0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
51 visualizzazioni1 pagina
This document outlines a rubric for evaluating online discussion forum participation. It provides criteria for timely participation, clarity of expression, substance/creativity, and contribution to the conversation. For each criterion, performance levels of poor, improving, good, and exceptional are defined with increasing expectations for things like timely posting, grammar/spelling, depth of thought, engagement with others, and moving the discussion forward. The rubric aims to assess the quality of students' participation and discussion in an online forum.
This document outlines a rubric for evaluating online discussion forum participation. It provides criteria for timely participation, clarity of expression, substance/creativity, and contribution to the conversation. For each criterion, performance levels of poor, improving, good, and exceptional are defined with increasing expectations for things like timely posting, grammar/spelling, depth of thought, engagement with others, and moving the discussion forward. The rubric aims to assess the quality of students' participation and discussion in an online forum.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
This document outlines a rubric for evaluating online discussion forum participation. It provides criteria for timely participation, clarity of expression, substance/creativity, and contribution to the conversation. For each criterion, performance levels of poor, improving, good, and exceptional are defined with increasing expectations for things like timely posting, grammar/spelling, depth of thought, engagement with others, and moving the discussion forward. The rubric aims to assess the quality of students' participation and discussion in an online forum.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formati disponibili
Scarica in formato PDF, TXT o leggi online su Scribd
Criteria D- D D+ (Poor) C- C C+ (Improving) B- B B+ (Good) A- A A+ (Exceptional)
Timely and consistent Some posts through the Regular and timely posting all Rarely posts and usually posting within Timely Participation specified discussion period. within the forum discussion after the discussion is done. specified discussion Low initiative in effort. deadlines. period. Grammar and spelling errors Unedited work that reflects rarely appear in postings. poor spelling and grammar. Average grammar and Strong grammar and Expresses opinions and ideas in Disorganization of thought spelling. Noted effort to spelling. Perspectives a astute, well-organized and Clarity of Expression and writing. Un-qualifying communicate perspectives and thoughts are concise manner with obvious statements that reflect and opinions. clearly expressed. connection to topic. Offers rushed work. evidence and sources to support claims. Most posts interact with Posts reflect Posts demonstrate little assigned readings or Posts consistently show depth of intelligent thoughtful interaction with comments of thought. Makes creative engagement with Substance/Creativity assigned topic or readings. others. Intuitive leaps or connections between assigned discussion topic, Posts are often trivial or otherwise insightful readings and topic area. Poses assigned readings and shallow in depth. connections are rarely, if fruitful questions. the postings of others. ever, demonstrated.
Consistently engages others.
Fails to respond to posts Regularly engages Posts frequently move the directed to oneself. Rarely Occasionally engages posts others in a conversation forward by making initiates a discussion. Seems Contribution to the of others. Sometimes constructive manner. new connections, further indifferent to or not present Conversation initiates threads. Conducts Poses new ideas for developing ideas, posing in the conversation. Rude, oneself acceptably. consideration. Uses questions, etc. Conducts oneself dismissive, arrogant proper etiquette. in such a manner that invites responses. others into the conversation.
Based off of Leonard Sweet PhD. Discussion Forum Rubric, George Fox University, 2010.