Assessment criteria for Discussion activities

Posted 18 October 2016 at 5:26pm

The following sample rubrics may be useful when you’re:

sharing your expectations about discussion participation with students;
getting students to review the contributions made by other students; and
developing a rubric to aid marking of discussions and provide students with useful feedback.

Palloff & Pratt (2007, p. 211)

This rubric focuses on the quality on the quality of contributions/participation. It does not specify a number of posts or the timeliness of posts.

Criteria	Non-Performance	Basic	Proficient	Distinguished
Includes and applies relevant course concepts, theories, or materials correctly with citation of sources	Does not explain relevant course concepts, theories or materials. Does not provide citation of sources.	Summarises relevant course concepts, theories or materials. Provides citation some of the time.	Applies and analyses relevant course concepts, theories, or materials correctly. Provides citation most of the time.	Evaluates and synthesises core concepts, or materials correctly, using examples and supporting evidence. Consistently provides citation.
Responds to fellow learners, relating the discussion to relevant course concepts and providing substantive feedback	Does not respond to fellow learners.	Responds to fellow learners without relating discussion to the relevant course concepts. Provides feedback, but is not substantive.	Responds to fellow learners, relating discussion to relevant course concepts. Feedback is substantive most of the time.	Responds to fellow learners, relating the discussion to relevant course concepts and consistently extends the dialogue through provision of substantive feedback.
Applies relevant professional, personal, or other real-world experiences	Does not contribute professional, personal or other real-world experiences.	Contributes some professional, personal, or other real-world experiences that may or may not relate to course content.	Applies relevant professional, personal, or other real-world experiences.	Applies relevant professional, personal, or other real-world experiences and extends the dialogue by responding to the examples of peers.
Supports position with applicable resources beyond assigned reading	Does not establish relevant position.	Establishes relevant position but does minimal outside research.	Consistently supports position with additional resources.	Validates position with applicable resources and supports the learning of others through the contribution of additional resources.

Source: Palloff, RM & Pratt, K 2002, Building Online Learning Communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom, Jossey-Bass, San Franciso.

Edelstein & Edwards (2002)

Promptness or ‘timeliness’ is included as a criteria in this rubric. This is useful, as it implies that students can’t wait until to last day of the task to post. Instead, it encourages students to post early and keep checking back, helping to ensure a more even flow of conversation.

Category	1	2	3	4
Promptness and initiative	Does not respond to most postings; rarely participates freely	Responds to most postings several days after initial discussion; limited initiative	Responds to most postings within a 24 hour period; requires occasional prompting to post	Consistently responds to postings in less than 24 hours; demonstrates good self-initiative
Delivery of post	Utilizes poor spelling and grammar in most posts; posts appear “hasty”	Errors in spelling and grammar evidenced in several posts	Few grammatical or spelling errors are noted in posts	Consistently uses grammatically correct posts with rare misspellings
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	Frequently posts topics that are related to discussion content; prompts further discussion of topic	Consistently posts topics related to discussion topic; cites additional references related to topic
Expression within the post	Does not express opinions or ideas clearly; no connection to topic	Unclear connection to topic evidenced in minimal expression of opinions or ideas	Opinions and ideas are stately clearly with occasional lack of connection to topic	Expresses opinions and ideas in a clear and concise manner with obvious connection to topic
Contribution to the learning community	Does not make effort to participate in learning community as it develops; seems indifferent	Occasionally makes meaningful reflection on group’s efforts; marginal effort to become involved with group	Frequently attempts to direct the discussion and to present relevant viewpoints for consideration by group; interacts freely	Aware of needs of community; frequently attempts to motivate the group discussion; presents creative approaches to topic

Source: Edelstein, S & Edwards, J 2002, ‘If you build it they will come: Building learning communities through threaded discussions’, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, vol. 5, no. 1, n.p., viewed 11 June 2009, <http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/edelstein51.html>

Lai (2012)

This is a set of criteria focuses on the demonstration of critical thinking skills in discussions. Levels are not described, with a general description of each criteria provided instead. The following levels are stated: Developing; Competent; Advanced; and Exemplary.

Criteria	Description of criteria
Made relevant comments	Relevant comments are those that focus on significant issues that bear on the topic in question. You may use a range of reasoning strategies (e.g. analogies, examples) to shed light on a particular point. A student whose comments for the most part tends to focus on issues that are tangential to the topic in question and sidetrack from the debate is not likely to do well.
Articulated (your) ideas clearly	Use of clear, simple sentences to explain one’s ideas. This may involve taking some time to clarify your position where necessary. Statements such as ‘… this topic is just too complex, and I can’t say what I mean but I take that you know what I’m talking about.’, are unhelpful.
Presented well-structured arguments	Posts are coherent and systematically set out. This does not mean that you must express your ideas in formal sentences. However, you need to demonstrate how you have arrived at a particular view or a conclusion.
Posed questions to the group	Raising questions that are central to the topic. This involves not simply surveying others’ opinions but rather inviting them to investigate particular issues further. You may, for example, point out that a particular point made by an author may not be as cut-and-dried as s/he makes it out to be.
Sparked discussion and comments from others	Related to the previous criterion. Instigating debate rather than foreclosing on an issue that is debatable. Rhetorical questions such as ‘I simply cannot agree with the author’s conclusions, can you?’ without further elaboration do not invite comments.
Responded to criticisms as well as compliments	Replying to others who seek clarification or who have rebutted to one of your claims. If another student has demonstrated that your view is implausible, acknowledge it. If the student has misunderstood you, of has overlooked a particular issue, point that out clearly, explaining how or why they have not grasped your point.
Demonstrated consideration and respect of others	Consideration is the key here. If there are differences of opinion, try to explore why this might be so rather than put someone down.
Built on the ideas and contributions of others	Drawing on the comments and suggestions of others, exchanging ideas and working together to arrive at a more plausible/defensible view.
Contributed to the learning experiences of others	Summary of the first eight marking criteria, reflecting a capacity for engagement with others. Your engagement with other throughout the period of the discussion is considered here.

Source: Lai, K 2012, ‘Assessing participation skills: Online discussions with peers’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 37, no. 18, 933 – 947, viewed 17 October 2016, <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=83369751&site=ehost-live>

Teaching Online at UTAS