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 thought- provoking 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 thought- provoking 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 close- ended(yes or no response).
Generated poor question that was not related to the forum topic(s). Question generated was close- ended(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 off- topic.
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 little- to-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 APA- style with little-to- no 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 APA- style 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 APA- style, 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.
Description:
Discussion Board Grading Rubric
—-
PSY320 – Language Development in Young Children Psychology Discussion Board Grading Rubric Level 300-400
100 points Exemplifications of posting schedules: The main post will be published on a single day. The first response was posted on the 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
