Discussion Board Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts Initial Responses view longer description 13.5 to >12.02 pts The initial post applies course content sufficiently by expanding on the main points of the prompt; responses exhibit critical thinking and analysis. 12.02 to >10.13 pts Content knowledge is exhibited by identification of the main topics; there is some evidence of critical thinking and analysis, but responses may be insufficient or lacking in detail. 10.13 to >7.97 pts Understanding of content knowledge is poorly exhibited and insufficient in critical thinking, analysis, and detail. Some main discussion topics are not covered or significantly digress from the topic at hand. 7.97 to >0 pts Initial response is missing or provides no indication of understanding. Main topics are not covered. / 13.5 pts Reponses to Peers view longer description 12 to >10.68 pts Replies to peers are well developed and insightful, and provide an opportunity for response. Responses promote a discussion either by sharing prior knowledge and experiences, making meaningful connections with course content, asking meaningful questions, or challenging viewpoints. 10.68 to >9 pts Replies to peers are mostly developed and provide an opportunity for response. Responses contribute to the discussion either by sharing prior knowledge and experiences, making connections with course content, or asking questions. 9 to >7.08 pts Some replies to peers are missing or poorly developed and provide little or no opportunity for response. Responses do little to contribute to the discussion. 7.08 to >0 pts No responses to peers are present AND/OR one word responses are provided. / 12 pts Mechanics view longer description 1.5 to >1.34 pts Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner. Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is paraphrased appropriately and accurately referenced and cited in current APA style when applicable. 1.34 to >1.13 pts Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and grammar with minor interference with readability or comprehension. Most information from sources is paraphrased, referenced, and cited correctly in current APA style. 1.13 to >0.89 pts Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Several errors in spelling and grammar. Information from sources is missing or improperly cited. 0.89 to >0 pts Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and comprehension, AND/OR writing includes slang or is inappropriate for academic discourse. / 1.5 pts Participation view longer description 3 to >2.67 pts Meets or exceeds the minimum number of initial postings and replies to peers and instructors. 2.67 to >2.25 pts Provided slightly less than the minimum amount of initial posts and replies to peers and instructors. 2.25 to >1.77 pts Provided significantly less than the minimum amount of initial posts and replies to peers and instructors. 1.77 to >0 pts There ...

1. Discussion Board Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
Initial Responses
view longer description
13.5 to >12.02 pts
The initial post applies course content sufficiently by expanding
on the main points of the prompt; responses exhibit critical
thinking and analysis.
12.02 to >10.13 pts
Content knowledge is exhibited by identification of the main
topics; there is some evidence of critical thinking and analysis,
but responses may be insufficient or lacking in detail.
10.13 to >7.97 pts
Understanding of content knowledge is poorly exhibited and
insufficient in critical thinking, analysis, and detail. Some main
discussion topics are not covered or significantly digress from
the topic at hand.
7.97 to >0 pts
Initial response is missing or provides no indication of
understanding. Main topics are not covered.
/ 13.5 pts
Reponses to Peers
view longer description
12 to >10.68 pts
Replies to peers are well developed and insightful, and provide
an opportunity for response. Responses promote a discussion
either by sharing prior knowledge and experiences, making
meaningful connections with course content, asking meaningful
questions, or challenging viewpoints.
10.68 to >9 pts
Replies to peers are mostly developed and provide an
opportunity for response. Responses contribute to the discussion

2. either by sharing prior knowledge and experiences, making
connections with course content, or asking questions.
9 to >7.08 pts
Some replies to peers are missing or poorly developed and
provide little or no opportunity for response. Responses do little
to contribute to the discussion.
7.08 to >0 pts
No responses to peers are present AND/OR one word responses
are provided.
/ 12 pts
Mechanics
view longer description
1.5 to >1.34 pts
Written in a clear, concise, formal, and organized manner.
Responses are mostly error free. Information from sources is
paraphrased appropriately and accurately referenced and cited
in current APA style when applicable.
1.34 to >1.13 pts
Writing is generally clear and organized but is not concise or
formal in language. Multiple errors exist in spelling and
grammar with minor interference with readability or
comprehension. Most information from sources is paraphrased,
referenced, and cited correctly in current APA style.
1.13 to >0.89 pts
Writing is generally unclear and unorganized. Several errors in
spelling and grammar. Information from sources is missing or
improperly cited.
0.89 to >0 pts
Errors in spelling and grammar detract from readability and
comprehension, AND/OR writing includes slang or is
inappropriate for academic discourse.
/ 1.5 pts
Participation
view longer description
3 to >2.67 pts
Meets or exceeds the minimum number of initial postings and

3. replies to peers and instructors.
2.67 to >2.25 pts
Provided slightly less than the minimum amount of initial posts
and replies to peers and instructors.
2.25 to >1.77 pts
Provided significantly less than the minimum amount of initial
posts and replies to peers and instructors.
1.77 to >0 pts
There was little to no evidence of active participation in the
discussion board, initial postings and/or replies to peers and
instructors.