Apply primary research skills. Evaluate motives for going to war.

Understand purposes and methods for keeping a works consulted list Develop strong, narrow thesis skills, effective evidence, purposeful sequencing and smooth pacing. During the French and Indian Wars, Native American groups, the Colonists, the British, and the French fought for control in early America. Most Native tribes sided with the French, but some, including the Mohawk and the Iroquois, joined the Colonists. Prove that your group declared war justly. Research your sides motives for going to war, and actions in the war. Spin the evidence to prove that you had a good reason to massacre and murder. Organize your evidence into a web with a specific thesis and precise proof. Counter both your enemies and allies reasoning through a map or visual element included in your presentation. Present your argument in front of the United Nations War Crimes Council, who will be examining your case for weaknesses and flaws. The War Crimes Council demands a copy of your web to justify your actions, a copy of your works consulted list to judge your sources, and a copy of the rubric to judge your case.

_______Has an introduction that presents the importance of the claim. _______Has a conclusion that supports the argument presented. _______Establishes and maintains a format style and objective tone, e.g. eliminates personal pronouns, eliminates slang, uses domain-specific vocabulary _______Organizes writing using MLA formatting guidelines.

4
Precise, unique, and forceful thesis uses purposeful and powerful word choice to eliminate wordiness. Manipulates tone. Acknowledges counter-argument. Telling, quality details anticipate audiences prior knowledge, concerns, values, and possible biases. Uses the most effective evidence for this thesis at this time. Synthesizes and corroborates exclusively-valid and unique primary sources Research answers new questions. Thesis Evidence Pacing Change

3
Narrow and manageable, and appropriate thesis.

2
Limited thesis.

1
Broad or wordy thesis takes on too much, doesn't do enough, or tries to be specific but ends up being confusing. Specific details connect to one part of thesis.

0
Thesis missing.

Comprehensive details prove the thesis. Uses purposeful evidence.

Specific details support the thesis. Uses relevant evidence.

Details are broad summaries.

Relies extensively on a variety of valid primary sources. Research is comprehensive and answers all questions.

Uses some valid primary and some secondary sources Research answers obvious questions. Points out strengths of evidence. Cites specific textual detail to describe evidence in time and place, e.g. date, origin.

Relies exclusively on valid secondary sources Limited research answers only basic questions. Assumes evidence is strong. Cites general textual detail to describe evidence in time and place, e.g. date and origin.

Relies on only one or two sources or invalid sources. Research fails to answer basic questions. Evidence is broad summaries. Does not cite textual details to describe evidence in place and time, e.g. date and origin. Writer skips sections. Includes Lots of Summary.

Explains strengths and limitations of Points out strengths and evidence. limitations of evidence. Cites specific textual detail to Cites specific textual detail to support evaluation of evidence, e.g. support analysis of evidence, date, origin. e.g. date, origin. Pacing anticipates the audiences prior knowledge, concerns, values, and possible biases. The author says exactly the right amount, elaborating when needed, and moving on when needed. Always includes: Idea, intro to evidence, evidence, and comment. Seamless integration of evidence. Pacing is controlled and purposeful. Only a few places need to be trimmed or elaborated.

Pacing is formulaic. Each Pacing is awkward, spending too section is the same length and much time on summary and not structure. enough time on comment and analysis.

Always includes: Idea, intro to evidence, evidence, and comment.

Consistently includes: idea, intro to evidence, evidence, and comment.

Includes pieces of: idea, intro to evidence, evidence and comment. Choppy integration of evidence. Student struggles to make a logical evaluation and/or prediction about the impact of an event, person or idea. Little to know study of any documents. Judgment based on rumor, personal bias or stereotype. This stuff changed . . . Or something.

Missing all paragraph structure. No integration of evidence.

Smooth integration of evidence. Efficient integration of evidence. Student can make an evaluation and/or prediction based on various versions of actions or events about the impact of an event, idea, or person based on strong patterns of historical evidence, acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain. Under these circumstances, this is what would happen. Student makes an evaluation and/or prediction about the impact on an event/person or idea based on historical patterns Student makes an evaluation and/or prediction about the impact of an event, person or idea based on loose historical patterns

Sees history as an inescapable series of unconnected events.

These causes and effects are more important.

This changed because of this and caused . . .

This just happened.