Please become familiar with these criteria that I will use to evaluate your participation in the discussion forums.

This rubric supports metaliterate and AI-aware learning by making clear how students are expected to engage critically with sources, communicate ideas, collaborate with peers, and document their work responsibly in digital environments shaped by generative technologies. The criteria emphasize not only content knowledge but also ethical participation, scholarly dialogue, and transparent citation, all of which are central to navigating AI-mediated information spaces. While designed for discussions about AI and digital ethics, the rubric adapts easily to any discipline that uses online dialogue and research, from science and health courses evaluating AI-generated data, to education courses reflecting on learning technologies, to business or media studies analyzing algorithmic influence on communication.

Evaluation Criteria for Digital Storytelling Discussions
Category | Outstanding | Very Good | Good | Fair | No Credit
--- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
Content | Student’s posts demonstrate clear understanding of the readings and course materials, use excellent examples, and include all required elements. (17 points) | Student’s posts demonstrate very good understanding of the readings and course materials, use good examples, and include all required elements. (15 points) | Student’s posts demonstrate good understanding of the readings and course materials, use adequate examples, and include many of the required elements. (12.5 points) | Student’s posts are fair and demonstrate little understanding of the readings and course materials, use poor examples, and do not include all required elements. (11 points) | Student’s posts do not refer to the readings or course materials, use any examples, include required elements, or the assignment was not submitted. (0 points)
Quality | The quality of the posts are excellent, always add value, encourage further scholarly discussion, and support academic growth of the other students. (17 points) | The quality of the posts are very good, mostly add value, encourage further scholarly discussion, and support academic growth of the other students. (14 points) | The quality of the posts are good, usually add value, encourage some scholarly discussion, and generally support academic growth of the other students. (12.5 points) | The quality of the posts are fair, may add some value, but do not encourage scholarly discussion, or support academic growth of the other students. (11 points) | The quality of the posts are not effective, do not add value, encourage scholarly discussion, or support academic growth of the other students. (0 points)
Assignment Submission | Student posted an excellent discussion post of suitable length and replied to 2 or more other students with extremely well written posts by due date. (17 points) | Student posted a very good discussion post of suitable length and replied to 2 other students with well written posts by due date. (14 points) | Student posted good discussion post of sufficient length, and replied to 2 other students with generally well written posts by due date. (12.5 points) | Student posted a fair discussion post of insufficient length and replied to only 1 or 2 other students by due date. (11 points) | Student did not post a discussion post or reply to 2 other students as required with posts by due date. (0 points)
Collegiality | Student’s posts are written using an academic voice and replies to classmates are exceptionally thoughtful, insightful, and respectful. (17 points) | Student’s posts are mostly written using an academic voice and replies to classmates are very thoughtful, insightful, and respectful. (14 points) | Student’s posts are generally well written using an academic voice and replies to classmates are mostly thoughtful, insightful, and respectful. (12.5 points) | Student’s posts are not written in an academic voice and replies to classmates could be improved upon to be more thoughtful, insightful, and/or respectful. (11 points) | Student’s posts are not written in an academic voice, replies to classmates are incomplete or assignment was not submitted. (0 points)
Grammar and Spelling | Student’s posts are always grammatically correct with no misspellings, or technical errors. (16 points) | Student’s posts are mostly grammatically correct with few misspellings or technical errors. (14 points) | Student’s posts are usually grammatically correct and may have some minor misspellings or technical errors. (12.5 points) | Student’s posts are sometimes grammatically correct with many misspellings or technical errors. (11 points) | Student’s posts are grammatically incorrect with frequent misspellings, and technical errors. (0 points)
Citing References and Providing Links | Student always cites references correctly in proper citation style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) and provides excellent working links. (16 points) | Student mostly cites references correctly in proper citation style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) and provides good working links. (14 points) | Student usually cites references correctly in proper citation style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) and provides adequate working links. (12.5 points) | Student sometimes cites references correctly in proper citation style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) and provides poor working links. (10 points) | Student does not cite references correctly in proper citation style (APA, MLA, or Chicago) or provide working links. (0 points)

Online Discussion Rubric by Katherine Graf is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.