tech

Discussion Grading Rubric Course: Tech Support Plan Youth Dis Section Y01 Spring 2026 CO

Criteria Exceptional 3.1–4.0 points

Meets Expectations 2.1–3.0 points

Needs Improvement 0.0–2.0 points

Criterion Score

Knowledge

and under-

standing of the

readings/

course

materials

/ 4

Critical

analysis

/ 4

Application for

teaching

practice

/ 4

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts

provide a lot of evi-

dence of understanding

the readings; include 4

or more direct quota-

tions and references to

the readings/course

materials to substanti-

ate the discussion

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts

provide some evidence

of understanding the

readings; include 3 di-

rect quotations and ref-

erences to the

readings/course materi-

als to substantiate the

discussion

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts

provide little or no evi-

dence of understanding

the readings; lack direct

quotations and/or ref-

erences to the

readings/course materi-

als to substantiate the

discussion

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts of-

fer thorough and in-

depth analysis; are

stimulating, interesting,

and add valid points to

the discussion

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts of-

fer critical analysis; add

valid points to the

discussion

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts of-

fer little or no critical

analysis; focus mostly

on the summary of the

class readings

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts of-

fer several solutions

and/or practical impli-

cations for classroom

practice

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts of-

fer some solutions

and/or practical impli-

cations for classroom

practice

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts do

not offer solutions

and/or practical impli-

cations for classroom

practice

Total / 20

Overall Score

Criteria Exceptional 3.1–4.0 points

Meets Expectations 2.1–3.0 points

Needs Improvement 0.0–2.0 points

Criterion Score

Interactivity / 4

Grammar,

Mechanics,

and APA style

/ 4

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts at-

tempt to have frequent

and thorough dialogue

with the text and with

peers in order to offer

more in-depth levels of

the discussion; allow

for integration of varied

perspectives in order to

enhance the depth of

the discussion and

analysis; when relevant,

explain personal con-

nection to the dis-

cussed topic

Initial/Original post and peer response posts at- tempt to have some di- alogue with the read- ings and with peers in order to offer more in- depth levels of the dis- cussion; when relevant, explain personal con- nection to the dis- cussed topic

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts

don’t attempt to have

dialogue with the text

and with peers in order

to offer more in-depth

levels of the

discussion; focus simply

on paraphrasing what

the readings stated or

others stated in their

posts; when relevant,

explain personal con-

nection to the dis-

cussed topic

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts fol-

low all directions; are

professionally edited

(no mistakes); follow

APA style to cite all ref-

erences correctly

Initial/Original post and

peer response posts fol-

low most directions;

are edited but may

have mechanical errors;

may cite correctly only

some references in APA

style

Initial/Original post and peer response posts do not follow directions; are not edited; have too many mechanical er- rors; fail to follow APA style to cite references

Level 4 11 points minimum

Level 3 8 points minimum

Level 2 5 points minimum