PSY320 – Language Development
in Young Children
Psychology Discussion Board Grading Rubric 300-400 level
Points: 100
Description:
Examples of posting schedule: Main post on one day. First reply post on a second day.
Second reply post on a third day. M-main post; W-one reply post; F-second reply post. T-main
post; Th-one reply post; Sat-second reply post. Make an initial post by Wednesday or 5 point
deduction (see below) Failure to follow schedule requirements results in an automatic 30 point
deduction, regardless of response quality. Academic Integrity issues will result in an automatic
grade of zero.
Discussion Board Grading Rubric
Criteria Excellent Good Adequate Poor Fail
26 – 30 points 23 – 25 points 19 – 22 points 16 – 18 points 0 – 15 points
Response
Quality
Postings and
replies were
excellent in
their
discussion of
required
readings,
demonstrating
mastery of the
course
material, and
contained new
or original
thought.
Psychological
theory was
consistently
incorporated in
order to
support
opinion
statements.
Content
fostered class
discussion
through the
incorporation
of textbook
and/or outside
sources.
Postings and
replies were
good in their
discussion of
required
readings,
demonstrating
understanding
of the course
material, and
containing
new thought.
Psychological
theory was
usually
incorporated in
order to
support
opinion
statements.
Content
fostered class
discussion
through the
incorporation
of textbook
and/or outside
resources.
Postings and
replies were
adequate in
their
discussion of
required
readings, but
did not attempt
to foster new
or original
thought and/or
discussion.
Psychological
theory was
occasionally
incorporated in
order to
support
opinion
statements.
Postings and
replies were
poor in their
discussion of
required
readings, and
did not foster
new or original
thought and/or
discussion.
Psychological
theory was
seldom
incorporated in
order to
support
opinion
statements.
Postings and
replies were
off-topic and
contained
mostly
opinions with
little-to-no
discussion of
readings.
Opinions were
not supported
by
psychological
theory.
4 – 4 points 3 – 3 points 2 – 2 points 1 – 1 point 0 – 0 points
Generate
Question
Generated
excellent
question that
was highly
thoughtprovoking and
directly related
to the forum
topic(s).
Question
generated was
open-ended
and could not
be answered
with a simple
“yes or no”
response.
Generated
good question
that was
thoughtprovoking and
somewhat
related to the
forum topic(s).
Question
generated was
open-ended
and could not
be answered
with a simple
“yes or no”
response.
Generated
adequate
question that
was somewhat
related to the
forum topic(s).
Question
generated was
closeended(yes or
no response).
Generated
poor question
that was not
related to the
forum topic(s).
Question
generated was
closeended(yes or
no response).
Did not
generate a
question in
forum.
4 – 4 points 3 – 3 points 2 – 2 points 1 – 1 point 0 – 0 points
Response to
supplemental
readings/links
Response to
supplemental
link was
excellent.
Response was
detailed and
student
demonstrated
mastery of the
content.
Responses
contained
original
thought.
Response to
supplemental
link was good.
Response was
somewhat
detailed and
student
demonstrated
general
understanding
of content.
Responses
contained new
thought.
Response to
supplemental
link was
adequate, but
responses
lacked detail
or did not
demonstrate
mastery of link
content. Did
not attempt to
foster any new
thought or
discussion.
Response to
supplemental
link was poor.
Discussion
lacked detail
and was
loosely related
to link topic.
Did not
respond to
supplemental
links.
4 – 4 points 3 – 3 points 2 – 2 points 1 – 1 point 0 – 0 points
Answer an
additional
question
posted by
professor
/classmate
Response to
additional
question was
excellent.
Response was
highly detailed
and
demonstrated
mastery of the
content.
Response
contained
original
thought.
Response to
additional
question was
good, but not
fully
elaborated
with specific
detail.
Response
contained new
thought.
Response to
additional
question was
adequate, but
lacked detail
and did not
contain new or
original
thought.
Response to
an additional
question was
poor.
Response
lacked detail
and/or was offtopic.
Did not
respond to an
additional
question.
4 – 4 points 3 – 3 points 2 – 2 points 1 – 1 point 0 – 0 points
Provide links Provided two
scholarly links.
Links provided
were directly
related to forum
topic. In a
scholarly
manner, student
summarized and
discussed
thoughts on link
content.
Provided one
supplemental
scholarly link.
Link provided
was related to
forum
topic.Student
discussed link
content, but
discussion
contained
minimal
scholarly
detail.
Provided a link
that was
related to
forum topic,
but link did not
contain
information
with strong
academic
backing.
Discussion of
link was not
provided.
Provided a link
in forum, but
link was
loosely related
or unrelated to
topic and did
not contain
strong
academic
backing.
Did not
provide link.
4 – 4 points 3 – 3 points 2 – 2 points 1 – 1 point 0 – 0 points
Spelling &
Grammar
Postings
contained littleto-no spelling or
grammatical
errors. Word
choice was
scholarly and
appropriate.
Postings
contained a
few spelling or
grammatical
errors, but
these did not
distract heavily
from the main
message of
the post.
Occasional
error in word
choice.
Posts
contained
multiple errors
in spelling,
grammar,
and/or word
choice.
Posts
contained
major errors in
spelling,
grammar,
and/or word
choice.
Spelling,
grammatical,
and/or word
choice errors
were abundant
and
substantially
impeded
readability.
13 – 15 points 11 – 12 points 8 – 10 points 5 – 7 points 0 – 0 points
APA Format Posts contained
citations and
references
written in APAstyle with little-tono errors. Proper
credit was given:
1) when students
discussed a new
fact or idea that
was not their own
and 2) when
students
discussed
information that
is not common
knowledge.
References were
scholarly.
Posts
contained
citations and
references
written in APAstyle with
some errors.
References
were
scholarly.
An attempt
was made to
properly cite
and reference,
but there were
multiple errors
in crediting
sources. In
addition to
errors in APAstyle, only
some sources
were
scholarly.
Posts
contained
some citations
and
references,
but there were
serious errors
in APA style.
Credit was
given
sparingly
and/or sources
were not
scholarly.
Posts did not
contain in-text
citations or
references.
30 – 30 points 30 – 30 points 30 – 30 points 30 – 30 points 0 – 0 points
Posting
Schedule
and Word
requirements
Met or exceeded
minimum posting
schedule
requirements:
Posted in EACH
forum three times
per week on
three separate
days. All original
posts contained a
minimum of 300
words, while
replies contained
a minimum of
100 words.
Met or
exceeded
minimum
posting
schedule
requirements:
Posted in
EACH forum
three times
per week on
three separate
days. All
original posts
contained a
minimum of
300 words,
while replies
contained a
minimum of
100 words.
Met or
exceeded
minimum
posting
schedule
requirements:
Posted in
EACH forum
three times
per week on
three separate
days. All
original posts
contained a
minimum of
300 words,
while replies
contained a
minimum of
100 words.
Met or
exceeded
minimum
posting
schedule
requirements:
Posted in
EACH forum
three times
per week on
three separate
days. All
original posts
contained a
minimum of
300 words,
while replies
contained a
minimum of
100 words.
Did not meet
minimum
posting
schedule
requirements.
Did not post in
EACH forum
three separate
times over the
course of
three separate
days per
week. Posts
did not meet
the required
length of 300
words for a
main post and
100 words for
a reply post.
Automatic 30
point
deduction
regardless of
response
quality.
5 to 5 points 5 – 5 points 5 – 5 points 5 – 5 points 0 – 0 points
Post by
Wednesday
Made an initial
post in forum by
Wednesday at
11:59 PM.
Made an initial
post in forum
by Wednesday
at 11:59 PM.
Made an initial
post in forum
by Wednesday
at 11:59 PM.
Made an initial
post in forum
by Wednesday
at 11:59 PM.
Did not make
an initial post
in each forum
by Wednesday
at 11:59 PM.
Automatic five
point
deduction
regardless of
response
quality.
——
Language Development in Young Children (PSY320)
300-400 level Psychology Discussion Board Grading Rubric
100 points
Description:
Examples of posting schedule: Main post on one day. First reply post on a second day.
Second reply post on a third day. M-main post; W-one reply post; F-second reply post. T-main
post; Th-one reply post; Sat-second reply post. Make an initial post by Wednesday or 5 point
deduction (see below) Failure to follow schedule requirements results in an automatic 30 point
deduction, regardless of response quality. Academic Integrity issues will result in an automatic
grade of zero.
Discussion Board Grading Rubric
Criteria Excellent Good Adequate Poor Fail
26 – 30 points 23 – 25 points 19 – 22 points 16 – 18 points 0 – 15 points
Response
Quality
Postings and
replies were
