+1 (208) 254-6996 essayswallet@gmail.com
  

Please read the instructions carefully. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Instructions

DB Post Response

In a minimum of 250 words, please provide a response to each of the posts below, with at least one cited source. The assignment must have at least one in-text citation. Please only use the military sources provided and one outside source if using more than one cited source.

Note: Rubrics attached.

DB Post # 1

The sergeants major role in the unit’s training management is one of the most important responsibilities he or she has, especially the operations sergeant major.  It is the operations sergeant major who has the ultimate challenge to assure the unit is ready and trained for war.  He or she needs to know the current capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of the soldiers, and what training should be added to eliminate the weaknesses.  The sergeant major must also act as a strong mentor in the leader development process.  In Special Forces training, which is one of the most demanding training in the Army, taught by the 1st Special Warfare Training Group at Fort Bragg, a good mentor is necessary.   (Martin, 2006, p. 11-1) “Today, the term mentor is used interchangeably with coach, guide, tutor and councilor. It simply refers to someone who has already accomplished the things that you are trying to achieve and is willing to help you”.  Soldiers who can look up to their sergeant major and be able to communicate to them as a mentor can have great results in the units training management. 

     Another trait that is important for a sergeant major to stress in their units training is creative thinking.  (Department of the Army, 2017, p. 21) “Creative thinking involves creating something new or original, thinking in innovative ways while capitalizing on imagination, insight, and novel ideas”.  Creative thinking is something that is critical in special operations and must be allowed and emphasized in all Army units when it comes to training.  Letting soldiers get analytical and think outside the box will have beneficial results.  

     To conclude this writing, the operations sergeant major, who is responsible for training, will not only try to be a true mentor but will stress upon the soldiers to use critical thinking when it comes to training. 

References

Department of the Army. (2017). The US Army Learning Concept for Training and

Education     (TRADOC Pamphlet 525-8-2). Retrieved from

https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-8-2.pdf

Martin, J. (2006). Get Selected for Special Forces. Fort Bragg, NC. Warrior-Mentor, LLC

DB Post # 2

Sergeants Major and Command Sergeants Major (SGMs/CSMs) play a pivotal role in all facets of the Army’s mission.  The Army trains to prepare for war, humanitarian assistance, and peacekeeping as well natural disaster recovery missions.  The successful accomplishment of missions relies heavily on units’ ability to execute its Mission Essential Task Lists (METL). Units cannot successfully execute its specified requirement without proper training. Units must be proficient at its METL in order to meet the Army’s number one priority: develop and sustaining readiness (Sergeants Major, 2019).  Units hone its proficiency through constant tough, realistic, standards-based, and performance-oriented training as training signifies the most significant action units do every day to attain readiness (Sergeants Major Course, 2019). The first responsibility of the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) is to train and teach Soldiers. SGMs/CSMs are responsible for advising Commanders and developing subordinate NCOs. This development echoes through the ranks as the NCO Corps is in charge of training the individual tasks and most of the collective tasks in unit training plans (Wilson, 1991).

Through the use of the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP), SGMs/CSMs can accurately perform a METL crosswalk that facilitates training management within unit. The application of the METL crosswalk while utilizing MDMP in turn facilitates Troop Leadership Procedures (TLP) at the Company and or battery level (Hawkins, 2018). SGMs/CSMs can develop leaders during Noncommissioned Officer Development Program sessions.  Throughout these sessions, SGMs/CSMs can capitalize on this forum to cover TLPs, MDMPs, and educate subordinate NCOs on their duties and responsibilities. Additionally, SGMs/CSMs can protect the training calendar by ensuring that units abide by it. When units place STT on the calendar, CSMs/SGMs can also ensure units are free from other requirements that would take time away from trainings highlighted on the schedule.  This would give units predictability, and increase the overall morale of units, as STT is only beneficial when NCOs use the time for planned, quality training needed by the squad or section (Wilson, 1991).

References

Hawkins, J. (2018). The Military Decision-Making Process: A Blueprint for Developing Your Unit’s Mission-Essential Task List Crosswalk. Cavalry & Armor Journal9(1), 31–37. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.lumen.cgsccarl.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=793c2aa4-936b-46ee-9f13-004741a805fa%40sdc-v-sessmgr01Hawkins

Sergeants Major Course. (2019). Training (ADP 7-0). Retrieved from https://usasma.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/courses/SMA_SMC-DL_Phase2_CL46_B/ADP%207-0_Training_2019%281%29.pdf

Wilson, R. N. (1991). Bridge the gap. Engineer21(4), 61. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.lumen.cgsccarl.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=9906dc22-f85d-4910-a9ef-038d88aeeeac%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=9709090760&db=f5h

RUBRICS.pdf

Form 1009C

Contribution to Group Discussion Assessment

Levels of Achievement

Criteria Failed Unsatisfactory Marginal Developing Proficient Exemplary

Quality and Scope of Posted Content

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Initial posting is not on topic; the content is unrelated to the discussion question; post demonstrates superficial thought and poor preparation. No depth in response to classmates; response does not relate directly, either conceptually or materially, to classmate postings.

9 to 11 points

Initial posting demonstrates a lack of reflection and answers few aspects of the discussion question; Development of concepts is not evident. Provides questionable comments of fails to offer new information to other posts; Responses do not promote further discussion of topic.

12 to 14 points

Initial posting demonstrates legitimate reflection and answers most aspects of the discussion question; full development of concepts is not evident. Provides relevant comments and new information to other posts; not all responses promote further discussion of topic.

15 to 17 points

Initial posting reveals a clear understanding of all aspects of the discussion question; uses factual and relevant information; demonstrates proficient development of concepts. Demonstrates understanding of other posts; extends discussion by building on previous posts and offering perspectives.

18 to 20 points

Initial posting demonstrates a thorough understanding of all aspects of the discussion question; uses factual and relevant information from scholarly sources; demonstrates full and insightful development of key concepts. Demonstrates critical analysis of other posts; extends meaningful discussion by building on previous posts and offering alternative perspectives.

Collaborative Communication Skills

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Rarely provides useful ideas when participating in group discussions. Does not effectively engage with classmates by acknowledging and accepting other points of view. Publically critical of the work of others. Often displays unproductive communication that instigates a negative response rather than promotes collaboration.

9 to 11 points

Rarely provides useful ideas when participating in group discussions. Publically critical of the work of others. Rarely displays a positive narrative. Rarely shares with and supports the efforts of others. Sometimes causes undue tension or issues in the discussion forum.

12 to 14 points

Usually provides useful ideas when participating in group discussions. Rarely publically critical of the work of others. Often displays a positive narrative. Usually shares with and supports the efforts of others. Does not cause undue tension or issues in the discussion forum.

15 to 17 points

Routinely provides useful ideas when participating in group discussion. Never publically critical of the work of others. Always displays a positive narrative. Regularly shares with and supports the efforts of others. Maintains a productive and collaborative discussion with classmates.

18 to 20 points

Always provides creative ideas when participating in group discussion. Supports the work of others while keeping discussion on topic. Always displays a positive narrative. Regularly shares with and supports the efforts of others. Leads a productive and collaborative discussion with classmates.

Critical and Creative Thinking

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Demonstrates a lack of proficiency in conceptualizing the problem; viewpoints and

9 to 11 points

Demonstrates limited or poor proficiency in conceptualizing the problem; viewpoints and

12 to 14 points

Demonstrates developing proficiency in conceptualizing and providing

15 to 17 points

Demonstrates considerable proficiency in conceptualizing the problem

18 to 20 points

Demonstrates mastery in conceptualizing the problem and presenting

Name

Description

Rubric Detail

Page 1 of 2

Levels of Achievement

Criteria Failed Unsatisfactory Marginal Developing Proficient Exemplary

assumptions of experts lack analysis and evaluation; conclusions are either absent or poorly conceived and supported.

assumptions of experts are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated; conclusions are either poorly conceived and supported.

context to the problem; viewpoints and assumptions of experts are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized, or evaluated; conclusions lack clear rationale.

and presenting appropriate perspectives; viewpoints and assumptions of experts are accurately analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated; conclusions are logically presented with applicable rationale.

logical perspectives; viewpoints and assumptions of experts are superbly analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated; conclusions are logically presented with detailed rationale.

Reference to Supporting Sources

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Does not refer to assigned readings or other sources; fails to cite properly and/or cites questionable sources.

9 to 11 points

Refers to questionable sources. Attempts to cite sources with major deficiencies in citation format; fails to use two or more sources in initial post. Fails to use any source in response to classmates.

12 to 14 points

Refers to scholarly sources from assigned or outside reading and attempts to cite sources with few deficiencies in citation format; fails to use two or more sources in initial post.

15 to 17 points

Refers to and properly cites scholarly sources from assigned or outside reading and research with two or more sources cited in the initial post and at least one source cited in response to classmates.

18 to 20 points

Refers to and properly cites recent and relevant scholarly sources from assigned or outside reading and research with two or more sources cited in the initial post and at least one source cited in response to classmates.

Style and Mechanics

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Writing contains numerous wordy, vague, or poorly constructed sentences. Frequent instances of grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation errors.

9 to 11 points

Writing contains few wordy, vague, or poorly constructed sentences. Occasional instances of grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation errors.

12 to 14 points

Writing displays a developing sense of academic writing with structurally sound sentences. 5-10 errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

15 to 17 points

Writing displays a proficiency of academic writing with clearly written and structurally sound sentences. Less than 5 errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

18 to 20 points

Writing displays a mastery of academic writing with clearly written and structurally sound sentences. No errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

Assignment Requirements

-31 to -31 points

One or more posts contain plagiarism.

-15 to -15 points

Failed to meet assignment requirements and one or more submissions after due date.

-10 to -10 points

Failed to meet assignment requirements.

-5 to -5 points

One or more submissions after due date.

0 to 0 points

Met all requirements.

0 to 0 points

Met all requirements.

Page 2 of 2

Form 1009C

Contribution to Group Discussion Assessment

Levels of Achievement

Criteria Failed Unsatisfactory Marginal Developing Proficient Exemplary

Quality and Scope of Posted Content

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Initial posting is not on topic; the content is unrelated to the discussion question; post demonstrates superficial thought and poor preparation. No depth in response to classmates; response does not relate directly, either conceptually or materially, to classmate postings.

9 to 11 points

Initial posting demonstrates a lack of reflection and answers few aspects of the discussion question; Development of concepts is not evident. Provides questionable comments of fails to offer new information to other posts; Responses do not promote further discussion of topic.

12 to 14 points

Initial posting demonstrates legitimate reflection and answers most aspects of the discussion question; full development of concepts is not evident. Provides relevant comments and new information to other posts; not all responses promote further discussion of topic.

15 to 17 points

Initial posting reveals a clear understanding of all aspects of the discussion question; uses factual and relevant information; demonstrates proficient development of concepts. Demonstrates understanding of other posts; extends discussion by building on previous posts and offering perspectives.

18 to 20 points

Initial posting demonstrates a thorough understanding of all aspects of the discussion question; uses factual and relevant information from scholarly sources; demonstrates full and insightful development of key concepts. Demonstrates critical analysis of other posts; extends meaningful discussion by building on previous posts and offering alternative perspectives.

Collaborative Communication Skills

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Rarely provides useful ideas when participating in group discussions. Does not effectively engage with classmates by acknowledging and accepting other points of view. Publically critical of the work of others. Often displays unproductive communication that instigates a negative response rather than promotes collaboration.

9 to 11 points

Rarely provides useful ideas when participating in group discussions. Publically critical of the work of others. Rarely displays a positive narrative. Rarely shares with and supports the efforts of others. Sometimes causes undue tension or issues in the discussion forum.

12 to 14 points

Usually provides useful ideas when participating in group discussions. Rarely publically critical of the work of others. Often displays a positive narrative. Usually shares with and supports the efforts of others. Does not cause undue tension or issues in the discussion forum.

15 to 17 points

Routinely provides useful ideas when participating in group discussion. Never publically critical of the work of others. Always displays a positive narrative. Regularly shares with and supports the efforts of others. Maintains a productive and collaborative discussion with classmates.

18 to 20 points

Always provides creative ideas when participating in group discussion. Supports the work of others while keeping discussion on topic. Always displays a positive narrative. Regularly shares with and supports the efforts of others. Leads a productive and collaborative discussion with classmates.

Critical and Creative Thinking

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Demonstrates a lack of proficiency in conceptualizing the problem; viewpoints and

9 to 11 points

Demonstrates limited or poor proficiency in conceptualizing the problem; viewpoints and

12 to 14 points

Demonstrates developing proficiency in conceptualizing and providing

15 to 17 points

Demonstrates considerable proficiency in conceptualizing the problem

18 to 20 points

Demonstrates mastery in conceptualizing the problem and presenting

Name

Description

Rubric Detail

Page 1 of 2

Levels of Achievement

Criteria Failed Unsatisfactory Marginal Developing Proficient Exemplary

assumptions of experts lack analysis and evaluation; conclusions are either absent or poorly conceived and supported.

assumptions of experts are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated; conclusions are either poorly conceived and supported.

context to the problem; viewpoints and assumptions of experts are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized, or evaluated; conclusions lack clear rationale.

and presenting appropriate perspectives; viewpoints and assumptions of experts are accurately analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated; conclusions are logically presented with applicable rationale.

logical perspectives; viewpoints and assumptions of experts are superbly analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated; conclusions are logically presented with detailed rationale.

Reference to Supporting Sources

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Does not refer to assigned readings or other sources; fails to cite properly and/or cites questionable sources.

9 to 11 points

Refers to questionable sources. Attempts to cite sources with major deficiencies in citation format; fails to use two or more sources in initial post. Fails to use any source in response to classmates.

12 to 14 points

Refers to scholarly sources from assigned or outside reading and attempts to cite sources with few deficiencies in citation format; fails to use two or more sources in initial post.

15 to 17 points

Refers to and properly cites scholarly sources from assigned or outside reading and research with two or more sources cited in the initial post and at least one source cited in response to classmates.

18 to 20 points

Refers to and properly cites recent and relevant scholarly sources from assigned or outside reading and research with two or more sources cited in the initial post and at least one source cited in response to classmates.

Style and Mechanics

0 to 5 points

No or irrelevant discussion participation.

6 to 8 points

Writing contains numerous wordy, vague, or poorly constructed sentences. Frequent instances of grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation errors.

9 to 11 points

Writing contains few wordy, vague, or poorly constructed sentences. Occasional instances of grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation errors.

12 to 14 points

Writing displays a developing sense of academic writing with structurally sound sentences. 5-10 errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

15 to 17 points

Writing displays a proficiency of academic writing with clearly written and structurally sound sentences. Less than 5 errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

18 to 20 points

Writing displays a mastery of academic writing with clearly written and structurally sound sentences. No errors in grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation.

Assignment Requirements

-31 to -31 points

One or more posts contain plagiarism.

-15 to -15 points

Failed to meet assignment requirements and one or more submissions after due date.

-10 to -10 points

Failed to meet assignment requirements.

-5 to -5 points

One or more submissions after due date.

0 to 0 points

Met all requirements.

0 to 0 points

Met all requirements.

Page 2 of 2