Discussion Post: Levels Of Achievement Criteria Below Expect
Discussion Postlevels Of Achievementcriteria Belowexpectations Develop
Identify and describe the levels of achievement criteria for a discussion post, including expectations for initial responses, responding to others, frequency of posts, supporting references, and writing quality. Clarify what constitutes below expectations, developing, competent, and exemplary performance across these criteria, emphasizing clarity, accuracy, substance, timeliness, and proper citation.
Paper For Above instruction
The assessment of discussion posts in academic settings typically involves multiple levels of achievement, which serve to guide students toward expected standards of participation and scholarly engagement. These levels—below expectations, developing, competent, and exemplary—are distinguished based on criteria such as the quality and accuracy of initial responses, engagement with peers, timeliness, supporting evidence, and writing proficiency.
At the "below expectations" level, students fail to complete the assignment adequately. This includes submitting responses that are irrelevant, incomplete, or significantly under the word count (less than 250 words for initial posts). Responses may lack understanding of the discussion points, with little to no engagement or direct interaction with classmates. Posting is infrequent, often limited to one day of the week, and the initial response may be late or missing. Additionally, students at this level do not provide supporting references, reflecting minimal scholarly effort. Writing errors are prevalent, including grammatical mistakes, improper sentence structure, and punctuation issues, which hinder clarity.
The "developing" level demonstrates some effort and understanding. Students identify and describe discussion points with fair accuracy but may include inaccuracies or incomplete coverage of the topic. Responses tend to be superficial, with responses to classmates limited to one or two and often lacking depth or substance (less than 100 words). Posting might occur on only one day or be late, and initial contributions may not meet the deadline. References are scarce or absent, typically only citing one source, weakening the evidence supporting statements. Writing errors decrease but may still be noticeable, affecting overall coherence.
Achieving the "competent" level indicates a solid understanding and active participation. Students clearly identify and describe discussion points with appropriate detail and accuracy, providing relevant information. They respond substantively to two or more classmates, each response exceeding 100 words, fostering meaningful dialogue. Posts are made on multiple days, including the initial response by the deadline, demonstrating good time management. References are incorporated effectively, citing between two to four credible sources that support their statements. Writing quality improves significantly, with minimal grammatical or structural errors, ensuring clarity and coherence.
The "exemplary" level represents outstanding participation and scholarly engagement. Students thoroughly identify and describe discussion points with high accuracy, incorporating insightful analysis. They respond to multiple classmates with substantive, well-developed responses over 100 words each, encouraging robust discussion. Initial posts are timely, made on at least two different days, meeting deadlines. They cite five or more credible references, integrating evidence from scholarly sources to strengthen their arguments. Writing is polished, error-free, and demonstrates excellent paragraph and sentence structure, supporting clear communication.
Overall, these achievement criteria emphasize not only the depth of understanding and engagement but also the importance of punctuality, support through credible sources, and high-quality writing. Meeting or exceeding these standards indicates a comprehensive scholarly approach, fostering meaningful participation and learning within online discussions.