March 2018 Malcolm Baldrige School Of Business Evaluation Ru ✓ Solved

March82018malcolmbaldrigeschoolofbusinessevaluationrubricfo

This document contains the Malcolm Baldrige School of Business Evaluation Rubric designed for assessment purposes. It evaluates discussion board participation based on criteria such as professional communication, response to questions, evidence of critical thinking, course connection, active participation, and timely participation. The rubric assigns point ranges for each criterion, ranging from excellent to needs improvement, and emphasizes the quality and relevance of posts, grammatical accuracy, supporting evidence, critical engagement, and adherence to deadlines.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The Malcolm Baldrige School of Business Evaluation Rubric offers a comprehensive framework for assessing student engagement and quality in discussion board activities. This evaluation criteria ensure that students demonstrate professionalism, critical thinking, course comprehension, active participation, and punctuality, which are vital for fostering an effective online learning environment.

Professional Communication

Effective communication is a cornerstone of scholarly discussion. Excellent posts are well-written with impeccable grammar and proper APA formatting for references. Maintaining clarity, coherence, and correct grammar enhances the credibility of the student’s contributions. Minor grammatical errors are acceptable at the very good level but should not impede understanding. The absence of references or improper formatting diminishes the perceived professionalism of the posts.

Response to Questions

The rubric assesses how thoroughly students respond to discussion prompts. A comprehensive response addresses all aspects of the questions with sufficient supporting details, demonstrating a clear understanding of the material. Partial or superficial answers are graded lower, while irrelevant or off-topic responses receive the lowest scores. Incorporating evidence-backed insights and personal experiences enriches the discussion and shows higher cognitive engagement.

Evidence of Critical Thinking or Extending Information

Critical thinking is evaluated based on students’ ability to stimulate ongoing discussion by providing accurate information, insights, and responses supported by research or personal experience. Posts that challenge ideas, ask pertinent questions, or connect concepts extend the discussion and demonstrate deeper comprehension. Merely summarizing prior comments or engaging in surface-level replies fall short of expectations.

Course Connections

Students should explicitly demonstrate reviewing and understanding course materials by integrating key concepts into their posts. Strong connections show that students are applying learned theories to real-world scenarios or current debates. Lack of references or failure to relate course concepts indicate minimal engagement with the course content.

Active Participation

Active participation requires making at least three quality posts during the week. Quality posts contribute meaningfully to the discussion and showcase critical thinking and depth. Fewer than three posts or posts that are superficial reduce the participation score, reflecting limited engagement.

Timely Participation

Adherence to deadlines is crucial for participation scores. Initial posts should be submitted by Wednesday at 11:59 PM, with at least two responses made on different days to promote ongoing engagement. Late posts or all posts submitted at the last minute negatively impact the participation grade, indicating poor time management.

Conclusion

The Malcolm Baldrige School of Business Evaluation Rubric emphasizes holistic assessment of online discussion contributions. By focusing on professionalism, critical thinking, course understanding, active engagement, and punctuality, the rubric encourages students to develop essential communication and analytical skills necessary for academic and professional success.

References

• American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Chaffey, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2019). Digital marketing (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23.
• Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
• Ryan, S., & Cooper, H. (2018). Research in Education (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. Routledge.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.
• Zhao, Y., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Meeting the challenges of online education. Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 409–438.