (no more than 5).

[5 points]


Author and Sources

The discussion of the author’s qualification and sources were vague or missing and lacked details.

[0 points]

Student provided a detailed discussion of the author’s qualifications. Sources were examined in detail and the student determined whether or not they were appropriate for the work.

[10 points]


Critique

Critique consisted of a basic opinion based on personal feeling of “I liked it” or “I hated it.” Was not considered a critique because the review failed to consider themes, author’s intent, or writer’s style. The review lacked a critical eye.

[0 points]

Critique consisted of thoughts, responses and reaction to the work. The student reacted to the themes, the author’s aim and intent, the subject of the work, how well it was written and overall success or failure of the work.

[10 points]


Organization

Structure of the review did not follow a logical order. There were no transitional phrases that made it easy to read . . . or the review was just a copying of the original work.

[0 points]

Structure of the review flowed and was easily read because of smooth transitions from paragraph to paragraph. The sequence of topics was in logical order. There was a clear cut introduction, body, and conclusion.

[5 points]


Mechanics

There are 1 or more incomplete or fragment sentences. There are 1 or more run-on sentences.

[0 points]

Used complete sentences and a variety of sentence types.

[5 points]


Spelling

More than 1 spelling error.

[0 points]

No spelling errors.

[5 points]


Format

More than 1 formatting error.

[0 points]

No formatting errors.

[5 points]


Holocaust Paper: The paper (the Core Assessment historical essay) will respond to the readings in America Views the Holocaust, 1933-1945, by Robert H. Abzug. Your paper will address both of these writing points:

   1. Explain how these primary sources have altered your thoughts about America's relations to the Holocaust. [provide five specific examples]

   2. Given the sources in this collection, explain why many Americans, when confronted with the newsreels and pictures of the liberated camps, still claimed not to have been aware of the Nazis' genocide.

Paper Guidelines:

    * The paper is due at the end of Week 6

    * Double-spaced, font size of 10-12, Times New Roman typeset

    * Citations in proper Chicago Style (for History Majors, non-History major can use MLA Style if desired)

    * Use margins of one-inch on all four sides

    * Contain a proper Chicago Style header (for History Majors, non-History major can use MLA Style if desired), and page header with numbered pages

    * Length: approximate 10-12 pages

    * Include an introduction paragraph with a clear statement of thesis or purpose, and a conclusion paragraph that reiterates your key points

    * Papers will be evaluated for content (evidence and argument) and style of presentation; proofread!

    * The students is held responsible for fully understanding what constitutes plagiarism and Park University's and the instructor's regulations regarding consequences of plagiarism detection and fabrication

Grading Rubric for the Holocaust Paper:

Criteria

Did Not Meet Expectations

Met Expectations

Score Received




_____/100

Formulated a Thesis Statement

(An argument of reasoned perspective on the main subject, supported by evidence, all presented fairly; a sentence that explicitly identified the purpose of the written work and previews its main ideas; located as the last sentence of the first paragraph.)

The paper’s “thesis statement” lacked argument or reasoned perspective. The paper’s “thesis statement” failed to identify the single purpose. The paper’s “thesis statement” failed to furnish the reader a preview of the paper’s main ideas. The paper’s “thesis statement” was not in the last sentence of the first paragraph or was totally omitted.

[0 points]

The “thesis statement” argued a reasoned perspective (statement of the position) on the subject. The “thesis statement” explicitly identified the questions of the paper. The “thesis statement” previewed for the reader the paper’s main ideas. The “thesis statement” was the last sentence of the first paragraph.

[10 points]


Responded to Thesis Statement

Paper confused the topic and neglected important aspects of the topic; lacked focus or demonstrated confused or simplistic thinking. Lacked supporting evidence of the thesis statement.

[0 points]

Furnished a strong, insightful assertion that addressed the questions clearly, moved beyond the predictable, and supported the thesis statement; author risked and explored issues thoughtfully and in-depth.

[5 points]


Supporting Detail

(The body paragraphs incorporated background information that supported the thesis statement.)

Lacked concrete, relevant evidence that proved thesis statement; provided simplistic generalization; unclear. Applied no prior knowledge. Lacked an affixation of a critical perspective to appraise historical arguments, embracing the quality of sources, the validity of the interpretations of sources, and the soundness of the argument’s use of evidence to sustain a historical interpretation.

[0 points]

Incorporated significant evidence that proved thesis statement. The paper addressed background information. Applied with decisiveness prior knowledge. Affixed with demonstrated evidence a critical perspective to appraise historical arguments, embraced the quality of sources, the validity of the interpretations of sources, and the soundness of the argument’s use of evidence to sustain a historical interpretation.

[20 points]


Commentary/Analysis

(The body paragraphs contained supporting evidence related to the thesis statement. Writer discussed both sides of the issue. Writer suggested courses of action and possible solutions.)

Commentary lacked or was predictable and disconnected from the thesis statement; summarized instead of analyzed significance; paper showed no clear connection of details to the thesis statement. Failed to judge the relative value of historical information as documented by no evidence. Lacked assessed historical knowledge by encountering the diversity of means in which historians appeal to and render the past. Failed to engage matters of contention that incited historical debate. Lacked an exhibition of how the past is applicable by affixing a critical perspective to history.

[0 points]

Commentary analyzed and interpreted details related to the thesis statement; Paper related definitive connections to the thesis statement. Judged the relative value of historical information by documented evidence. Assessed with demonstrated evidence historical knowledge by encountering the diversity of means in which historians appeal to and render the past. Engaged with decisiveness matters of contention that incited historical debate. Exhibited with decisiveness how the past is applicable by affixing a critical perspective to history.

[30 points]


Quotations used as Evidence and/or Support of Thesis Statement

(Quotations used to discuss specific arguments/ideas; to emphasis an authoritative source; and explained the significance of the quotation related to the thesis statement.)

Used 5 or less quotations. Quotations lacked support for the thesis statement. Failed to introduce quotations for the context and mentioning the quotation speaker.    Formatted quotes incorrectly. Applied no research skills as demonstrated by lack of or no evidence. Lacked evidence in the nature and practices of historical evidence. Failed to use appropriate or different attributed verbs. Demonstrated no authoritative research or writing skills as should be exhibited in the discipline of history.

[0 points]

Used 6 or more quotations that clearly supported the thesis statement. Introduced quotations correctly by setting the context and mentioning the quotation speaker. Clearly explained significance of quotations. Quotations formatted correctly. Applied outstanding research skills demonstrated by the evidence incorporated. Demonstrated the nature and practices of historical evidence. Demonstrated with distinction authoritative research and writing skills as exhibited in the discipline of history. Used alternative attributed verbs: added, announced, commented, wrote, argued, declared, noted, observed, remarked, replied, responded, pointed out, suggested, criticized, complained, exclaimed, stated, estimated, predicted, proposed, proclaimed, and/or opined.

[10 points]


Organization

Weak organization made arguments hard to follow or flow. Body paragraphs need clearer relation and/or failed to relate to thesis statement. Paragraphs failed to flow seamlessly. Failed to master the written form of communication fitting to history.

[0 points]

Paper contained clear, sophisticated organization. Paragraphs and content related back to thesis statement. Paragraphs flowed seamlessly. Mastered with distinction the written form of communication fitting to history.

[5 points]


Spelling and/or Grammatical Structure

(Fragment and/or Incomplete sentences; grammar usage; spelling.)

1 or more spelling and/or grammatical structure error.

[0 points]

No spelling and/or grammatical structural error.

[10 points]


Textual Formatting and/or Bibliography Citations

(Indention of paragraphs, margins, correct font size, correct title page, proper page length, page numbered, correct type of Times New Roman; Citations on Bibliography were formatted according to The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition or MLA Style, and citations were in alphabetical sequence according to The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition or MLA Style.)

1 or more textual formatting and/or bibliography citation error.

[0 points]

No textual formatting and/or bibliography citation error.

[10 points]


INSTRUCTOR COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 


Total Possible: 100 points

Midterm Exam: The midterm exam will be administered during week 4 and will be worth 100 points. This exam will cover materials from Weeks 1-4. The exam will be objective questions (matching and multiple choice). The exam will be one-and-half hours, closed-note, closed-book. A missed midterm can only be made up if I receive notice ahead of time that you will miss it.

Proctored Final Exam: The proctored final exam will be comprehensive and will be worth 100 points. It will be a two-hour, closed-note, closed-book exam. The exam will be objective questions (matching and multiple choice). This exam will cover material from Weeks 5-8. For proctored examinations, photo identification is required at the time of the test.  Guidelines for selecting an acceptable proctor can be found on the Park University Website.

Other Information on proctored exams:

    * It will be the responsibility of the student to arrange for a proctor by the 6th week of the term.

    * Approval of proctors is at the discretion of the Online instructor.

    * A proctor request form will be made available to you during the first week of class so that you can submit your requested proctor to your instructor for approval via the automated system.

    * Failure to take a final proctored exam will result in an automatic "F" grade for the course.

Grading:

Grading Philosophy:

The following descriptions state in general terms the qualities expected in HIS 332:

A:        The grade of “A” is given for work that is superior in the following respects:

1.                  The treatment of subject shows intelligent thought, careful workmanship, and originality.

2.                  The composition is organized so clearly and forcefully that the reader knows at all times what the author’s purpose is and how he/she intends to accomplish it.

3.                  Paragraphs are strongly coherent and are as fully and as clearly developed as their function within the whole theme demands.

4.                  Sentences are so constructed as to contribute precisely, forcefully, and interestingly to the author’s central purpose.

5.                  Individual words are used with exactness, with appropriateness to their context, and with a sure sense of their connotative and denotative power.

6.                  Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and the other mechanical elements of writing are correct.

B:        The grade of “B” is given for work which is excellent but of less than “A” distinction. More specifically, it may be characterized as follows:

1.                  Treatment of subject shows some originality in expression and better than average ability to relate ideas intelligently.

2.                  The whole composition is clearly organized but lacks the full clarity and tight coherence of “A” work. While organization is more mechanical, it is appropriate to the author’s subject and purpose.

3.                  Paragraphs are unified, coherent, and fairly well developed.

4.                  Sentences are generally fluent and sufficiently varied in type and length for the style to be easy and natural.

5.                  Words are used with precision and with some attention to their connotative value.

6.                  Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and the other mechanical elements of writing are correct.

C:        The grade of “C” is given for work that is for the most part correct but which fails in some specific ways to achieve the quality of “B” work:

1.                  Treatment of subject is acceptable but without distinction.

2.                  The whole composition is clearly organized in the sense that the central idea is systematically divided into subtopics.

3.                  Paragraphs have a certain measure of unity, coherence, and development, although the development shows little originality. Paragraphing at this level is often loose and uncontrolled.

4.                  Diction at the sentence level is generally correct but uninspired.

5.                  Style is monotonous and repetitious.

D:        The grade of “D” is given for work that fails to meet the requirements of “C” status. Any of the following weaknesses may reduce an otherwise “C” submission to a “D”:

1.                  Treatment of the subject is thin and somewhat unclear.

2.                  Organization is not wholly clear or effective.

3.                  Paragraphs are unified but not fully enough developed or very coherent.

4.                  Sentences are frequently awkward, ambiguous, or overly simple in structure.

5.                  Choice of words is often imprecise and inappropriate.

6.                  Control of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and other mechanical elements of writing is lacking.

F:         The grade of “F” is given for work that fails to meet the minimum requirements of the “D” grade. This grade can result from any of the following characteristics:

1.                  Treatment of the subject is highly superficial or thoughtless.

2.                  The whole composition lacks appropriate division or contains illogical divisions.

3.                  Paragraphs lack unity or are almost completely undeveloped.

4.                  Sentences are obscure and confusing.

5.                  Choice of words is inexact or inept.

6.                  Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and other mechanical elements of writing are generally faulty.

Grading:

Course Grading Scale:

    * A = 90 - 100% (or 520.0 to 468.0 points)

    * B = 80 - 89% (or 467.9 to 415.9 points)

    * C = 70 - 79% (or 415.8 to 363.8 points)

    * D = 60 - 69% (or 363.7 to 311.7 points)

    * F = < 60% (311.6 or fewer points)

Late Submission of Course Materials:
All work is due on the due date. If you will miss work and need to submit late (for TDY or emergency), make arrangements with the instructor ahead of time. Late work will penalized 10 percent per day late unless prior arrangements have been made.

Classroom Rules of Conduct:
The fundamental objective of this course is to learn. That means we must all work together and learn from each other. In order to accomplish this, we must treat each other with respect. Everyone will have the opportunity and freedom to express their ideas. Be sure to review the Park Student Code of Conduct.

Course Topic/Dates/Assignments:

Weeks

     Topics

     Assignments

  • See each weekly unit home page for more specific discussion of weekly assignments and topics.
  •       All assignments and the exams are due by midnight (Central Time) on Sunday of the week in which they are assigned.

Week 1

Prologue, Prelude to the War

  • Lecture
  • Readings
    • Keegan: p.10-53
    •  Abzug: preface & introduction
  • Discussion

Week 2

The War in the West, (1940-1943)

  • Lecture
  • Readings:
    • Keegan: p.54-126;
    • Abzug: p.4-49
  • Discussion

Week 3

The War in the East, (1941-1943)

  • Lecture
  • Readings:
    • Keegan: p.127-239;
    • Abzug: p.51-108
  • Critical Book Review of The Pianist Due
  • Discussion

Week 4

The War in the Pacific, (1941-1943)

  • Lecture
  • Readings:
    • Keegan: p.240-309;
    • Abzug: p.109-178.
  • Discussion
  • Midterm Exam

Week 5

The War in the West, (1943-1945)

  • Lecture
  • Readings:
    • Keegan: p.310-449;
    • Abzug: p.179-217
  • Critical Book Review of Eichmann in Jerusalem Due
  • Discussion

Week 6

The War in the East, (1943-1945)

  • Lecture
  • Readings:
    •  Keegan: p.450-535
  • Holocaust Essay Due
  • Discussion

Week 7

The War in the Pacific, (1943-1945)

  • Lecture
  • Readings:
    • Keegan: p.536-587
  • Discussion

Week 8

The Legacy of the Second World War

  • Lecture
  • Readings:
    • Keegan: p.588-595
  • Discussion
  • Proctored Final Exam

Academic Honesty:
Academic integrity is the foundation of the academic community. Because each student has the primary responsibility for being academically honest, students are advised to read and understand all sections of this policy relating to standards of conduct and academic life. Park University students and faculty members are encouraged to take advantage of the University resources available for learning about academic honesty (www.park.edu/current or http://www.park.edu/faculty/).from Park University 2011-2012 Undergraduate Catalog Page 93

Plagiarism:
Plagiarism involves the use of quotations without quotation marks, the use of quotations without indication of the source, the use of another's idea without acknowledging the source, the submission of a paper, laboratory report, project, or class assignment (any portion of such) prepared by another person, or incorrect paraphrasing. from Park University 2011-2012 Undergraduate Catalog Page 93

Attendance Policy:
Instructors are required to maintain attendance records and to report absences via the online attendance reporting system.

  1. The instructor may excuse absences for valid reasons, but missed work must be made up within the semester/term of enrollment.
  2. Work missed through unexcused absences must also be made up within the semester/term of enrollment, but unexcused absences may carry further penalties.
  3. In the event of two consecutive weeks of unexcused absences in a semester/term of enrollment, the student will be administratively withdrawn, resulting in a grade of "F".
  4. A "Contract for Incomplete" will not be issued to a student who has unexcused or excessive absences recorded for a course.
  5. Students receiving Military Tuition Assistance or Veterans Administration educational benefits must not exceed three unexcused absences in the semester/term of enrollment. Excessive absences will be reported to the appropriate agency and may result in a monetary penalty to the student.
  6. Report of a "F" grade (attendance or academic) resulting from excessive absence for those students who are receiving financial assistance from agencies not mentioned in item 5 above will be reported to the appropriate agency.
ONLINE NOTE: Students must participate in an academically related activity on a weekly basis in order to be marked present in an online class. Examples of academically-related activities include but are not limited to: contributing to an online discussion, completing a quiz or exam, completing an assignment, initiating contact with a faculty member to ask a course related question, or using any of the learning management system tools.

Park University 2011-2012 Undergraduate Catalog Page 96

Disability Guidelines:
Park University is committed to meeting the needs of all students that meet the criteria for special assistance. These guidelines are designed to supply directions to students concerning the information necessary to accomplish this goal. It is Park University's policy to comply fully with federal and state law, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, regarding students with disabilities. In the case of any inconsistency between these guidelines and federal and/or state law, the provisions of the law will apply. Additional information concerning Park University's policies and procedures related to disability can be found on the Park University web page: http://www.park.edu/disability .

Copyright:

This material is protected by copyright
                               and can not be reused without author permission.

Last Updated:5/17/2012 12:37:24 PM