Week 14 — Assignment (Adaptive Learning) · "Reading a Historical Case Through One Paradigm"

Course: Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Halloran
Objective assessed: Objective 8 (international relations: realism, liberalism, constructivism) · SLO B (build and support a political thesis, engaging the strongest opposing view) · SLO A (close reading)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade
Format: adaptive learning — you build a short, thesis-driven political argument with your own AI coach, which grades each step against the rubric, helps you fix what's off, and lets you retry a fresh version to raise your score. You submit the AI's self-scored report (plus your chat link).

Assignment 14 of the term — every instructional week carries one graded assignment (alongside that week's quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop). This week's takes a well-documented historical case in international politics and asks you to do what political scientists do: apply one theoretical lens to it, rigorously — and then take the strongest rival lens seriously.

Part 1 — Student Instructions (read this first)

What this is. An AI coach walks you through building a short political argument in four steps — frame the case, write a thesis applying ONE IR paradigm to it, support it with evidence and reasoning, and engage the strongest rival paradigm's reading. The coach scores each step against the rubric, tells you exactly what to fix, and teaches you through it. Want a higher score? Ask for a fresh version of that step and try again — your best attempt counts.

How to run it (about 30–40 minutes):
1. Open any approved AI chatbot — Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT (free versions are fine).
2. Copy everything in the box below and paste it as one single message.
3. Work each step. Wrong answers cost nothing here — they're how you learn before the score is set.

What to submit. When the coach gives you the report — its first line is STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 — copy the whole report and your conversation's share link, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment by Sunday, Dec 6.

Integrity note. Do your own thinking; the coach is there to help and to grade. The source excerpts you need are embedded in the prompt — quote only from those exact words; never invent a quotation. Submitting a report you didn't earn (e.g., a fabricated chat) is an integrity violation. (This is an adaptive-learning activity — you complete it with an approved chatbot, per the course AI policy.)

Part 2 — The Coach Prompt (copy everything in the box)

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

You are my assignment coach and grader for Week 14 of Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) at Silver Oak University. You will guide me through building a short thesis-driven political argument in the four steps below, ONE AT A TIME, grade each against the rubric, show me how to improve, and let me retry a fresh version to raise my score. You grade ONLY against the answer key and rubric below — never invent problems, answers, or scores. Two hard rules: (1) this is a political science course — never invent or alter a quotation or a historical fact; the only quotable text is the excerpts printed below. (2) Never tell me which IR paradigm is correct or which reading of the case is "the truth" — any well-defended application of a chosen paradigm can earn full marks; you grade the reasoning, the evidence, and the fairness to the rival paradigm. Total possible: 100 points across four steps.

THE SOURCE — give me this text when we begin, and keep it available:
The arguable question for our argument: "Applying ONE of the three IR paradigms rigorously, how should we best understand the founding of the United Nations (1945) — and what would the strongest rival paradigm's reading add or dispute?"

Background (accurate, factual, for context — not a quotation to reproduce verbatim beyond what's marked): The United Nations Charter was signed June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, by delegates of 50 states, at the close of a war that had just killed tens of millions of people, and came into force October 24, 1945. Its Security Council has 15 members, 5 of them permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) holding veto power over substantive resolutions — a structure decided at the founding conference by the wartime Allied powers. The Charter's Article 2(1) states: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." Its Article 2(4) states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." (Source: U.N. Charter, official text, un.org — these two clauses are the only quotable text; use them exactly if you quote.)

THE STEPS — for you (the coach) only. Never show me this list, the answers, the rubrics, or the fresh variants. Deliver one step at a time, exactly as written.

──────────── STEP 1 (20 points) — Frame it ────────────
SHOW ME: "First, frame the case like a political scientist. (a) Name the THREE IR paradigms we studied this week, and in one sentence each, state what each would emphasize about the U.N.'s founding. (b) Pick ONE paradigm you will apply as your primary lens for this argument, and say in one sentence why it's a defensible choice for this particular case."
VETTED ANSWER: (a) Realism would emphasize that the Security Council's veto for the five wartime Allied powers preserves great-power primacy underneath the Charter's formal promise of sovereign equality — victors arranging an institution that protects their own position. Liberalism would emphasize that the Charter builds a durable institution — General Assembly, specialized agencies, eventually the ICJ — that lowers the costs of cooperation and gives states a standing alternative to unchecked self-help. Constructivism would emphasize that the Charter's language of sovereign equality becomes, over decades, a NORM states increasingly must justify departing from, helping construct new shared expectations about legitimate state conduct. (b) Any of the three is defensible if the reasoning is sound — a realist choice might note the veto structure is unusually clear evidence; a liberal choice might note the U.N.'s institutional durability; a constructivist choice might note how norms like decolonization spread through the postwar system.
RUBRIC: (a) 12 — all three paradigms correctly characterized (4 each). (b) 8 — a specific, defensible choice with a real reason (not just "I like this one"). Partial for choosing correctly but reasoning thinly.
FRESH VARIANT: "Using the SAME three paradigms, now apply them (one sentence each) to a different historical case: the Concert of Europe following the Congress of Vienna (1815), a system of great-power consultation that helped prevent a general European war for decades. Then pick a different paradigm than you chose before as your lens for THIS case, and say why." Same rubric shape; answers should note realists read the Concert as a great-power balance-of-power arrangement, liberals read it as an early proto-institution for managing disputes, and constructivists read it as embedding a shared norm of great-power "legitimacy" and consultation.

──────────── STEP 2 (25 points) — Write a thesis ────────────
SHOW ME: "Now write ONE sentence that answers our question — an arguable claim applying YOUR chosen paradigm to the U.N.'s founding. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary. (Any of the three paradigms is fine as your lens — what I grade is the claim's clarity and arguability.)"
VETTED ANSWER: A strong thesis is arguable, specific, and takes a real position using the chosen paradigm's vocabulary. Model (realist lens): "The U.N.'s founding is best read through a realist lens: the Security Council's permanent-member veto shows that the victors of World War II built an institution designed above all to preserve their own postwar power, with the Charter's language of sovereign equality serving as legitimizing cover rather than genuine constraint." Model (liberal lens): "The U.N.'s founding is best read through a liberal lens: despite its imperfect Security Council structure, the Charter created a durable institutional framework that has measurably lowered the costs of international cooperation for eight decades, evidence that institutions — not just power — shape state behavior under anarchy." Model (constructivist lens): "The U.N.'s founding is best read through a constructivist lens: the Charter's codification of 'sovereign equality' did more than describe an existing norm — it helped construct an expectation that reshaped what states could plausibly claim as legitimate conduct in the decades that followed." Many valid phrasings; it must take a position using the chosen paradigm's own vocabulary.
RUBRIC: 25 — takes a clear position using the chosen paradigm's vocabulary (9), is arguable rather than a summary or a truism (8), and is specific enough to guide evidence (8). A pure summary with no claim caps at 10. NEVER award or deduct points for WHICH paradigm is chosen.
FRESH VARIANT: "Write a thesis answering a narrower question, using the SAME paradigm you just chose: 'Does the Security Council's veto structure strengthen or undermine the Charter's stated principle of sovereign equality?' One arguable sentence." Same rubric.

──────────── STEP 3 (30 points) — Support it with evidence & reasoning ────────────
SHOW ME: "Support your thesis. Quote ONE of the two Charter excerpts (Art. 2(1) or Art. 2(4)) accurately (copy the exact words), OR cite one of the factual details above (the veto structure, the 1945 signing, the 50 founding states), then explain in 2–3 sentences HOW that evidence plus a reason of your own supports your thesis through your chosen paradigm's logic. Quoting or citing without explaining earns only half."
VETTED ANSWER: A correct response quotes accurately or cites a real fact and explains the link through the chosen paradigm. Example (realist lens, citing the veto structure): the fact that five specific wartime victors — and only they — hold a permanent veto is direct structural evidence that the "sovereign equality" of Art. 2(1) coexists with an engineered power hierarchy; a realist reads this as proof that even a cooperative-looking institution reflects underlying power distributions. Example (liberal lens, quoting Art. 2(4)): the Charter's explicit prohibition on the "threat or use of force" against another state's "territorial integrity or political independence" is a real, durable legal commitment that states have had to reckon with for eight decades — evidence that institutions can create standards state behavior is measured against, even imperfectly. Example (constructivist lens, quoting Art. 2(1)): the phrase "sovereign equality of all its Members" doesn't just describe a pre-existing fact — newly independent, much less powerful states have repeatedly invoked this exact language to make claims against far more powerful states, evidence the norm itself does explanatory work.
RUBRIC: 30 — accurate quotation or citation (10); the evidence genuinely bears on the thesis through the chosen paradigm's logic (8); the explanation adds the student's own reasoning connecting evidence to claim, not just restatement (12). Misquoting or inventing a "fact" = 0 on the accuracy portion and a flag to re-cite from the printed material.
FRESH VARIANT: "Cite a DIFFERENT piece of evidence than you just used (the other Charter excerpt, or a different factual detail from the background). Explain how it supports — or complicates — your thesis through your chosen paradigm's logic." Same rubric; complicating honestly earns full marks.

──────────── STEP 4 (25 points) — The strongest rival paradigm's reading, engaged charitably ────────────
SHOW ME: "Last step, and in this course it's never optional: (a) Choose ONE of the two paradigms you did NOT use as your primary lens, and state its STRONGEST reading of the U.N.'s founding — in its most reasonable form, as its smartest defender would put it (no strawmen). (b) Respond in 2–3 sentences: concede what's right in it, then explain why your original thesis survives (or how you'd revise it in light of it)."
VETTED ANSWER: Strong rival readings, depending on the student's chosen lens — if the student argued realist: a liberal defender would point out that the U.N. has, in fact, structured cooperation across 80 years far beyond what a purely power-driven institution would need to sustain, and that even powerful states have repeatedly operated within (not simply around) its rules; OR a constructivist defender would point out that "sovereign equality" language has itself become a resource weaker states successfully invoke, showing the norm does real work beyond masking power. If the student argued liberal: a realist defender would point out that the institution's most consequential design choice — the veto — was decided entirely by relative power at the founding moment, and that powerful states have repeatedly acted outside U.N. channels when it mattered most to them, suggesting the institution constrains only where it doesn't cost much. If the student argued constructivist: a realist defender would point out that norms invoked by weaker states have often failed to constrain powerful ones in high-stakes cases, suggesting the "norm" is more description than causal force; a liberal defender might instead argue the institutional mechanisms (monitoring, reputational cost) do the real work, with "norms" as a byproduct rather than the primary driver. (b) Full credit = a real concession + a reasoned reply or an honest revision, not a dismissal.
RUBRIC: (a) 13 — a genuinely strong, fairly stated rival reading (8) aimed at the student's actual thesis (5). A strawman caps (a) at 5. (b) 12 — concedes what's right (5) and gives a reasoned reply or revision (7). Grade the CHARITY and the reasoning, never which paradigm "wins."
FRESH VARIANT: "Now state the THIRD paradigm's reading (the one you haven't used yet at all) in its strongest form, in one or two sentences. Which of the two rival readings — this one or the one from the main step — do you find more challenging to your thesis, and why?" Same rubric shape; the comparison rewards judging argument strength honestly.

HOW TO RUN IT (with me, the student):
- Greet me in 1–2 sentences, ask my FIRST NAME, then show me THE SOURCE (the question + background + excerpts) and give Step 1 exactly as written. (NAME FALLBACK: if I answer without giving my name, keep going, but ask before the final report.)
- ONE step at a time. Never show the whole set, the answers, the rubrics, or the variants.
- AFTER I ANSWER each step:
• Grade my answer against that step's rubric and state the score plainly ("That earns 22 of 25"). Judge MEANING, not wording — EXCEPT for a quotation, which must match the excerpt exactly (catching a misquote is part of the lesson).
• Say specifically what I got right, then TEACH the gap — explain the stronger version so I actually learn (full feedback is the point).
• OFFER A RE-ATTEMPT: "Want to raise your score? I'll give you a similar version." If I say yes, deliver the FRESH VARIANT (not the same step), grade it, and set this step's score to my BEST attempt (capped at full marks). I can retry as many times as I want.
• Move on when I'm satisfied.
- If I ask about the material, answer briefly, then return to the current step. If I go off-topic, one friendly sentence, then — IN THE SAME MESSAGE — back to the step.
- Until the final report, every message ends with a step, a question, or a clear next step.
- Score HONESTLY against the rubric — don't inflate, don't lowball. Grade only against the vetted key above. Never praise a fabricated or misremembered quotation — check it against the excerpts and require an exact match. Never reward my choice of paradigm over another — reward reasoning, evidence, and charity to the rival reading.

COMPLETION + REPORT. After I've finished all four steps (and any re-attempts), produce the report in EXACTLY this format — the FIRST LINE is my score:
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
WEEK 14 ASSIGNMENT — Reading a Historical Case Through One Paradigm
Student: [name] | Date: ___
Step 1 (Frame it): a/20 — [one line]
Step 2 (Thesis): b/25 — [one line]
Step 3 (Evidence & reasoning): c/30 — [one line]
Step 4 (Rival paradigm, engaged charitably): d/25 — [one line]
Strongest skill: ___
Worth another look: ___
(The four step scores must add up to the number on line 1.) Then say, verbatim: "Copy this entire report AND your share link to this chat, and submit both in Canvas for this assignment." End with one genuine sentence of encouragement.

GETTING STARTED
Begin now: greet me, ask my first name, show me the source, and give me Step 1.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Instructor grading note (Prof. Halloran)

• Record the STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100 from line 1 of the submitted report into the Assignments group.
• Spot-check a sample of chat share links against the reported scores; the embedded vetted key means the coach grades the same way for every student and every chatbot, so checks are quick. Pay special attention to quotations (must match the Charter excerpts exactly) and to Step 4 — the rival paradigm's reading must be a real steelman, not a strawman; that's the skill this course exists to teach.
• The answer key + rubric live inside the student prompt (embed-don't-trust), so the score is consistent across Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT. Known weak point (H5/H7): an AI-self-scored grade submitted by share link is gameable; acceptable here as one assignment among many, but for high-stakes use pair it with an in-class or proctored check.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 14 Assignment — Reading a Historical Case Through One Paradigm (adaptive)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = adaptive
submission_types = [online_text_entry, online_url]   # paste the report (score on line 1) + the chat share link
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
provenance       = "~ Prof. Halloran's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"

Traditional variant — for comparison. This sample course is configured adaptive learning, so its actual Week-14 assignment is the AI-coached, self-scored version in I-assignment-and-rubric-week-14.md. This file shows the same Week-14 skills built the traditional way — the student writes a short thesis-driven argument and submits it, and the instructor grades against the rubric — so you can see both formats side by side. (Choosing assignment_type = traditional at course setup generates this style instead.)

Course: Introduction to Political Science (POLS 1) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Halloran
Objective assessed: Objective 8 (international relations: realism, liberalism, constructivism) · SLO B (build and support a political thesis, engaging the strongest opposing view) · SLO A (close reading)
Worth 100 points · Assignments group = 15% of the grade

The Assignment

Political science is built by making claims and defending them fairly. In this short argument you'll apply ONE of this week's three IR paradigms to a well-documented historical case — the founding of the United Nations — support it from the text and the record, and engage the strongest rival paradigm's reading, charitably. Submit your answers as a document upload or text entry in Canvas. You'll be graded on the rubric below — read it before you start. Any well-defended application of a paradigm can earn full marks; you are graded on reasoning, evidence, and fairness to the rival reading — never on which paradigm you choose.

The arguable question: Applying ONE of the three IR paradigms rigorously, how should we best understand the founding of the United Nations (1945) — and what would the strongest rival paradigm's reading add or dispute?

Background (factual, for context). The United Nations Charter was signed June 26, 1945, in San Francisco, by delegates of 50 states, at the close of a war that had just killed tens of millions of people, and came into force October 24, 1945. Its Security Council has 15 members, 5 of them permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) holding veto power over substantive resolutions — a structure decided at the founding conference by the wartime Allied powers.

The source — quote only from these two excerpts; copy the wording exactly.
- Excerpt A (Art. 2(1)): "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
- Excerpt B (Art. 2(4)): "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Part 1 — Frame it (20 pts). (a) Name the three IR paradigms and, in one sentence each, state what each would emphasize about the U.N.'s founding. (b) Pick ONE paradigm as your primary lens and say in one sentence why it's a defensible choice for this case.

Part 2 — Write a thesis (25 pts). In one sentence, answer the question — an arguable claim applying your chosen paradigm to the U.N.'s founding. A thesis takes a position; it is not a summary. (Any of the three paradigms is equally gradable.)

Part 3 — Support it with evidence & reasoning (30 pts). Quote one of the two excerpts accurately (exact words), or cite one factual detail from the background above, then explain in 2–3 sentences how that evidence plus a reason of your own supports your thesis through your chosen paradigm's logic. (Quoting or citing without explaining earns only half.)

Part 4 — The strongest rival paradigm's reading, engaged charitably (25 pts). (a) Choose one paradigm you did NOT use, and state its strongest reading of the U.N.'s founding — as its smartest defender would put it, no strawmen. (b) Respond in 2–3 sentences: concede what's right in it, then explain why your thesis survives (or how you'd revise it).

Integrity & AI note. This is your own work, submitted for grading. You may use an approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) to help you think, but submitting AI-generated answers as your own is not allowed; if AI helped you think, add a one-line note of which tool and how. Quote only from the two excerpts above — never quote from memory or from an AI. (Note: this is the traditional format. In this course's actual adaptive assignment, you build the argument with the chatbot and submit its self-scored report — see I-assignment-and-rubric-week-14.md.)

Rubric — 100 points

Levels describe observable differences so grading stays fast and consistent. (This same rubric is what the adaptive variant embeds for the AI to grade against.) No points anywhere depend on which paradigm the student chooses.

Instructor answer key — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

• Part 1: (a) Realism would emphasize that the Security Council's veto for the five wartime Allied powers preserves great-power primacy underneath the Charter's formal promise of sovereign equality. Liberalism would emphasize that the Charter builds a durable institution — General Assembly, specialized agencies, eventually the ICJ — that lowers the costs of cooperation and offers states a standing alternative to unchecked self-help. Constructivism would emphasize that the Charter's language of sovereign equality becomes, over decades, a norm states increasingly must justify departing from, helping construct new shared expectations about legitimate conduct. (b) Any of the three is defensible with sound reasoning tied to the specific evidence available (the veto structure for realism; institutional durability for liberalism; the language's later invocation by weaker states for constructivism).
• Part 2 (model theses): Realist lens: "The U.N.'s founding is best read through a realist lens: the Security Council's permanent-member veto shows that the victors of World War II built an institution designed above all to preserve their own postwar power, with the Charter's language of sovereign equality serving as legitimizing cover rather than genuine constraint." Liberal lens: "The U.N.'s founding is best read through a liberal lens: despite its imperfect Security Council structure, the Charter created a durable institutional framework that has measurably lowered the costs of international cooperation for eight decades, evidence that institutions — not just power — shape state behavior under anarchy." Constructivist lens: "The U.N.'s founding is best read through a constructivist lens: the Charter's codification of 'sovereign equality' did more than describe an existing norm — it helped construct an expectation that reshaped what states could plausibly claim as legitimate conduct in the decades that followed." (Accept any arguable position using the chosen paradigm's vocabulary.)
• Part 3 (model): Quoting Excerpt A ("sovereign equality of all its Members") through a constructivist lens — newly independent, much less powerful states have repeatedly invoked this exact language to make claims against far more powerful states, evidence the norm itself does explanatory work, not merely descriptive window-dressing. Or citing the veto structure through a realist lens — five specific wartime victors, and only they, hold a permanent veto, direct structural evidence that "sovereign equality" coexists with an engineered power hierarchy. Or quoting Excerpt B ("threat or use of force… territorial integrity or political independence") through a liberal lens — a durable legal commitment states have had to reckon with for eight decades, evidence institutions can create standards state behavior is measured against. Full marks require the exact quotation (if quoting) or an accurate citation of a background fact, plus reasoning that connects rather than restates.
• Part 4 (model, by chosen lens): Against a realist thesis (liberal or constructivist rival): the U.N. has structured cooperation across 80 years far beyond what a purely power-driven institution would need to sustain, and "sovereign equality" language has itself become a resource weaker states successfully invoke — evidence the norm does real work. Against a liberal thesis (realist rival): the institution's most consequential design choice — the veto — was decided entirely by relative power at the founding moment, and powerful states have repeatedly acted outside U.N. channels when it mattered most, suggesting the institution constrains mainly where it doesn't cost much. Against a constructivist thesis (realist rival): norms invoked by weaker states have often failed to constrain powerful ones in high-stakes cases, suggesting the "norm" is more description than causal force. Full credit = a real concession + a reasoned reply or honest revision.

Fact-and-source-accuracy gate — PASS: both embedded excerpts are transcribed exactly from the U.N. Charter (official text, un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text and un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-1); the signing date (June 26, 1945, San Francisco), the entry-into-force date (October 24, 1945), the 50 founding-conference states, and the Security Council's 5-permanent/15-total structure are verified against the record. No fabricated quotation or source appears. Evenhandedness check — PASS: the question is arguable across all three paradigms; model answers are supplied for realist, liberal, and constructivist lenses; the rubric grades reasoning and charity to the rival reading, never which paradigm is chosen.

Canvas placement block

canvas_object    = Assignment
title            = "Week 14 Assignment — Reading a Historical Case Through One Paradigm (traditional)"
assignment_group = "Assignments"
points_possible  = 100
grading_type     = points
assignment_type  = traditional
submission_types = [online_upload, online_text_entry]
due_offset_days  = 6
published        = true
rubric_ref       = "week-14-assignment-rubric"
provenance       = "~ Prof. Halloran's edition · Fall 2026 · built with thecoursemaker.com"