Frequency of Discussion
(5 Points Possible) |
In order for a full conversation to occur that deepens the knowledge base and understanding of the students each member of the group needs to participate fully.
|
Initial Post/Comment is complete on day and time required (if one designated). Subsequent posts occur on multiple days during the discussion. Posts include replies to peer questions, questions/clarification of ideas based on peer posts, and response to peer posts in a timely manner during the discussion.
|
Initial Post/Comment is complete on day and time required (if one designated). Subsequent posts occur on multiple days during the discussion. Posts include replies to peer questions, questions/clarification of ideas based on peer posts, and response to peer posts in a timely manner during the discussion.
|
Initial post/comment is not provided on the day and time required (If one is designated). No replies, questions, or clarifications to peer posts. Only chooses “like” for other student posts. Does not engage and fails to communicate with the faculty with a reason prior to or at the beginning of the assignment. Student made initial post but no discussion, regardless of the quality of the initial post as this is a discussion not a paper = 0 POINTS
|
|---|
Analytical Thinking
(5 Points Possible) |
Developing a deeper understanding of a situation, issue, or problem by breaking it down or tracing its implications step-by-step.
It includes organizing the parts of a situation, issue, or problem systematically; making systematic comparisons of different features or aspects; setting priorities on a rational basis; and identifying time sequences, causal relationships, or if-then relationship.
|
Demonstrates, through writing, a grasp of the identified concepts for the assignment. The writing clearly shows the student has read the material and is able to consider/apply it in light of the questions asked by the faculty and other students. The posts do not just summarize the material but rather synthesize them, breaks down problems, makes causal links, analyzes relationships, uses several analytical techniques, draw conclusions, provides application, and/or utilize concepts in context to better extrapolate the issue(s). The posts, when appropriate, are supported by citing applicable material in current APA format and provide support for the student’s assertions. Replies to peers are thoughtful, share a deep critical analysis of the issues/topics, and provide comprehensive discussion of the topics while advancing the conversation.
|
The student provide a superficial demonstration, through writing, that they grasp the identified concepts for the assignment. The writing does not convey they have fully understood the material and is able to consider it in light of the questions asked by the faculty and students. The posts mostly summarize the material and lack the evidence of synthesis, identification of cause and effect, drawing of conclusions, analyzing relationships, application, and/or utilization of concepts in context to better extrapolate the issue(s). The posts, when appropriate, are supported by citing applicable material in current APA format and begin to support assertions but lack support when needed. Replies to peers lack a deep critical analysis that is thoughtful, comprehensive, and advances the conversation. The responses show emerging abilities in this area.
|
Initial post/comment is not provided on the day and time required (If one is designated). No replies, questions, or clarifications to peer posts. Lacks demonstration, through writing, of the identified concepts for the assignment. The writing clearly shows the student has not thoroughly read the material and was unable to translate that to the questions asked by the faculty and students. The posts either simply summarize or do not answer the questions posed. There is a lack of synthesis, conclusions, application, and/or any evidence they can utilize concepts in context to better extrapolate the issue(s). The posts are not supported by citing applicable material in current APA format. Replies to peers do not exists or lack the thoughtful, comprehensive, and advanced nature required in the conversation.
|
|---|
Communication
(5 Points Possible) |
The ability to use written communications in formal and informal situations to convey meaning, build shared understanding, and productively move agendas forward.
|
Uses generally accepted English grammar. It is clear the work was edited as no or 1–2 errors exist. Skillfully (demonstrated through impact in the discussion) and persuasively uses a variety of communication techniques: Brainstorming, consensus building, root cause analysis. group problem solving, conflict resolution, etc. Actively and respectfully posts responses to peer and instructor questions/postings. “Actively” means the student will provide their individual responses to questions AND then post replies to other group member’s posts during the session, week, and/or conversation.
|
Grammar is not proper nor edited well leaving multiple errors. Shows some skill and variety in communication techniques: Brainstorming, consensus building, root cause analysis, group problem solving, conflict resolution, etc. Did not reply to other student’s posts, or replied so infrequently or at a late timeframe that a discussion could not be complete (Back and forth conversation). Student interactions are intermittently argumentative, abrasive, condescending, dismissive, or ignorant. If you only “like” other posts, rather than providing critical/analytical/synthesis type response, you will not earn the total possible points in this criteria.
|
Grammar contains many errors. Is singular in their approach to communicating the information to the group. Lacks evidence to demonstrate assertions and persuasive ability. Inappropriate student interactions—argumentative, abrasive, condescending, dismissive, or ignorant.
|
|---|
Impact and Influence
(5 Points Possible) |
The ability to persuade, convince, influence, or impress others (individuals or groups) in order to get them to go along with or to support one’s opinion or position. The “key” is understanding others’ interests and motivations, in order to have a specific impact, effect, or impression on them and/or convince them to take a specific course of action.
|
Uses direct persuasion. Writings show an appeal to reason, data, and/or translation of information to solve problems. Posts and responses take multiple approaches to persuade and shows careful preparation for presentation that includes multiple arguments and points of view. Messages are tailored to the interest and needs of the audience, while making the most efficient and targeted impact. Uses an in-depth understanding of the interactions within a group to move toward a specific position (e.g., changing approaches to different individuals to have specific effects).
|
Uses persuasion with some efficiency. Writings sometimes provide evidence that the student was able to translate information to solve problems using data and reason. Posts and responses use minimal or ineffective approaches to persuade such as simply stating the assertion with no support. Preparation is lacking as demonstrated by superficial arguments and limited points of view. Posts and responses show minimal tailoring to the interest and needs of the audience resulting in diminished impact. Has some ability but not a sophisticated in-depth understanding of the interactions within a group to move toward a specific position (e.g., changing approaches to different individuals to have specific effects) resulting in discussion stagnancy.
|
Shows minimal to no ability to use direct persuasion. Writings show the beginnings of an appeal to reason, data, and/or translation of information to solve problems but lack the evidence to help solve problems or answer the questions posed. Posts and responses use very superficial or no effective approaches to persuade. Preparation is difficult to identify as demonstrated by no or superficial arguments and limited points of view. Posts and responses do not take into consideration any of the variables needed to answer the questions posed or reply to other’s ideas. Messages do not persuade or impact the audience and do little or nothing to move the conversation forward. Posts and responses create distraction, negativity, or are hostile in nature that might cause a breakdown of the group.
|
|---|
Interpersonal Understanding
(5 Points Possible) |
The ability to accurately hear and understand the unspoken or partly expressed thoughts, feelings, and concerns of others, especially those who may represent diverse backgrounds and very different worldviews. Levels of proficiency relate to the increasing complexity and depth of understanding, as well as openness to perspectives very different from one’s own.
|
Provides robust evidence of their commitment to understanding other’s points of view during the discussion—takes time to get to know people and understand their thoughts/positions/background beyond merely the superficial in their responses to posts and questions. Genuinely seeks to understand people as individuals and their points of view; Uses insights gained from the knowledge of others to know “where they are coming from” or why they act in certain ways. Displays tactfulness and support in conversations that are sensitive to anyone in the group. Displays sensitivity to diverse backgrounds in the words they use in the discussion.
|
Provides some evidence of their commitment to understanding other’s points of view during the discussion - Takes time to get to know people and understand their thoughts/positions/background beyond superficial in their responses to posts and questions. Genuinely seeks to understand people as individuals and their points of view; Uses insights gained from the knowledge of others to know “where they are coming from” or why they act in certain ways. Displays tactfulness and support in conversations that are sensitive to anyone in the group. Displays sensitivity to diverse backgrounds in the words they use in the discussion.
|
Lacks any evidence of commitment to understanding other’s points of view during the discussion. Posts show no interest in understanding peers as individuals and their points of view. Lacks a tactful nature in responding to posts they feel may be inconsiderate and does not enhance support and may actively seek to diminish the groups conversation/experience by using words that are disrespectful, demeaning, or ignorant. Shows no sensitivity to diverse backgrounds in the words they use in the discussion. These actions will be shared with Program Director and may result in further actions at the Program, Department, College or University level in accordance with University Policy. See resources here: http://equity.psu.edu/
|
|---|
Information Seeking
(5 Points Possible) |
An underlying curiosity and desire to know more about things, people, and issues, including the desire for knowledge and staying current with health, organizational, industry, and professional trends and developments. It includes pressing for more precise information; resolving discrepancies by asking a series of questions; and scanning for potential opportunities or information that may be of future use, as well as staying current and seeking best practices for adoption.
|
Provides evidence that they consulted available resources, in responding to initial questions and peer posts, to support their ideas. Provided written evidence that they investigated beyond the routine thoughts, practices, and questions as related to the topics/questions posed. The responses provide probing questions that get to the root of a situation, enhance the discussion, and show contemplation beyond the superficial. Does not stop with the first answer; finds out why something happened; Seeks comprehensive information, including expecting complexity.
|
Provides some evidence that they consulted available resources, in responding to initial questions and peer posts, to support their ideas. Provided some written evidence that they investigated beyond the routine thoughts, practices, and questions as related to the topics/questions posed. The responses lack an in-depth set of probing questions that get to the root of a situation, enhance the discussion, and show contemplation beyond the superficial. Lacks complexity in describing their responses and/or in developing questions for further consideration.
|
Provides little to no evidence that they consulted available resources, in responding to initial questions and peer posts, to support their ideas. Provided little to no written evidence that they investigated beyond the routine thoughts, practices, and questions as related to the topics/questions posed. The responses lack an in-depth set of probing questions that get to the root of a situation, enhance the discussion, and show contemplation beyond the superficial. Lacks complexity in describing their responses and/or in developing questions for further consideration.
|
|---|
