discussion

6/7/19, 6(27 PMRubric Detail – Blackboard Learn

Page 1 of 3https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16551927_1&rubric_id=_985807_1

Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Superior Criteria Excellent Criteria

Satisfactory Criteria

Marginal Criteria

Unsatisfactory Criteria

Not Submitted

Element 1a: Initial Post - Key Components

4 (10%) Student presents a thorough and detailed description of the key components of his/her chosen quantitative study: problem statement, purpose statement, theoretical framework, research question(s), and hypotheses, and includes the study as an attachment. Several sources and examples support thinking.

3.8 (9.5%) Student presents a thorough and detailed description of the key components of his/her chosen quantitative study: problem statement, purpose statement, theoretical framework, research question(s), and hypotheses, and includes the study as an attachment. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors.

3.4 (8.5%) Student presents a description with some details of the key components of his/her chosen quantitative study: problem statement, purpose statement, theoretical framework, research question(s), and hypotheses, and includes the study as an attachment. Some sources and examples support thinking.

3 (7.5%) Student presents a cursory or incomplete description with vague or missing details of the key components of his/her chosen quantitative study: problem statement, purpose statement, theoretical framework, research question(s), and hypotheses, and includes the study as an attachment. Few sources or examples support thinking.

2 (5%) Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%) Did not submit element.

Element 1b: Initial Post - Alignment

4 (10%) Student presents a thorough and detailed analysis between those components, including areas of misalignment, explaining the level of alignment between specific components and areas that may be lacking. Several sources and examples support thinking.

3.8 (9.5%) Student presents a thorough and detailed analysis between those components, including areas of misalignment, explaining the level of alignment between specific components and areas that may be lacking. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors.

3.4 (8.5%) Student presents an analysis with some details between those components, including some details on areas of misalignment, explaining the level of alignment between specific components and areas that may be lacking. Some sources and examples support thinking.

3 (7.5%) Student presents a cursory or incomplete analysis with vague or missing details between those components, including few details on areas of misalignment and/or vague or missing details explaining the level of alignment between specific components and areas that may be lacking. Few sources or examples support thinking.

2 (5%) Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%) Did not submit element.

Name: DDBA_8300_Week_5_Discussion_Rubric EXIT

Grid View List View

6/7/19, 6(27 PMRubric Detail – Blackboard Learn

Page 2 of 3https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16551927_1&rubric_id=_985807_1

Element 1c: Initial Post - Recommendations

4 (10%) Student presents a thorough and detailed recommendation of at least one change that could improve the alignment within the selected quantitative study, and includes his/her rationale for the recommendation. Several sources and examples support thinking.

3.8 (9.5%) Student presents a thorough and detailed recommendation of at least one change that could improve the alignment within the selected quantitative study, and includes his/her rationale for the recommendation. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors.

3.4 (8.5%) Student presents a recommendation with some details of at least one change that could improve the alignment within the selected quantitative study, and includes some details on his/her rationale for the recommendation. Some sources and examples support thinking.

3 (7.5%) Student presents a cursory or incomplete recommendation with vague or missing details of at least one change that could improve the alignment within the selected quantitative study, and/or does not include his/her rationale for the recommendation. Few sources or examples support thinking.

2 (5%) Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%) Did not submit element.

Element 1d: Scholarly Sources for Initial Post

4 (10%) Student supports his/her initial post with a minimum of two specific citations from this week's Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources.

3.8 (9.5%) Student supports his/her initial post with a minimum of two specific citations from this week's Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources. There are one or two minor errors in format or relevance of sources.

3.4 (8.5%) Student supports his/her initial post with only one specific citations from this week's Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources.

3 (7.5%) Student supports his/her initial post with at least one scholarly source provided.

2 (5%) Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%) Did not submit element.

Element 2: Response to Colleagues' Postings

12 (30%) Responses are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in- depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to more than two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response.

11.4 (28.5%) Responses are very good and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in- depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response.

10.2 (25.5%) Responses are good and somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in- depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response.

9 (22.5%) Responses are weak and do not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in- depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with at least one scholarly source provided for each response.

6 (15%) Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%) Did not submit element.

Element 3: Written Delivery Style &

6 (15%) 5.7 (14.25%) 5.1 (12.75%) 4.5 (11.25%) 3 (7.5%) 0 (0%)

6/7/19, 6(27 PMRubric Detail – Blackboard Learn

Page 3 of 3https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/bbgs-deep-links-BBLEARN/app/course/rubric?course_id=_16551927_1&rubric_id=_985807_1

Grammar Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are no spelling or grammar errors.

Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are one or two minor errors in spelling or grammar.

Student mostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are some errors in spelling or grammar.

Student does not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style and does not communicate in a cohesive, logical style.

Does not meet minimal standards.

Did not submit element.

Element 4: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations)

6 (15%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are no APA errors.

5.7 (14.25%) Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.

5.1 (12.75%) Student mostly adheres to scholarly reference requirements and/or mostly adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.

4.5 (11.25%) Student demonstrates weak or inconsistent adherence scholarly reference requirements and/or weak or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Several errors in APA format and style are evident.

3 (7.5%) Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%) Did not submit element.

Name: DDBA_8300_Week_5_Discussion_Rubric

EXIT