Archive for engage
bringing the outside into my online course
To contribute to this conversation:
- create a seesmic account. https://seesmic.tv/signup
- post a reply to my post. http://seesmic.tv/videos/2s7FBTpoND
My Discussion Post Grading Rubric
Discussion Post Grading Rubric
Discussion posts are graded on a 0 – 4 point scale according to the Discussion Post Quality Grading Rubric presented below. Note that both the Comment Field and the Subject Line figure into the quality score the post receives.
- Peer Evaluations: Each reply you submit to a discussion forum should begin with your 0 – 4 evaluation of the quality of the post you are replying to. Place your peer-evaluation score in parentheses as the first thing in your reply- like this (4).
- Student Self-Evaluations: Every post you submit to a discussion forum (new posts and replies) should end with the quality score (0 – 4 points) you think your post deserves. Place your self-evaluation score in parentheses at the end – like this (4).
- Professor Evaluations: I will record the official 0 – 4 point value for each discussion post (up to the maximum of 12 per student) as I read it. At the conclusion of each module, I will update your Grade Book with your final grade on each discussion, and provide you with a record of how many posts you submitted and your total quality score.
|
Points |
Interpretation |
Grading Criteria |
|
4 |
Excellent (A) |
The comment is accurate, original, relevant, teaches us something new, and is well written. Four point comments add substantial teaching presence to the course, and stimulate additional thought about the issue under discussion. Documentation for factual information is provided. Discussion points are supported with references. Sources are cited and critically analyzed. All references, links, and citations are bookmarked, highlighted, tagged, and commented on in our diigo shared references group.
|
|
3 |
Above Average (B) |
The comment lacks at least one of the above qualities, but is above average in quality. A three point comment makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the issue being discussed.
|
|
2 |
Average (C) |
The comment lacks two or three of the required qualities. Comments that are based upon personal opinion, or personal experience, often fall within this category.
|
|
1 |
Minimal (D) |
The comment presents little or no new information. However, one point comments may provide important social presence and contribute to a sense of class community.
|
|
0 |
Unacceptable (F) |
The comment adds no value to the discussion.
|
|
No penalty |
The subject field is a complete sentence and conveys the main point of the comment. The reader clearly understands the main point of the comment before reading it.
|
|
|
-1 |
Minor problem with subject line |
The subject field provides key word(s) only. The reader knows the general area that the comment deals with.
|
|
-2 |
Major problem with subject line |
The subject field provides little or no information about the comment. |
The Discussion Forum Grading Scale
|
Forum Grade |
Total Quality Points |
Additional Requirement |
|
A+ |
40+ |
At least eight 4-point ratings. |
|
A |
31-39 |
At least four 4-point ratings. |
|
B |
25-30 |
At least four 3 or 4-point ratings. |
|
C |
12-24 |
At least four 2, 3, or 4-point ratings. |
|
D |
6-11 |
None. |
|
F |
1-5 |
None. |
|
0 |
0 |
None. |
adapted with permission from Bill Pelz.
bringing the “outside” into my course with seesmic
The conversation below is an effort to blur the boundaries of my online course to expose my students to the world “outside” the walls of our online course, and to invite the world “in” to our course to enhance our current discussion on how to engage online learners. This activity also serves as an example and model of an activity i am using to “engage” my own online students in this course.
