Discussion Evaluation Rubric
Discussion Evaluation Rubric
| CRITERION | UNACCEPTABLE | SATISFACTORY | EXEMPLARY |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | The posting does not directly address the question or problem posed by the discussion activity. | The posting addresses key issues, questions, or problems related to the text and the discussion activity, but in some cases only indirectly. It does not always apply course concepts fully. | The posting directly addresses key issues, questions, or problems related to the text and the discussion activity. The posting applies course concepts well. |
| Insight | The posting does not offer any significant insight, analysis, or observation related to the topic. No knowledge or understanding is demonstrated regarding concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic. | The posting does offer some insight, analysis, or observation to the topic but may not demonstrate a full understanding or knowledge of concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic. | The posting offers original or thoughtful insight, analysis, or observation that demonstrates a strong grasp of concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic. |
| Support | The posting does not support its claims with either evidence or argument. The posting contains largely unsupported opinion. | The posting generally supports claims and opinions with evidence or argument, but may leave some gaps where unsupported opinions still appear. | The posting supports all claims and opinions with either rational argument or evidence. |
| CRITERION | UNACCEPTABLE | SATISFACTORY | EXEMPLARY |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | The responses do not meet the number required for the discussion activity. | The responses fulfill the minimum required number for the discussion activity. | The responses exceed the requirement for the discussion activity. |
| Substance | The responses do not offer any new insight either extending the position of the original post or providing an alternate point of view. | The responses generally offer some insight by either extending the point of the original post or offering an alternate point of view, but they may not encourage further thought or reflection on the discussion topic as much they possibly could. | The responses offer either an extension or elaboration on the original posting or a clearly alternate point of view that fosters further thinking, reflection, or response on the discussion topic. |
Discussion Activity Evaluation Criteria
Initial Posting
- Relevance to the topic or problem – Does the posting address the question?
- Application of Course Concepts – Does the posting attempt to take ideas from the text and put them into play?
- Depth of insight, observation, or analysis – Does the posting offer something worthwhile to think about?
- Use of Evidence and Support – Does the posting seek to make a rational argument instead of merely offering personal opinion (or does the posting examine personal opinion by way of making a rational argument)?
Responses
For responses, you should offer something significant to the conversation by either extending or adding to the argument, analysis, or position of the original post or offering an alternative point of view, analysis, or position. Responses will be evaluated for:
- Number of responses – Did the responses fulfill the minimum requirement for the discussion?
- Substance of the response – Did the response offer something new or an alternative point of view?
What is a "quality" post?
A "quality" discussion post does more than just state a fact or present a quote. A "quality" post is one that demonstrates some higher order thinking, and a depth of thought; something more than "I agree," and then reiterating whatever was said that you are agreeing with or summarizing the textbook. It will demonstrate your understanding by critically analyzing what is in the text, in the lectures, and what others have said, and synthesizing your response. Quality entries will show some level of critical analysis, interpretation, and/or synthesis. They will demonstrate some original and scholarly thinking. A quality threaded discussion will try to link two or more facts and present the implications or form a conclusion. When facts are stated, or references made to opinions expressed in the discussion, their source will be duly noted, cited, or referenced.