Discussion Post Rubric for Course Modules 1-5

Criteria for Quality of Discussion Post

Reply to the thread in attachment discussion 1 and 2 posted by peers. With the release of Modules 1-5, your professor will post a prompt along with several questions pertaining to a selected topic from the course modules. You will be placed into small groups and expected to answer all of the posed questions in a discussion board post. You must also formulate a response to at least one of your peer’s post, in which you will respectfully support and/or challenge their ideas. You will be marked on the quality of both your initialdiscussion post and your firstresponse post. You will also be marked on your efforts to promote and actively contribute to a respectful and academic discussion. follow the rubrics strickly,last assignment was not up to that level. This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.  Quality of Discussion Post Addresses all aspects of the questions. Arguments are logically presented and supported by evidence from modules and scientific literature, demonstrating a strong understanding of module content. Well-written in a language that peers can easily understand. Has excellent potential to promote academic discussion. Addresses most aspects of the questions. Arguments presented are mostly supported by evidence from modules and/or scientific literature, demonstrating an adequate understanding of module content. Mostly well-written so that peers can easily understand. Has adequate potential to promote academic discussion. Addresses some aspects of the questions. Arguments presented lack support and highlight some gaps in understanding of module content. Mostly understandable by a peer. Lacking potential to promote academic discussion. Addresses few aspects of the questions. Arguments presented are not supported by evidence, demonstrating poor understanding of module content. Lacks clarity in language. Poor potential to promote academic discussion. Student does not address this component of the assignment. / 40 Response to Peers Response to peer’s post is evidence-based, and validly challenges or supports ideas put forth by peers and adds new information to increase the quality of the discussion thread. Response to peer’s post is mostly supported by evidence, and validly challenges or supports ideas put forth by peers, but does not add to the quality of the discussion thread. Response to peer’s post is factually correct and is somewhat supported by evidence, but does not add to the original posts discussion. Response to peer’s posts has some factual errors, lacks support, and does not add to the original posts discussion. Student does not address this component of the assignment. / 40 This table lists criteria and criteria group name in the first column. The first row lists level names and includes scores if the rubric uses a numeric scoring method.  Engagement in Discussion Student actively contributes through multiple posts and responses to further academic discussion, beyond an initial post and response. Student contributes sufficiently to further an academic discussion beyond an initial post and response. Student contributes a weak effort to further academic discussion beyond an initial post and response. Student hardly contributes to furthering an academic discussion beyond an initial post and response.