Discussion board rubric 1
•
0 likes•126 views
This rubric evaluates original posts and responses on a discussion board. For original posts, up to 6 points are available for fully addressing the discussion question and citing sources, while responses can earn up to 4 points. Lower scores are given for partially addressing the discussion or citing sources. For responses to peers, 1-4 points are available based on reflecting on peers' perspectives, making connections, and responding to the required number of peers. No points are awarded for no response or inappropriate responses.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
Recommended
Rubric for essay
The document outlines criteria for evaluating student work across three domains: knowledge, reasoning, and communication. It provides scoring rubrics from 1 to 5 points for assessing evidence of knowledge through facts and details, reasoning through analysis and synthesis, and clear communication of ideas in writing. Work that thoroughly demonstrates concepts, uses evidence to reach informed conclusions, and expresses ideas with focus and organization would receive the highest scores.
Bel 462 week 1
Here are some potential points you could comment on in your response:
- Summarize the main arguments/ideas presented in the article.
- Evaluate the evidence and research cited - is it sufficient and credible? Are there limitations?
- Consider any assumptions made by the author - are they valid?
- Analyze the author's reasoning and logic. Do the conclusions follow from the premises?
- Identify any biases or perspectives. Does the author adequately address alternative views?
- Relate the topic to other issues or your own experience. Does the article raise any other questions?
- Critique the style/organization. Is the information effectively communicated and structured?
- Make an overall evaluation
Discussion Board Participation Rubric
This document provides a rubric for evaluating student participation in discussion boards. It assesses students on critical thinking demonstrated through reflection and new ideas supported by sources, collaboration through responding to other students and prompting further discussion, promptness in meeting deadlines, organization of ideas, and grammar/mechanics. Students can earn up to 4 points in each category for a maximum total score of 20.
Discussion rubric[1]
This rubric outlines the criteria and scoring for discussion posts in an online course between weeks 1-8. Students can earn up to 20 points per week for their discussion posts and responses to other students. The rubric assesses students on quality, participation, critical thinking, timeliness, and netiquette. Students are scored on a scale from 1 (beginning) to 4 (strong) for each category based on meeting expectations and going beyond expectations in terms of depth, clarity, analysis, synthesis, and respect for others.
Mcnamara_orban_final_slideshow
This document provides details about an online course on conflict resolution taught by Eileen McNamara and Sarah Orban. The course is aimed at adult learners seeking continuing education credits. It will use discussions, role plays, and reflections to teach students how to identify and resolve conflicts that occur online. Students will learn skills like negotiation, mediation, and using third party negotiators. The course is divided into weekly modules and will assess students based on their participation, demonstration of conflict resolution skills, and a final paper.
Mc namara orban_final_slideshow updated
This document contains information about an online course on conflict resolution for adult learners seeking continuing education hours. It provides details on the course goals, topics that will be covered each week, grading criteria, and expectations for discussion posts and exercises. The main goals are to give students tools to resolve conflicts through writing and identify best practices for dealing with conflict online. Topics include the nature of conflict, personal experiences with conflict, role playing exercises, and a final exam. Students will be evaluated on timely and thoughtful posts that demonstrate understanding of concepts and move discussions forward.
Online Discussion Assignment Template-BBWorld 2012
This document outlines the instructions for Assignment #4. Students are expected to participate in an online group discussion on the topic of Sharia Law by posting at least 3 comments over multiple days, applying readings and responding to other students' posts. Each group must then summarize their discussion and submit it to the class forum. Additionally, each student must post an evaluative response to another group's summary. The assignment will be evaluated based on timeliness, content, and level of participation in the discussion.
Connecting Students’ Listening and Speaking Behaviors in Asynchronous Online ...
This study investigated the relationships between how students listen to (access existing posts) and speak in (contribute posts) asynchronous online discussions. The researchers found that when students take the time to read and reread peers' posts, there are related benefits in the quality of the posts they contribute, particularly in terms of responsiveness and argumentation. However, no effects were found for the breadth of listening behaviors. The researchers suggest making discussion groups smaller and providing guidance to students on effective listening behaviors to support higher quality speaking in discussions. More research is needed to examine these relationships in different discussion contexts.
Recommended
Rubric for essay
The document outlines criteria for evaluating student work across three domains: knowledge, reasoning, and communication. It provides scoring rubrics from 1 to 5 points for assessing evidence of knowledge through facts and details, reasoning through analysis and synthesis, and clear communication of ideas in writing. Work that thoroughly demonstrates concepts, uses evidence to reach informed conclusions, and expresses ideas with focus and organization would receive the highest scores.
Bel 462 week 1
Here are some potential points you could comment on in your response:
- Summarize the main arguments/ideas presented in the article.
- Evaluate the evidence and research cited - is it sufficient and credible? Are there limitations?
- Consider any assumptions made by the author - are they valid?
- Analyze the author's reasoning and logic. Do the conclusions follow from the premises?
- Identify any biases or perspectives. Does the author adequately address alternative views?
- Relate the topic to other issues or your own experience. Does the article raise any other questions?
- Critique the style/organization. Is the information effectively communicated and structured?
- Make an overall evaluation
Discussion Board Participation Rubric
This document provides a rubric for evaluating student participation in discussion boards. It assesses students on critical thinking demonstrated through reflection and new ideas supported by sources, collaboration through responding to other students and prompting further discussion, promptness in meeting deadlines, organization of ideas, and grammar/mechanics. Students can earn up to 4 points in each category for a maximum total score of 20.
Discussion rubric[1]
This rubric outlines the criteria and scoring for discussion posts in an online course between weeks 1-8. Students can earn up to 20 points per week for their discussion posts and responses to other students. The rubric assesses students on quality, participation, critical thinking, timeliness, and netiquette. Students are scored on a scale from 1 (beginning) to 4 (strong) for each category based on meeting expectations and going beyond expectations in terms of depth, clarity, analysis, synthesis, and respect for others.
Mcnamara_orban_final_slideshow
This document provides details about an online course on conflict resolution taught by Eileen McNamara and Sarah Orban. The course is aimed at adult learners seeking continuing education credits. It will use discussions, role plays, and reflections to teach students how to identify and resolve conflicts that occur online. Students will learn skills like negotiation, mediation, and using third party negotiators. The course is divided into weekly modules and will assess students based on their participation, demonstration of conflict resolution skills, and a final paper.
Mc namara orban_final_slideshow updated
This document contains information about an online course on conflict resolution for adult learners seeking continuing education hours. It provides details on the course goals, topics that will be covered each week, grading criteria, and expectations for discussion posts and exercises. The main goals are to give students tools to resolve conflicts through writing and identify best practices for dealing with conflict online. Topics include the nature of conflict, personal experiences with conflict, role playing exercises, and a final exam. Students will be evaluated on timely and thoughtful posts that demonstrate understanding of concepts and move discussions forward.
Online Discussion Assignment Template-BBWorld 2012
This document outlines the instructions for Assignment #4. Students are expected to participate in an online group discussion on the topic of Sharia Law by posting at least 3 comments over multiple days, applying readings and responding to other students' posts. Each group must then summarize their discussion and submit it to the class forum. Additionally, each student must post an evaluative response to another group's summary. The assignment will be evaluated based on timeliness, content, and level of participation in the discussion.
Connecting Students’ Listening and Speaking Behaviors in Asynchronous Online ...
This study investigated the relationships between how students listen to (access existing posts) and speak in (contribute posts) asynchronous online discussions. The researchers found that when students take the time to read and reread peers' posts, there are related benefits in the quality of the posts they contribute, particularly in terms of responsiveness and argumentation. However, no effects were found for the breadth of listening behaviors. The researchers suggest making discussion groups smaller and providing guidance to students on effective listening behaviors to support higher quality speaking in discussions. More research is needed to examine these relationships in different discussion contexts.
Learning Analytics for Online Discussions: A Pedagogical Model for Intervent...
This document summarizes Alyssa Friend Wise's pedagogical model for using learning analytics to intervene in online discussions. The model focuses on capturing meaningful traces of student activity through metrics of "speaking" and "listening". It presents analytics to students in an extracted table format and embedded in the discussion interface. The model supports interpretation through a framework that emphasizes integration with learning activities, agency in interpretation, reflection, and dialogue between students and instructors. An initial implementation in a doctoral seminar found students engaged productively with the model.
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric
Participation for MSN
Small Group Discussion Guiding Principles
The ideas and beliefs underpinning the small group discussions (GDs) guide students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice. The use of GDs provides students with opportunities to contribute level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The GD’s ebb and flow is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship. Participation in the GDs generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. GDs foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.
Participation Guidelines
Each weekly group discussion is worth a maximum of 50 points. Students must post a minimum of four times in each discussion. One of these posts must be a summary of learning for the week. The initial response to the discussion prompt must be posted by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week. Each of the subsequent posts must occur on days following the initial response. The final posting deadline for all subsequent posts is by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. For week 8 only, subsequent posts must occur by the Saturday deadline-11:59 pm MT. If the student does not meet the Wednesday posting deadline for the initial posting, a late penalty is applied of 5 points. Not meeting the requirements for subsequent postings, either in number or deadline, will result in a loss of 5 points.
Group Discussion Responses
Small group discussions provide the opportunity for deep exploration and new knowledge discovery of course topics. This type of exploration requires synthesis of various sources of information. Responses in group discussions should be substantive, reflect the student’s personal position on the topic, thoroughly address the information being asked for by the prompt, and include insights based on others’ postings. Direct quotes in group discussions should be a rare occurrence. These are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15 words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion. Points will be deducted under Scholarliness and/or Course Knowledge rubric categories.
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSN-ST Executive Track
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric Guidelines
Point Values
Except.
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric
Participation for MSN
Small Group Discussion Guiding Principles
The ideas and beliefs underpinning the small group discussions (GDs) guide students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice. The use of GDs provides students with opportunities to contribute level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The GD’s ebb and flow is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship. Participation in the GDs generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. GDs foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.
Participation Guidelines
Each weekly group discussion is worth a maximum of 50 points. Students must post a minimum of four times in each discussion. One of these posts must be a summary of learning for the week. The initial response to the discussion prompt must be posted by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week. Each of the subsequent posts must occur on days following the initial response. The final posting deadline for all subsequent posts is by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. For week 8 only, subsequent posts must occur by the Saturday deadline-11:59 pm MT. If the student does not meet the Wednesday posting deadline for the initial posting, a late penalty is applied of 5 points. Not meeting the requirements for subsequent postings, either in number or deadline, will result in a loss of 5 points.
Group Discussion Responses
Small group discussions provide the opportunity for deep exploration and new knowledge discovery of course topics. This type of exploration requires synthesis of various sources of information. Responses in group discussions should be substantive, reflect the student’s personal position on the topic, thoroughly address the information being asked for by the prompt, and include insights based on others’ postings. Direct quotes in group discussions should be a rare occurrence. These are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15 words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion. Points will be deducted under Scholarliness and/or Course Knowledge rubric categories.
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSN-ST Executive Track
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric Guidelines
Point Values
Except.
Building Community
The document discusses expectations for weekly online discussion posts. Students are asked to discuss the differences between leadership and management based on provided resources. They are also asked to reflect on their own leadership style and how they can develop leadership skills in the classroom and community. The document outlines expectations for weekly discussion posts, including making an initial response, responding to other students, creating new discussion threads, and providing a reflective post at the end of the week. Students are expected to post early in the week and continue participating throughout to receive full credit. Posts should demonstrate understanding of course materials and avoid being vague, repetitive, or lacking examples or support.
BA88 Assignment Sample-BBWorld 2012
This is a sample assignment that fulfills many of the 7 Principles outlined by Chickering & Gamson and summarized here for using technology: http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html
Psych 405 syllabus
This document is a course syllabus for PSY 405 Theories of Personality at the University of Phoenix. It outlines the general course information including dates, required reading, facilitator information, and grading criteria. The syllabus describes the weekly course structure and assignments, which include discussion questions, individual papers, and learning team matrices analyzing personality theories. Students are expected to apply personality theories to understand individual characteristics and interpersonal relationships.
0 circle introduction
The purpose of a Socratic circle is to have a collaborative dialog where participants can deepen their understanding by sharing different perspectives, rather than having a debate with a sole purpose of proving each other wrong. The dialog aims to expand ideas and gain new insights through open-minded listening and discussion, rather than coming to a single right conclusion. Ground rules emphasize respectful participation and referring to the text to support ideas.
0 circle introduction
The purpose of a Socratic circle is to have a collaborative dialog where participants can deepen their understanding by sharing different perspectives, rather than having a debate with a sole purpose of proving each other wrong. The dialog aims to expand ideas and gain new insights through open-minded listening and discussion, rather than coming to a single right conclusion. Ground rules emphasize respectful participation and referring to the text to support ideas.
Unit 2 performance task rubric
This rubric evaluates student-led wellness lessons and magazine articles on a scale of Exemplary, Proficient, and Developing. Exemplary work asks thought-provoking questions, considers different problem-solving strategies, and leaves the audience with a deeper understanding. Proficient work explores problems effectively and proposes general solutions. Developing work asks basic questions and proposes limited solutions. Exemplary communication is engaging and creative, while Proficient uses appropriate language and Developing needs more thought. Exemplary collaboration shares tasks equally and listens to all views, Proficient shares tasks but not always equally and Developing needs help staying on task.
4 critical reading-khalid
The document discusses techniques for critical reading. It defines critical reading as an active approach that involves an in-depth examination of a text to achieve understanding and meaningful insight. Key aspects include actively reading the text rather than passively, using techniques like previewing, writing notes, re-reading, summarizing, analyzing, interpreting, and synthesizing information. The goal of critical reading is to move beyond superficial understanding to a deeper analysis of a text.
Case study evaluation rubric
The document provides an evaluation rubric for a group case study project. It evaluates student work on four criteria at different performance levels: 1) identification and analysis of the main issues in the case study, 2) proposed solutions and links to course readings, 3) quality of the presentation, and 4) engagement of the class through questions, discussion, and activities. The highest level of performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issues, insightful analysis, well-reasoned solutions, excellent presentation skills, and strong involvement of the class.
Pts graphic-1
This document summarizes a practice talk session aimed at improving social learning and moving practitioners toward preferred practices. [1] It describes the process of the session which includes sharing practice experiences, building trusted relationships, and moving from generative conversations to preferred practices through creative thinking. [2] Practitioners use evidence from four sources - research, client values, making sense of information, and practitioner experience - to create job-ready knowledge. [3] The practice talk session involves understanding current methods, envisioning improved practices, presenting best practices, and creating a pilot for a preferred practice.
Online Discussions, Guidelines and Suggestions
Online discussions serve the same purpose as face-to-face discussions by allowing students to question concepts, share ideas and experiences, and gain a deeper understanding of course material. The goals are to reach a shared understanding or identify multiple perspectives on a topic. Students are encouraged to ask questions, respond thoughtfully, provide support and examples, and move the discussion forward to deepen learning. Instructors will grade discussions based on the quality, insightfulness, and contribution of student posts.
Group discussion
The document provides information about group discussions, including what they are, why they are important, the types of topics discussed, the process involved, skills evaluated, dos and don'ts, and tips. It explains that group discussions are used to assess candidates' personality traits, communication skills, leadership abilities, and how they work as part of a team. The types of topics can be factual, controversial, or abstract. The process typically involves an initiation, body, and conclusion. Important skills evaluated include leadership, interpersonal skills, persuasiveness, and problem-solving. Guidelines are provided for positive behaviors and communication styles during the discussion.
How Group discussions are conducted?
The document provides an overview of group discussions (GDs) as used in recruitment processes. It covers the meaning and types of GDs, including topic-based, case study, and group task formats. It outlines the methodology for conducting GDs, including formation of groups, time frames, and roles that participants may take on. It also discusses traits that are observed in participants, such as initiative, teamwork, reasoning ability and flexibility. Finally, it provides examples of positive and negative behaviors in GDs.
ICBL DIscussion Forum
The document discusses using discussion forums in blended courses. It notes benefits of online communication like status leveling, accountability, and opportunities for reflection. It also distinguishes between synchronous tools like chats and asynchronous tools like forums and blogs. Forums are presented as more stable and organized than email for class discussions. An example course structure is provided that uses forums for online integration and discussion of course texts. Guidelines are offered for writing discussion prompts and assessing student participation through rubrics. [/SUMMARY]
Soc sem
Socratic seminars involve an in-depth discussion of ideas from a text through questioning rather than debate. Participants seek to understand complex concepts through thoughtful dialogue. An effective seminar includes a text, opening questions from the leader, and participants who study the text and share their ideas and questions. The goal is not to convince others but to jointly explore issues and leave with more questions than answers.
Student Discussion Self-Grading though use of the D2L Quizzing Tool
Presentation at Minnesota Brightspace Ignite on April 24, 2015, by Laura M. Schwarz and NancyruthLeibold, both of Minnesota State University Mankato
SociologyExchange.co.uk Shared Resource
This document outlines the assessment criteria for a 33 mark sociology question consisting of 3 assessment objectives (AOs): AO1 on knowledge and understanding, AO2a on interpretation and application, and AO2b on analysis and evaluation. Each AO is broken down into levels of performance from limited to good. Criteria include demonstrating sociological knowledge, interpreting and applying concepts, and analyzing and evaluating arguments and studies. Students will be provided assessment and feedback on their performance on the sociology question based on these criteria.
Shelfari Rubrics
The document provides rubrics for evaluating book reviews and discussion responses on Shelfari.com. The book review rubric assesses summaries, author critiques, and writing quality on a scale of 1 to 4. A high-quality summary includes all key ideas without spoiling the book, and the author critique evaluates the student's opinion of the book and author's writing style when supported by evidence from the text. The discussion response rubric rates responses on positives like developing a full paragraph with evidence from the text and proper writing, and takes away points for unconstructive comments.
A09 ABC landscaping
The document provides instructions for creating an Excel workbook with profit and loss statements for ABC Landscaping for the first quarter of the year. It includes income and expense data for January, February, and March. Students are asked to create separate sheets for each month, calculate totals, and create pie charts showing monthly expenses. They will also create a fourth sheet summarizing income, expenses, averages, and net income for the quarter as a whole and represent this with a pie chart.
A08 budget
This document provides instructions for students to create two spreadsheets as part of a budgeting assignment. The first spreadsheet asks students to build a monthly budget considering their dream job income and expenses such as housing, utilities, transportation, savings, and discretionary spending. The second spreadsheet requires allocating every dollar of income across expenses in a "zero budget" that shows expenses equaling income across pay periods. Students are asked to title, format, and save the two spreadsheets as part of the assignment.
More Related Content
Similar to Discussion board rubric 1
Learning Analytics for Online Discussions: A Pedagogical Model for Intervent...
This document summarizes Alyssa Friend Wise's pedagogical model for using learning analytics to intervene in online discussions. The model focuses on capturing meaningful traces of student activity through metrics of "speaking" and "listening". It presents analytics to students in an extracted table format and embedded in the discussion interface. The model supports interpretation through a framework that emphasizes integration with learning activities, agency in interpretation, reflection, and dialogue between students and instructors. An initial implementation in a doctoral seminar found students engaged productively with the model.
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric
Participation for MSN
Small Group Discussion Guiding Principles
The ideas and beliefs underpinning the small group discussions (GDs) guide students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice. The use of GDs provides students with opportunities to contribute level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The GD’s ebb and flow is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship. Participation in the GDs generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. GDs foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.
Participation Guidelines
Each weekly group discussion is worth a maximum of 50 points. Students must post a minimum of four times in each discussion. One of these posts must be a summary of learning for the week. The initial response to the discussion prompt must be posted by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week. Each of the subsequent posts must occur on days following the initial response. The final posting deadline for all subsequent posts is by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. For week 8 only, subsequent posts must occur by the Saturday deadline-11:59 pm MT. If the student does not meet the Wednesday posting deadline for the initial posting, a late penalty is applied of 5 points. Not meeting the requirements for subsequent postings, either in number or deadline, will result in a loss of 5 points.
Group Discussion Responses
Small group discussions provide the opportunity for deep exploration and new knowledge discovery of course topics. This type of exploration requires synthesis of various sources of information. Responses in group discussions should be substantive, reflect the student’s personal position on the topic, thoroughly address the information being asked for by the prompt, and include insights based on others’ postings. Direct quotes in group discussions should be a rare occurrence. These are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15 words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion. Points will be deducted under Scholarliness and/or Course Knowledge rubric categories.
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSN-ST Executive Track
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric Guidelines
Point Values
Except.
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric
Participation for MSN
Small Group Discussion Guiding Principles
The ideas and beliefs underpinning the small group discussions (GDs) guide students through engaging dialogues as they achieve the desired learning outcomes/competencies associated with their course in a manner that empowers them to organize, integrate, apply and critically appraise their knowledge to their selected field of practice. The use of GDs provides students with opportunities to contribute level-appropriate knowledge and experience to the topic in a safe, caring, and fluid environment that models professional and social interaction. The GD’s ebb and flow is based upon the composition of student and faculty interaction in the quest for relevant scholarship. Participation in the GDs generates opportunities for students to actively engage in the written ideas of others by carefully reading, researching, reflecting, and responding to the contributions of their peers and course faculty. GDs foster the development of members into a community of learners as they share ideas and inquiries, consider perspectives that may be different from their own, and integrate knowledge from other disciplines.
Participation Guidelines
Each weekly group discussion is worth a maximum of 50 points. Students must post a minimum of four times in each discussion. One of these posts must be a summary of learning for the week. The initial response to the discussion prompt must be posted by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT, of each week. Each of the subsequent posts must occur on days following the initial response. The final posting deadline for all subsequent posts is by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week. For week 8 only, subsequent posts must occur by the Saturday deadline-11:59 pm MT. If the student does not meet the Wednesday posting deadline for the initial posting, a late penalty is applied of 5 points. Not meeting the requirements for subsequent postings, either in number or deadline, will result in a loss of 5 points.
Group Discussion Responses
Small group discussions provide the opportunity for deep exploration and new knowledge discovery of course topics. This type of exploration requires synthesis of various sources of information. Responses in group discussions should be substantive, reflect the student’s personal position on the topic, thoroughly address the information being asked for by the prompt, and include insights based on others’ postings. Direct quotes in group discussions should be a rare occurrence. These are to be limited to one short quotation (not to exceed 15 words). The quote must add substantively to the discussion. Points will be deducted under Scholarliness and/or Course Knowledge rubric categories.
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSNST_GroupDiscussionGradingRubric_Final_2019.02.21 Executive Track
MSN-ST Executive Track
Small Group Discussion Grading Rubric Guidelines
Point Values
Except.
Building Community
The document discusses expectations for weekly online discussion posts. Students are asked to discuss the differences between leadership and management based on provided resources. They are also asked to reflect on their own leadership style and how they can develop leadership skills in the classroom and community. The document outlines expectations for weekly discussion posts, including making an initial response, responding to other students, creating new discussion threads, and providing a reflective post at the end of the week. Students are expected to post early in the week and continue participating throughout to receive full credit. Posts should demonstrate understanding of course materials and avoid being vague, repetitive, or lacking examples or support.
BA88 Assignment Sample-BBWorld 2012
This is a sample assignment that fulfills many of the 7 Principles outlined by Chickering & Gamson and summarized here for using technology: http://www.tltgroup.org/programs/seven.html
Psych 405 syllabus
This document is a course syllabus for PSY 405 Theories of Personality at the University of Phoenix. It outlines the general course information including dates, required reading, facilitator information, and grading criteria. The syllabus describes the weekly course structure and assignments, which include discussion questions, individual papers, and learning team matrices analyzing personality theories. Students are expected to apply personality theories to understand individual characteristics and interpersonal relationships.
0 circle introduction
The purpose of a Socratic circle is to have a collaborative dialog where participants can deepen their understanding by sharing different perspectives, rather than having a debate with a sole purpose of proving each other wrong. The dialog aims to expand ideas and gain new insights through open-minded listening and discussion, rather than coming to a single right conclusion. Ground rules emphasize respectful participation and referring to the text to support ideas.
0 circle introduction
The purpose of a Socratic circle is to have a collaborative dialog where participants can deepen their understanding by sharing different perspectives, rather than having a debate with a sole purpose of proving each other wrong. The dialog aims to expand ideas and gain new insights through open-minded listening and discussion, rather than coming to a single right conclusion. Ground rules emphasize respectful participation and referring to the text to support ideas.
Unit 2 performance task rubric
This rubric evaluates student-led wellness lessons and magazine articles on a scale of Exemplary, Proficient, and Developing. Exemplary work asks thought-provoking questions, considers different problem-solving strategies, and leaves the audience with a deeper understanding. Proficient work explores problems effectively and proposes general solutions. Developing work asks basic questions and proposes limited solutions. Exemplary communication is engaging and creative, while Proficient uses appropriate language and Developing needs more thought. Exemplary collaboration shares tasks equally and listens to all views, Proficient shares tasks but not always equally and Developing needs help staying on task.
4 critical reading-khalid
The document discusses techniques for critical reading. It defines critical reading as an active approach that involves an in-depth examination of a text to achieve understanding and meaningful insight. Key aspects include actively reading the text rather than passively, using techniques like previewing, writing notes, re-reading, summarizing, analyzing, interpreting, and synthesizing information. The goal of critical reading is to move beyond superficial understanding to a deeper analysis of a text.
Case study evaluation rubric
The document provides an evaluation rubric for a group case study project. It evaluates student work on four criteria at different performance levels: 1) identification and analysis of the main issues in the case study, 2) proposed solutions and links to course readings, 3) quality of the presentation, and 4) engagement of the class through questions, discussion, and activities. The highest level of performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the issues, insightful analysis, well-reasoned solutions, excellent presentation skills, and strong involvement of the class.
Pts graphic-1
This document summarizes a practice talk session aimed at improving social learning and moving practitioners toward preferred practices. [1] It describes the process of the session which includes sharing practice experiences, building trusted relationships, and moving from generative conversations to preferred practices through creative thinking. [2] Practitioners use evidence from four sources - research, client values, making sense of information, and practitioner experience - to create job-ready knowledge. [3] The practice talk session involves understanding current methods, envisioning improved practices, presenting best practices, and creating a pilot for a preferred practice.
Online Discussions, Guidelines and Suggestions
Online discussions serve the same purpose as face-to-face discussions by allowing students to question concepts, share ideas and experiences, and gain a deeper understanding of course material. The goals are to reach a shared understanding or identify multiple perspectives on a topic. Students are encouraged to ask questions, respond thoughtfully, provide support and examples, and move the discussion forward to deepen learning. Instructors will grade discussions based on the quality, insightfulness, and contribution of student posts.
Group discussion
The document provides information about group discussions, including what they are, why they are important, the types of topics discussed, the process involved, skills evaluated, dos and don'ts, and tips. It explains that group discussions are used to assess candidates' personality traits, communication skills, leadership abilities, and how they work as part of a team. The types of topics can be factual, controversial, or abstract. The process typically involves an initiation, body, and conclusion. Important skills evaluated include leadership, interpersonal skills, persuasiveness, and problem-solving. Guidelines are provided for positive behaviors and communication styles during the discussion.
How Group discussions are conducted?
The document provides an overview of group discussions (GDs) as used in recruitment processes. It covers the meaning and types of GDs, including topic-based, case study, and group task formats. It outlines the methodology for conducting GDs, including formation of groups, time frames, and roles that participants may take on. It also discusses traits that are observed in participants, such as initiative, teamwork, reasoning ability and flexibility. Finally, it provides examples of positive and negative behaviors in GDs.
ICBL DIscussion Forum
The document discusses using discussion forums in blended courses. It notes benefits of online communication like status leveling, accountability, and opportunities for reflection. It also distinguishes between synchronous tools like chats and asynchronous tools like forums and blogs. Forums are presented as more stable and organized than email for class discussions. An example course structure is provided that uses forums for online integration and discussion of course texts. Guidelines are offered for writing discussion prompts and assessing student participation through rubrics. [/SUMMARY]
Soc sem
Socratic seminars involve an in-depth discussion of ideas from a text through questioning rather than debate. Participants seek to understand complex concepts through thoughtful dialogue. An effective seminar includes a text, opening questions from the leader, and participants who study the text and share their ideas and questions. The goal is not to convince others but to jointly explore issues and leave with more questions than answers.
Student Discussion Self-Grading though use of the D2L Quizzing Tool
Presentation at Minnesota Brightspace Ignite on April 24, 2015, by Laura M. Schwarz and NancyruthLeibold, both of Minnesota State University Mankato
SociologyExchange.co.uk Shared Resource
This document outlines the assessment criteria for a 33 mark sociology question consisting of 3 assessment objectives (AOs): AO1 on knowledge and understanding, AO2a on interpretation and application, and AO2b on analysis and evaluation. Each AO is broken down into levels of performance from limited to good. Criteria include demonstrating sociological knowledge, interpreting and applying concepts, and analyzing and evaluating arguments and studies. Students will be provided assessment and feedback on their performance on the sociology question based on these criteria.
Shelfari Rubrics
The document provides rubrics for evaluating book reviews and discussion responses on Shelfari.com. The book review rubric assesses summaries, author critiques, and writing quality on a scale of 1 to 4. A high-quality summary includes all key ideas without spoiling the book, and the author critique evaluates the student's opinion of the book and author's writing style when supported by evidence from the text. The discussion response rubric rates responses on positives like developing a full paragraph with evidence from the text and proper writing, and takes away points for unconstructive comments.
Similar to Discussion board rubric 1 (20)
Learning Analytics for Online Discussions: A Pedagogical Model for Intervent...
Learning Analytics for Online Discussions: A Pedagogical Model for Intervent...
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Small Group Discussion Grading RubricParticipation for MSNSmal.docx
Student Discussion Self-Grading though use of the D2L Quizzing Tool
Student Discussion Self-Grading though use of the D2L Quizzing Tool
More from carolbillingcwi
A09 ABC landscaping
The document provides instructions for creating an Excel workbook with profit and loss statements for ABC Landscaping for the first quarter of the year. It includes income and expense data for January, February, and March. Students are asked to create separate sheets for each month, calculate totals, and create pie charts showing monthly expenses. They will also create a fourth sheet summarizing income, expenses, averages, and net income for the quarter as a whole and represent this with a pie chart.
A08 budget
This document provides instructions for students to create two spreadsheets as part of a budgeting assignment. The first spreadsheet asks students to build a monthly budget considering their dream job income and expenses such as housing, utilities, transportation, savings, and discretionary spending. The second spreadsheet requires allocating every dollar of income across expenses in a "zero budget" that shows expenses equaling income across pay periods. Students are asked to title, format, and save the two spreadsheets as part of the assignment.
A07 Walk & Rock
The document provides instructions for creating a spreadsheet with sales data for different divisions and categories of a music company. It asks the student to organize the provided sales data into the spreadsheet, calculate totals and apply formatting. It also instructs them to create a graph displaying the data and save the spreadsheet. A second section provides data for a mobile services company to be organized into a second spreadsheet with calculations and graph. A third section gives budget data for an environmental club to be added to a third spreadsheet with calculations and graph. The student is asked to rename the spreadsheet tabs and have their workbook reviewed before submitting.
Excel formulas cheat sheet
This Excel cheat sheet provides formulas and functions for summing, finding minimum and maximum values, calculating averages, and using absolute cell references. The SUM function adds values within a range of cells, such as =SUM(A1:C1) to add cells A1 through C1. The MIN and MAX functions find the smallest and largest numbers within a range like A1:A5. AVERAGE calculates the mean of values between cells. Absolute cell references like $A$1 fix a cell reference regardless of copying or filling a formula.
Observation docs EDUC 204
The document is an introduction letter from a CWI instructor for a student enrolled in an education course, requesting that a K-12 teacher allow the student to observe their classroom for 10 hours to meet the course requirements and gain experience observing classroom interactions and the socialization of children. The letter provides the student's name, course details, and asks the teacher to sign a verification form once the 10 observation hours are completed.
Learning Style Quiz
This document is a learning style quiz that asks respondents to choose between three answer options (A, B, or C) for 18 questions about their preferences for taking in and processing information. The questions cover topics like how one prefers to get directions, study for a test, or relax. After completing the quiz, respondents are instructed to count their A, B, and C answers to determine if they are primarily a visual, auditory, or kinesthetic/tactile learner.
MI Quiz
This document appears to be an intelligence quiz that assesses an individual's strengths across eight categories of intelligence: verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, visual/spatial, interpersonal, musical, naturalistic, body/kinesthetic, and intrapersonal. For each statement, the individual rates themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 on how well the statement describes them. The scores are then totaled for each category and can be plotted on a graph to identify areas of greater and lesser intelligence.
Resume 05
Emma Fernandez has a Bachelor of Science degree in Health Science from California State University, Chico with an emphasis in Health Services Administration and a certificate in Emergency Medical Services Administration. She has experience in health services administration, research, dining services, management, customer service, and leadership roles. Her experience demonstrates abilities such as assessing client needs, coordinating meetings, providing comfortable environments, managing accounts, training employees, leading groups, and achieving goals through excellent customer service.
Resume 04
Jim N. Starman has a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from California State University, Chico with a 3.5 GPA and minor in Coaching. He has experience in marketing, probation, recreation leadership, and currently works as a barista. He demonstrates strong communication, leadership, and organizational skills.
Resume 03
This document contains contact and background information for Eric Miley. It includes his education history with a Master's degree from CSU Chico and work experience in retail sales, fundraising, recreation supervision, and youth counseling. It also lists honors and activities such as membership in an honors society and recreational clubs.
Resume 02
Jessica Renee Andresen is seeking a position that utilizes her communication skills and experience in public relations, marketing, and childcare. She has a Bachelor's degree in Communication Studies from California State University, Chico with an emphasis in organizational communication and marketing. Her relevant work experience includes internships with the California Air Resources Board and coordinating media advisories. She also has computer skills and affiliations that demonstrate leadership abilities.
Cover Letter 04
Jennifer Apodaca is applying for a summer internship with Target Stores. She completed an internship last summer at Target's Distribution Center in Woodland, CA and enjoyed her experience. She has researched Target and believes the company's focus on leadership development and community involvement makes it a good fit. Apodaca has a strong work ethic and desires effective teamwork. She received positive feedback from her previous supervisor and believes she could be a valuable addition to Target's stores.
Cover Letter 03
William O. Bryant is applying for open PC Support Analyst and Production Support Technician positions at Electronic Data Systems. He will graduate in December 2009 from California State University, Chico with a degree in Business Information Systems and a 3.4 GPA. Bryant has work experience in help desk, member services, and clerical roles that have given him strong time management and work ethic skills. He believes his technical and customer service experience from his current job at Chico State's User Services makes him a good fit for EDS's reputation of employing flexible, technology-skilled and customer-focused people. Bryant is confident his colleagues and customers would appreciate his enthusiasm and ability to take a leadership role in a changing environment.
Cover Letter 02
Katie Nadeau is applying for a social work practitioner position with Yolo County. She has a Masters in Social Work and will graduate in May. She has experience working with children and families through counseling and service plans. Her current internship is providing counseling in Butte County. She believes her clinical experience and knowledge of mental health and regulations would make her a good fit for the team.
Cover Letter 01
Adam Finley is applying for a Sales Territory Manager position with Victaulic. He has a 3.2 GPA from California State University, Chico where he will graduate in December with a Bachelor's degree. His relevant experience includes working as a Summer Orientation Peer Advisor at Chico State which required managing tasks, maintaining team dynamics, and addressing student needs, as well as demonstrating public speaking skills. He also worked for two years at a biotech company starting as a temporary employee and becoming indispensable in quality assurance due to his attention to detail. His strong work ethic was shown working for a school district where he began work at 6am and was invited back for two years.
Carol Billing Office Hours SP12
Carol Billing's office hours and teaching schedule for Spring 2012 are outlined. She teaches EDUC 201 on Tuesdays and Thursdays in Room 102 from 12-12:30pm. She holds office hours on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in Room 122 from 1-2:30pm and responds to student emails on Monday mornings from 7-7:30am. She also teaches CISA 101 and holds office hours in Room 126 on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Sample Lesson Plan
The lesson plan discusses the teacher's role as a socializing agent on students and the bi-directional relationship between teachers and students. Students will identify teacher characteristics that foster learning, discuss how teacher expectations impact student achievement and behavior, and understand how student characteristics influence teacher interaction. The lesson involves students working in groups to describe their best and worst teachers or expected student behavior under different teaching styles, then reporting back to discuss perceptions of effective teachers.
Sample Lesson Plan
The lesson plan discusses the teacher's role as a socializing agent on students and the bi-directional relationship between teachers and students. Students will identify teacher characteristics that foster learning, discuss how teacher expectations impact student achievement and behavior, and understand how student characteristics influence teacher interaction. The lesson involves students describing best and worst teachers and the type of students and class for different teaching styles through a group activity and discussion.
More from carolbillingcwi (20)
Discussion board rubric 1
- 1. Discussion Board Rubric Ten points available each week Original posts Points Responses Points At least two entries make connections Response addresses all aspects of the between readings and practice, propose discussion and goes well beyond what is solutions and potential use of concepts. required. Assigned readings and outside Clearly demonstrates awareness of the peer's sources quoted. 6 perspective and needs. 4 Some reflective thinking, ability to relate readings to personal experience, doesn’t take Response addresses all aspects of the it to next level by making multiple discussion. Assigned readings or outside connections and exploring potential solutions sources quoted. 5 and use of concepts. 3 Response addresses part of the discussion. OR Consciences of peer's perspective and needs, Assigned readings or outside sources are but little reflection, no evidence of ability to discussed. 4 discuss “theory into practice.” 2 Responds to at least two peers’ entries per Response briefly addresses discussion. 3 week. 1 Response fails to address discussion. Responds to at least one peer’s entry per Assigned readings not mentioned. 2 week. 0 No response submitted, inappropriate or very brief response. Assigned readings not mentioned. 0 Doesn’t respond to peers. 0