Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
- Textbook: Chapter 8
- Lesson: Week 5, 6
- Minimum of 1 new scholarly source
Apply the following writing resources to your posts:
Initial Post Instructions
Part 1: Research & Review
Review this week’s lesson and reading. Find an academic source to back up your opposition’s point of view. This is a new source, in addition to the source you located last week.
Part 2: Application
Anticipating readers’ objections is one way to determine what other sections to include and support in your paper. Practice writing a counterargument that applies the Toulmin model. Incorporate one of the new sources you have gathered to present your opposition’s point. Strive for at least 5 developed sentences. Cite your source in APA format.
- Grounds / 1st Counterargument (your opposition’s point)
- Backing (establish credibility of the source)
- Warrant (evidence)
- Possible concession / conclusion
Answer the following prompts:
- How were you able to remain objective while presenting the opponent’s point of view?
- What challenges did you face obtaining evidence to back up the assertion?
- Which conciliatory approach did you apply and why?
- How was it effective?
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Here, we have an opportunity to compare research notes with our fellow peers. As peers, reply to one another explaining whether or not your classmates are presenting the opposition objectively and provide potential refutations pointers. Give one another ideas or suggestions for points that may be left out or might need to be further developed.
Note: If you see that someone has already received feedback from two peers, please choose to help a peer who has yet to obtain feedback.
Writing Requirements
- Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
- Initial Post Length: minimum of 3 college-level paragraphs
- APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Discussion Grading Rubric – 25 pts
You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.
Discussion Grading Rubric – 25 pts
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Initial Post Content
|
7.0 pts
Addresses all aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding regarding all weekly concepts.
|
5.0 pts
Addresses most aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of most of the weekly concepts.
|
3.0 pts
Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of some of the weekly concepts.
|
0.0 pts
Minimally addresses the initial discussion question(s) or does not address the initial question(s).
|
|
7.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Initial Post Evidence & Sources
|
4.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons, AND at least one outside scholarly source. Sources are credited.
|
3.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons. Sources are credited.
|
2.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion only from an outside source with no mention of assigned reading or lesson. Sources are credited.
|
0.0 pts
Does not integrate any evidence.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Follow-Up Post 1
|
4.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.
|
3.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.
|
2.0 pts
Response does not further the dialogue significantly; adds little depth to the discussion.
|
0.0 pts
Does not respond to another student or instructor.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Follow-Up Post 2
|
4.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.
|
3.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.
|
2.0 pts
Response does not further the dialogue significantly; adds little depth to the discussion.
|
0.0 pts
Does not respond to another student or instructor.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Professional Communication
|
4.0 pts
Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (minimal errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
3.0 pts
Presents information in an organized manner (few errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
2.0 pts
Presents information using understandable language but is somewhat disorganized (some errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
0.0 pts
Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the message (numerous errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness of Responses
|
1.0 pts
Student posts an answer to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. M.T.
|
0.0 pts
Student does not post an answer to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. M.T.
|
|
1.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Frequency of Responses
|
1.0 pts
Posts in the discussion on two different days.
|
0.0 pts
Posts fewer than two different days OR does not participate at all.
|
|
1.0 pts
|
Total Points: 25.0
|