Discussion Grading Criteria

Below is a grading rubric that I will use to grade your weekly discussion participation. You can probably see where you stand yourself by reading other postings and keeping track of your own postings.  [25 points is the equivalent of an “A” posting; 15 points is the equivalent of a “D” for your posting that week.]

gory	1	2	3	4
Timeliness and minimum number of postings	Does not meet minimum requirement for postings or does not post by the deadline.	Often posts right at the deadline when most students are done discussing the question/issue. May not meet minimum requirement for postings or too many postings are late.	Meets minimum requirement for postings, and posts on time.	Exceeds minimum requirement for postings and posts on time.
Quality of comments	Minimal. Does not appear to have understanding of or engagement with the reading.	The student’s postings often repeat previous postings rather than making any meaningful observations or ideas.	The student usually posts insightful comments and/or comments and questions that prompt online discussion.  Attempts to make a new observation.	The student consistently posts insightful comments and/or comments and questions that prompt online discussion.
Engagement with other students	Does not regularly respond to previous postings (or repeats what previous postings have already stated). If student does disagree with another student, the posting is not always polite.	Sometimes responds to other students’ postings, but briefly with a simple “I agree” but without explanation. Politely disagrees with other students’ ideas.	Responds to other students’ postings and usually engages with other students in the forum.  Politely disagrees with other students’ ideas.	Actively engaged in responding to other students’ postings. If disagreeing with other students’ ideas, the disagreement is stated politely.
Relevance of Post	Posts topics which do not relate to the discussion content; makes short or irrelevant remarks.	Occasionally posts off topic; most posts are short in length and offer no further insight into the topic.	Usually posts topics that are related to discussion content.	Consistently posts topics related to discussion.
Reference to the readings (in the textbook, mini-lectures and previous postings)	Little evidence of having done the reading or of having read any of the previous postings.	Largely Informational: Repeats basic, correct information but does regularly not link ideas to the reading for the week with paraphrases or direct quotations. Not always clear that the student has read previous postings, the material, or attended the lectures.	Exhibits good insights and/or understanding; argues using relevant evidence. Evidence of having read previous students’ postings as well as the readings.  Usually uses direct quotations and paraphrases from the text or reading material (or previous student’s postings) as support.	Shows critical and/or creative thinking and knowledge of required reading, including previous postings: For example, poses a provocative interpretation that extends discussion; makes a critical (evaluative) analysis; contributes new information and/or insights; links ideas presented directly to the readings or other evidence (including the lectures and previous postings by other students). Incorporates direct quotations when appropriate.
Clarity of posting	The student’s postings are often unclear as written.	The student does not always express him/herself clearly, nor is the posting proofread for clarity.	The student’s postings are usually clear and concise—proofread for clarity.	The student’s postings are clear and concise—proofread for clarity.
				TOTAL