Timely Less than 2 postings 2-3 postings distributed 3-4 postings well distributed somewhat distributed or not throughout the week. throughout the week. discussion 1 distributed throughout the contributions week. The participant consistently The participant consistently The participant demonstrates had to be prompted or posted insightful comments an observable understanding coaxed to participate. The and questions that prompted of the issues discussed. participant usually, but not on-topic discussion. The Comments demonstrate Student’s always, expressed herself or participant provides understanding of ideas and original 2 himself clearly. references to relevant issues gained from the message Demonstrates a degree of literature to support reading assignment. The reflective thought pertaining statements. Participant understanding will be at the to personal perspectives. shares resources of interest critical thinking and synthesis to others. level. The quality of writing reflects that of a professional educator. Student’s The participant was Participant responds to other The participant consistently rude or abusive group members in such a helped clarify or synthesize responses to to other course participants. way to continue the other group members’ ideas. others 1 discussion of the topic. Response goes into Response continues the explanation to substantiate or topic by going into more elaborate on the message to depth. which it is responding. Contribution to discussion helps others to understand the topic more through varied perspectives or associations. Student’s The participant frequently Participant responds to Participant connected ideas attempted (success is group members in such a expressed among other group contribution to irrelevant) to draw the way to continue the members and helped keep the the flow of the 1 discussion off-topic, even if discussion of the topic. discussion on track. discussion the participant’s participation otherwise conforms to a higher level on the rubric. University of Alaska Southeast Reading Specialist Program 2011 SCHEDULE H=Hancock textbook #=chapter Month Date Reading Due Assignment Topic Due January 12 Go over syllabus / goals by Weisel Journal Literature overview— Literary Response: Making meaning discuss (high T guide: characterization, tone, style, ) 19 Reader response Bat 6 by Wolff Journal Reader response: Oral response H: #1, #2, #9 Book discussion Bat 6 (Intermed. T intrusion)
Timely discussion contributions 1 Less than 2 postings somewhat distributed or not distributed throughout the week. 2-3 postings distributed throughout the week. 3-4 postings well distributed throughout the week. Student’s original message 2 The participant consistently had to be prompted or coaxed to participate. The participant usually, but not always, expressed herself or himself clearly. Demonstrates a degree of reflective thought pertaining to personal perspectives. The participant consistently posted insightful comments and questions that prompted on-topic discussion. The participant provides references to relevant literature to support statements. Participant shares resources of interest to others. The participant demonstrates an observable understanding of the issues discussed. Comments demonstrate understanding of ideas and issues gained from the reading assignment. The understanding will be at the critical thinking and synthesis level. The quality of writing reflects that of a professional educator. Student’s responses to others 1 The participant was rude or abusive to other course participants. Participant responds to other group members in such a way to continue the discussion of the topic. Response continues the topic by going into more depth. The participant consistently helped clarify or synthesize other group members’ ideas. Response goes into explanation to substantiate or elaborate on the message to which it is responding. Contribution to discussion helps others to understand the topic more through varied perspectives or associations. Student’s contribution to the flow of the discussion 1 The participant frequently attempted (success is irrelevant) to draw the discussion off-topic, even if the participant’s participation otherwise conforms to a higher level on the rubric. Participant responds to group members in such a way to continue the discussion of the topic. Participant connected ideas expressed among other group members and helped keep the discussion on track. University of Alaska Southeast Reading Specialist Program 2011 SCHEDULE H=Hancock textbook #=chapter Month Date Topic Reading Due Assignment Due January 12 Go over syllabus / goals Literature overview— Literary Response: Making meaning discuss (high T guide: characterization, tone, style, ) by Weisel Journal 19 Reader response Reader response: Oral response Book discussion Bat 6 (Intermed. T intrusion) Bat 6 by Wolff H: #1, #2, #9 Journal
ED%20678%20Syllabus,%20Spring%202011.docx