In what ways are Christmas in Purgatory and the Pennhurst Memorial and Memorial Preservation Alliance similar?? Christmas in Purgatory was first publi

3/12/25, 5:25 PMRubric Assessment –

Discussion Post & Peer Response Rubric – Revised v2 (10 points) Course: SPE-506-0

Criteria Fully Met Mostly Met Partially Met Did Not Meet

Focus/Relevance of

Response

Depth/Substantiveness of

Response

Clarity and Organization of

Response

2 points

The response fully addresses

all aspects of the discussion

prompt. There is a clear and

direct connection between

the content of the response

and the

requirements/questions

outlined in the prompt.

Word Length Requirement (if

specified): The response

meets or exceeds the

specified word count or

length requirement.

1.5 points

The response addresses the

majority of aspects of the

discussion prompt. While

there may be some minor

gaps or areas where the

response could be more

focused, the overall relevance

to the prompt is evident.

Word Length Requirement (if

specified): The response does

not meet the minimum

specified word count or

length requirement and is

short by 15% or less.

1 point

The response addresses some

aspects of the discussion

prompt, but key elements

may be overlooked or only

partially addressed. There are

noticeable gaps or

inconsistencies in the

relevance of the response to

the prompt.

Word Length Requirement (if

specified): The response does

not meet the minimum

specified word count or

length requirement and is

short by 30% or less.

0.5 points

The response fails to address

the discussion prompt

effectively. There is little to

no relevance between the

content of the response and

the requirements outlined in

the prompt.

Word Length Requirement (if

specified): The response does

not meet the minimum

specified word count or

length requirement and is

short by 50% or more.

2 points

The response demonstrates a

high level of substance,

thoughtfulness, and depth.

The student provides

comprehensive and well-

developed insights, well-

supported by evidence or

examples from the course

material where appropriate.

1.5 points

The response is substantive

and thoughtful, though there

may be some areas where

additional depth or

elaboration could be

provided. Response is

somewhat supported by

evidence or examples from

the course material where

appropriate.

1 point

The response contains some

substance and

thoughtfulness, but there are

noticeable gaps or areas

where it could be more in-

depth. Response is minimally

supported by evidence or

examples from the course

material where appropriate.

0.5 points

There is little to no depth in

the analysis, and the

student's contributions are

minimal or perfunctory.

Response is not supported by

evidence or examples from

the course material where

appropriate.

2 points

The response is exceptionally

clear and well-organized.

Ideas are presented logically

and coherently, with smooth

transitions between thoughts.

1.5 points

The response is generally

clear and well-organized,

though there may be

occasional instances of minor

confusion or lack of clarity.

Ideas are presented in a

mostly logical sequence, with

some transitions between

thoughts.

1 point

The response demonstrates

some clarity and organization,

but there are noticeable

deficiencies that impact

understanding. Ideas may be

somewhat disjointed or

poorly connected, resulting in

confusion for the reader.

0.5 points

The response lacks clarity and

organization, making it

difficult for the reader to

understand the main points.

Ideas are presented in a

haphazard or chaotic manner,

with little coherence or

logical progression.

Criteria Fully Met Mostly Met Partially Met Did Not Meet Missing

Peer Responses –

Connectedness

2 points

It is evident that the

student has carefully read

and analyzed the peer's

post, as their response

directly engages with and

builds upon the ideas

1.5 points

While there may be areas

where the connection

could be stronger or

more explicit, it is

apparent that the student

has considered the peer's

1 point

While the student may

briefly acknowledge the

peer's contribution, their

response lacks depth or

substantive interaction

with the content of the

0.5 points

It is unclear whether the

student has read or

understood the content

of the peer's post, as

their response may be

entirely unrelated or

0 points

2 required peer

responses are missing.

3/12/25, 5:25 PMRubric Assessment –

Total

Overall Score

Peer Responses –

Depth/Quality of

Response

presented. Overall, the

student's response

enhances the depth and

richness of the discussion

by actively connecting

with their peer's

contribution.

contribution to some

extent. The response

contributes meaningfully

to the ongoing discussion

by addressing relevant

points raised by the peer

and adding new insights

or perspectives.

peer's post. There may be

instances where the

response feels

disconnected or

tangential to the

preceding discussion,

indicating a lack of

meaningful engagement

with the peer's response.

dismissive of their

contribution.

2 points

The response

demonstrates exceptional

depth and quality,

showcasing substantive,

thoughtful, and

considerate engagement

with the peer's post.

1.5 points

While there may be areas

where the response

could be more thorough

or nuanced, it is evident

that the student has

made an effort to provide

meaningful insights or

reflections.

1 point

While the response may

offer some insights or

reflections, there are

areas where it could be

more thoughtful or

considerate in addressing

the peer's perspective.

0.5 points

The response may consist

of mere assertions or

superficial comments

that do not add value to

the discussion. Peer

response is not

substantive and consists

of something like: “Great

post! Thanks for sharing!

I agree!”

0 points

2 required peer

responses are missing.

A (100-90%) 9 points minimum

B (89-80%) 8 points minimum

C (79-70%) 7 points minimum

D (69-60%) 6 points minimum