Due 2/25
see attached
3 months ago 25
DiscussionCaseStudyAssignmentInstructions.docx
DiscussionGradingRubric.pdf
DiscussionCaseStudyAssignmentInstructions.docx
PADM 700
Discussion: Case Study Assignment Instructions
Students will take part in 4 Discussions in which you will conduct a case study of an observed study in a public administration context. The analysis will be based upon the concepts you learned and discussed in the previous module’s essay assignment, writing 450-500 words in the initial thread. For the case study, students are welcome to cite a scholarly source, but if they do, it must not be merely a theoretical/philosophical discussion. Instead, whatever source is used for the actual case study must focus on a real-world public administration situation that is being discussed and analyzed in the chosen article. Students will in turn apply concepts discussed in the previous Module: Week’s essay to analyze the situation, in addition to the required reading and presentations from the current Module: Week. Remember: it will be important to do both!
Then, students will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Reply comments must engage the case study observations made by classmates and must bring to light concepts from the required reading from the current Module: Week as well as additional reading. Thus, merely posting the same reply in 3 places is not sufficient and may be treated as a form of academic misconduct. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week in addition research from two scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
Thread:
· 450-500 words
· Ideas and citations from all the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources
· Case Study of a real public administration situation related to the concepts discussed in the prior week.
In this course, Discussions play an exceptionally important role. Consider these threads and replies to be formal communications on the same level as those you would conduct with employers, clients, or colleagues in the professional, political, or academic world. As such, they must be free of grammatical errors, must be properly formatted in current APA style, and must consist of well-reasoned, contemplative, and substantive posts and replies, rather than mere ipse dixit.
Page 1 of 2
DiscussionGradingRubric.pdf
Criteria Ratings Points
Thread
Content
15 to >13.0 pts
Advanced
• Each question/prompt is answered thoroughly and logically. • Major points are stated clearly and effectively. • Clear, logical flow to post; stayed on topic.
13 to >11.0 pts
Proficient
• Each question/prompt is answered. • Major points are stated clearly and effectively for the most part. • Clear, logical and focused for the most part.
11 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Not all facets of the prompt/questions are answered. • Lack of clarity, coherence, logic and focus in key areas.
0 pts
Not Present
15 pts
Thread
Research Engagement
13 to >10.0 pts
Advanced
• Ideas from all the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week and 2 scholarly sources are integrated. • Relates topic to Scripture/biblical principles where appropriate.
10 to >8.0 pts
Proficient
• Ideas from most the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week and 2 scholarly sources are integrated. • Scripture/biblical principles are included but unfocused at times.
8 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Ideas from few of the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week and 2 scholarly sources are integrated. • Missing Biblical integration.
0 pts
Not Present
13 pts
Reply
Content
15 to >13.0 pts
Advanced
• 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • Moves the conversation forward with new ideas, research, and analysis. • Student’s response delivered in a thorough, thoughtful, and analytical manner with the student’s position clearly evident.
13 to >11.0 pts
Proficient
• At least 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • New ideas, research, and analysis are not always included. • Some commentary is repetitive from one reply to the next. • At times, reply posts do not seem to actually build upon classmate’s post.
11 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Missing one or more reply posts. • Reply posts are redundant. • Little in the way of new ideas, research, and analysis are not always included.
0 pts
Not Present
15 pts
Discussion Grading Rubric
Criteria Ratings Points
Reply
Research Engagement
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
• 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • Relates topic to Scripture/biblical principles where appropriate. • Contains abundant citations from required reading, presentations, and 2 scholarly sources.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
• 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • Scripture/biblical principles are included but unfocused at times. • Contains some citations from reading, presentations, and scholarly sources.
6 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Missing one or more reply posts. • Missing Biblical integration. • Limited citations from the required reading and presentations.
0 pts
Not Present
10 pts
Grammar, Spelling, & APA
15 to >13.0 pts
Advanced
Minimal to no errors in grammar, spelling, or APA.
13 to >11.0 pts
Proficient
Some errors in grammar, spelling, or APA.
11 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or APA.
0 pts
Not Present
15 pts
Word Count 7 to >5.0 pts
Advanced
Appropriate word count: 450-500 words for thread; 200–250 words per reply.
5 to >3.0 pts
Proficient
100 words more or less than the required length.
3 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Over 100 words more or less than the required length.
0 pts
Not Present
7 pts
Total Points: 75
Discussion Grading Rubric
DiscussionCaseStudyAssignmentInstructions.docx
PADM 700
Discussion: Case Study Assignment Instructions
Students will take part in 4 Discussions in which you will conduct a case study of an observed study in a public administration context. The analysis will be based upon the concepts you learned and discussed in the previous module’s essay assignment, writing 450-500 words in the initial thread. For the case study, students are welcome to cite a scholarly source, but if they do, it must not be merely a theoretical/philosophical discussion. Instead, whatever source is used for the actual case study must focus on a real-world public administration situation that is being discussed and analyzed in the chosen article. Students will in turn apply concepts discussed in the previous Module: Week’s essay to analyze the situation, in addition to the required reading and presentations from the current Module: Week. Remember: it will be important to do both!
Then, students will post replies of 200–250 words each to 2 classmates’ threads. Each reply must be unique and must integrate ideas (and citations) from the required reading. Reply comments must engage the case study observations made by classmates and must bring to light concepts from the required reading from the current Module: Week as well as additional reading. Thus, merely posting the same reply in 3 places is not sufficient and may be treated as a form of academic misconduct. The original thread must incorporate ideas and citations from all the required readings and presentations for that Module: Week in addition research from two scholarly sources. The reply posts must also integrate ideas and citations from the required readings and presentations for the Module: Week, as appropriate, and at least two scholarly sources.
Thread:
· 450-500 words
· Ideas and citations from all the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week
· Ideas and citations from two scholarly sources
· Case Study of a real public administration situation related to the concepts discussed in the prior week.
In this course, Discussions play an exceptionally important role. Consider these threads and replies to be formal communications on the same level as those you would conduct with employers, clients, or colleagues in the professional, political, or academic world. As such, they must be free of grammatical errors, must be properly formatted in current APA style, and must consist of well-reasoned, contemplative, and substantive posts and replies, rather than mere ipse dixit.
Page 1 of 2
DiscussionGradingRubric.pdf
Criteria Ratings Points
Thread
Content
15 to >13.0 pts
Advanced
• Each question/prompt is answered thoroughly and logically. • Major points are stated clearly and effectively. • Clear, logical flow to post; stayed on topic.
13 to >11.0 pts
Proficient
• Each question/prompt is answered. • Major points are stated clearly and effectively for the most part. • Clear, logical and focused for the most part.
11 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Not all facets of the prompt/questions are answered. • Lack of clarity, coherence, logic and focus in key areas.
0 pts
Not Present
15 pts
Thread
Research Engagement
13 to >10.0 pts
Advanced
• Ideas from all the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week and 2 scholarly sources are integrated. • Relates topic to Scripture/biblical principles where appropriate.
10 to >8.0 pts
Proficient
• Ideas from most the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week and 2 scholarly sources are integrated. • Scripture/biblical principles are included but unfocused at times.
8 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Ideas from few of the required reading and presentations from the Module: Week and 2 scholarly sources are integrated. • Missing Biblical integration.
0 pts
Not Present
13 pts
Reply
Content
15 to >13.0 pts
Advanced
• 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • Moves the conversation forward with new ideas, research, and analysis. • Student’s response delivered in a thorough, thoughtful, and analytical manner with the student’s position clearly evident.
13 to >11.0 pts
Proficient
• At least 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • New ideas, research, and analysis are not always included. • Some commentary is repetitive from one reply to the next. • At times, reply posts do not seem to actually build upon classmate’s post.
11 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Missing one or more reply posts. • Reply posts are redundant. • Little in the way of new ideas, research, and analysis are not always included.
0 pts
Not Present
15 pts
Discussion Grading Rubric
Criteria Ratings Points
Reply
Research Engagement
10 to >8.0 pts
Advanced
• 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • Relates topic to Scripture/biblical principles where appropriate. • Contains abundant citations from required reading, presentations, and 2 scholarly sources.
8 to >6.0 pts
Proficient
• 2 unique interaction posts with classmates • One reply posted to each of 2 classmates’ threads. • Scripture/biblical principles are included but unfocused at times. • Contains some citations from reading, presentations, and scholarly sources.
6 to >0.0 pts
Developing
• Missing one or more reply posts. • Missing Biblical integration. • Limited citations from the required reading and presentations.
0 pts
Not Present
10 pts
Grammar, Spelling, & APA
15 to >13.0 pts
Advanced
Minimal to no errors in grammar, spelling, or APA.
13 to >11.0 pts
Proficient
Some errors in grammar, spelling, or APA.
11 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Numerous errors in grammar, spelling, or APA.
0 pts
Not Present
15 pts
Word Count 7 to >5.0 pts
Advanced
Appropriate word count: 450-500 words for thread; 200–250 words per reply.
5 to >3.0 pts
Proficient
100 words more or less than the required length.
3 to >0.0 pts
Developing
Over 100 words more or less than the required length.
0 pts
Not Present
7 pts
Total Points: 75
Discussion Grading Rubric
- "Database Administrator’s Role
- ASSIGMENT
- QUANATIVE REASONING FOR PROFESSOR ELIUD PETERSON
- ashley writer paper 2
- Discussion
- BUSN460_Financial Analysis
- BUSN380 Week 5 TCO 4 Problem Set 5 - Consumer Buying Decisions, Cost of Credit vs. Cash Price, Futur
- Transplant Criteria
- essay 3 pages
- BUS600 wk2.assignment Topic