Content of Initial Thread/Post Weight: 40%
|
0 points
Response contains little to none of the required aspects of the prompt; Content is off topic; references are not included. APA reference/citation format is not used.
|
4.8 points
Major required aspects of the prompt are not addressed or the response speaks in vague generalities. Information is too general; 1 reference is present, but it is non-scholarly (if required) and/or it does not appropriately reflect the topic. APA reference/citation format may be inaccurate in the response.
|
5.6 points
Response addresses prompt requirements. Content is relevant and germane to the intent of the prompt; 1 or more references are scholarly (if required) and/or appropriately reflect topic, and have few APA formatting errors.
|
8 points
Content includes additional or novel points beyond the intent of the prompt. References are sufficient, scholarly in nature, and are formatted correctly in APA format.
|
Score of Content of Initial Thread/Post Weight: 40%,
/ 8
|
Critical Thinking of Thread/Post Weight: 10%
|
0 points
Little analysis or insight is displayed; Little or no logical support or reasoning is present
|
1.2 points
Some illogical statements and poor reasoning displayed; argument is unclear or convoluted
|
1.4 points
Response indicates that thought, insight, and analysis has taken place; Argument is solid and logical
|
2 points
Response is rich in critical thinking, and full of thought, insight, and analysis; Argument is clear and concise
|
Score of Critical Thinking of Thread/Post Weight: 10%,
/ 2
|
Quality of Written Communication in Initial Thread/Post Weight: 20%
|
0 points
Style and voice inappropriate or do not address given audience, purpose, etc. Word choice is excessively redundant, clichéd, and unspecific. Inconsistent grammar, spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning.
|
2.4 points
Style and voice are somewhat appropriate to given audience and purpose. Word choice is often unspecific, generic, redundant, and clichéd. Repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language, sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
|
2.8 points
Style and voice are appropriate to the given audience and purpose. Word choice is specific and purposeful, and somewhat varied throughout. Minimal mechanical or typographical errors are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
|
4 points
Style and voice are not only appropriate to the given audience and purpose, but also show originality and creativity. Word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic and varied. Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
|
Score of Quality of Written Communication in Initial Thread/Post Weight: 20%,
/ 4
|
Discussion Responses to Classmates’ Threads/Posts Weight: 30%
|
0 points
Did not make an effort to participate in learning community as it develops; Displays lack of engagement with discussion forum; Did not make the minimum of 2 responses to classmates.
|
3.6 points
Occasionally makes meaningful reflection on group’s efforts; Marginal effort to become involved with group; Made one response to classmates
|
4.2 points
Frequently attempts to direct the discussion and present relevant viewpoints for consideration by group; Interacts freely; Met the minimum of 2 responses to classmates
|
6 points
Shows astute awareness of needs of community; Frequently attempts to motivate the group discussion; Presents creative approaches to topic; Made at least 2 responses to classmates
|
Score of Discussion Responses to Classmates’ Threads/Posts Weight: 30%,
/ 6
|
Reviews
There are no reviews yet.