Need answer to this question?
Order an original paper Now!
We’re giving you a 15% discount on your first Order.
Discount Code: SKILNEW15
Use the above discount code during checkout
Discussion Participation AY2022-2023
Course: CMIT 425 7380 Advanced Information Systems Security (2242)
| Timeliness of Initial Posting | On Time | Late | Very Late | No Submission | Criterion Score |
Timeliness of Response to Discussion Paper Assignment | 5 pointsPosted response to topic assignment before 11:59 PM ET on Sunday. | 4.6 pointsPosted response to topic assignment before 11:59 PM ET on Monday. | 4.3 pointsPosted response to topic assignment before 11:59 PM ET on Tuesday. | 0 pointsDid not post response to topic assignment before 11:59 PM ET onTuesday. | / 5 |
Excellent | Outstanding | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted |  Criterion Score |
| “Short Paper” (Response to Topic Assignment) | Excellent | Outstanding | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Introduction | 7.5 points | 7 points | 6.5 points | 6 points | 5 points | 0 points | / 7.5 |
| Provided an excellent introduction to the deliverable which clearly, concisely, and accurately addressed the topic of the short paper.Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources. | Provided an outstanding introduction to the deliverable which clearly and accurately addressed the topic of the short paper.Appropriatelyparaphrased information from authoritative sources. | Provided an acceptable introduction to the deliverable which addressed the topic of the short paper.Appropriately paraphrased information from authoritative sources. | Provided an introduction to the deliverable but the section lacked some required details.Information from authoritative sources was mentioned. | Attempted to provide an introduction to the deliverable but this section lacked detail and/or was not well supported by information drawn from authoritative sources (too many quotations or improper paraphrasing). | Introduction was missing or no work submitted. | ||
| “Short Paper” (Response to Topic Assignment) | Excellent | Outstanding | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Analysis | 17.5 points | 17 points | 16 points | 14 points | 10 points | 0 points | / 17.5 |
| Provided an excellent analysis of the issues for the required topic. Addressed at least three separate issues and provided appropriate examples for each.Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources. | Provided an outstanding analysis of the issues for the required topic. Addressed at least two separate issues and provided appropriate examples for each.Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources. | Provided an acceptable analysis of the issues for the required topic. Addressed at least one specific issue and provided an appropriate example.Appropriatelyused and cited information from authoritative sources. | Addressed the required topic but the analysis lacked details or was somewhat disorganized. Appropriately used and cited information from authoritative sources. | Mentioned the required topic but the analysis was very disorganized or off topic. OR, the analysis did not appropriately use information from authoritative sources (too many quotations or improper paraphrasing). | Analysis was missing or no work was submitted. | ||
| “Short Paper” (Response to Topic Assignment) | Excellent | Outstanding | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Summary | 10 points | 9.5 points | 9 points | 8 points | 7 points | 0 points | / 10 |
| Included an excellent summary section for the short paper which was on topic, well organized, and covered at least 3 key points. The summary contained at least one full paragraph. | Included an outstanding summary paragraph for the short paper which was on topic and covered at least 3 key points. | Included a summary paragraph for the short paper which was on topic and provided an appropriate closing. | Included a summary paragraph but, this section lacked content or was disorganized. | Included a few summary sentences for the short paper. | Did not include a summary for the short paper. | ||
| “Short Paper” (Response to Topic Assignment) | Excellent | Outstanding | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Use of Authoritativ e Sources | 5 pointsIncluded and properly cited three or more authoritative sources with complete publication or retrieval information. No formatting errors. | 4.6 pointsIncluded and properly cited three or more authoritative sources (minor errors allowable).Reference list entries contain sufficient information to enable the reader to find and retrieve the cited sources. | 4.3 pointsIncluded and cited two or more authoritative sources (minor errors in citations or reference entries).Reference listentries contain sufficient information to enable the reader to find and retrieve the cited sources. | 4 pointsIncluded and cited at least one authoritative source (minor errors in citations or reference entries).Reference listentries contain sufficient information to enable the reader to find and retrieve the cited sources. | 3 pointsMentioned at least one authoritative source but, the citations and/or reference list entries lacked required information (not sufficient to retrieve the correct resource). | 0 pointsReferences and citations were missing. Or, no work submitted. | / 5 |
| “Short Paper” (Response to Topic Assignment) Professionali sm | Excellent | Outstanding | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
| 5 pointsNo formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors.Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub- headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type. | 4.6 pointsWork contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance.Work needssome polishing to improve professional appearance. | 4.3 pointsErrors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which need attention / editing to improve professional appearance of the work. | 4 pointsSubmitted work has numerous errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation. Substantial polishing / editing is required. | 3 pointsSubmitted work is difficult to read and/or understand.OR, work has significant errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, punctuation, or word usage which detract from the overall professional appearance of the work. | 0 pointsNo submission. | / 5 |
| First Response | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
| First Response | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Analysis | 10 pointsThe response posting provided three or more suggestions for improvement in content which were based upon an analysis of the short paper (how well it met the content requirements).Provided exampleswhich could be incorporated into the short paper to improve or refine it. Authoritative sources were cited as appropriate. The posting addressed the peer author by name. | 9.5 pointsThe response posting provided at least three suggestions for improvement in content which were based upon an analysis of the short paper (how well it met the content requirements).Authoritativesources were cited as appropriate. The posting addressed the peer author by name. | 8 pointsThe posting did not provide a critique of the short paper. The posting may have included compliments or “good job” type comments. | 0 pointsThe analysis was missing (or not submitted before 11:59 PM ETTuesday night). OR the submitted critique was copied (not the student’s own original work). | / 10 |
| First Response | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Professionalism | 5 pointsThe response was written in an appropriate tone of voice for a peer-to- peer communication. No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. Authoritative sources were appropriately cited. Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type. | 4.6 pointsThe response was written in an appropriate tone of voice for a peer-to- peer communication.Authoritative sources were appropriately cited. Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance. Work needs some polishing to improve professional appearance. | 4.3 pointsThe tone of voice used in the response was not appropriate for a peer-to-peer communication in the workplace. OR, there were errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which need attention / editing to improve professional appearance of the work. | 0 pointsNo submission (or not submitted before 11:59 PM ET Tuesday night). Or, the critique was copied (not the student’s own original work). | / 5 |
| Second Response | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
| Second Response | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Analysis | 10 pointsThe response posting provided three or more suggestions for improvement in content which were based upon an analysis of the short paper (how well it met the content requirements).Provided exampleswhich could be incorporated into the short paper to improve or refine it. Authoritative sources were cited as appropriate. The posting addressed the peer author by name. | 9.5 pointsThe response posting provided at least three suggestions for improvement in content which were based upon an analysis of the short paper (how well it met the content requirements).Authoritativesources were cited as appropriate. The posting addressed the peer author by name. | 8 pointsThe posting did not provide a response of the short paper. The posting may have included compliments or “good job” type comments. | 0 pointsThe analysis was missing (or not submitted before 11:59 PM ETTuesday night). OR the submitted response was copied (not the student’s own original work). | / 10 |
| Second Response | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Significant Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Professionalism | 5 pointsThe response was written in an appropriate tone of voice for a peer-to- peer communication. No formatting, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors. Authoritative sources were appropriately cited. Submitted work shows outstanding organization and the use of color, fonts, titles, headings and sub-headings, etc. is appropriate to the assignment type. | 4.6 pointsThe response was written in an appropriate tone of voice for a peer-to- peer communication.Authoritative sources were appropriately cited. Work contains minor errors in formatting, grammar, spelling or punctuation which do not significantly impact professional appearance. Work needs some polishing to improve professional appearance. | 4.3 pointsThe tone of voice used in the critique was not appropriate for a peer-to-peer communication in the workplace. OR, there were errors in formatting, spelling, grammar, or punctuation which need attention / editing to improve professional appearance of the work. | 0 pointsNo submission (or not submitted before 11:59 PM ET Tuesday night). Or, the critique was copied (not the student’s own original work). | / 5 |
| Contributions to Discussion | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
| Contributions to Discussion | Excellent | Acceptable | Needs Improvement | Missing or No Work Submitted | Criterion Score |
Follow-up Reply or Comment #1 | 10 pointsPosted a follow-up reply or comment which demonstrated critical thinking and added value to the discussion. | 9.5 pointsPosted an acceptable follow- up reply or comment which added some value to the discussion. | 8 pointsPosted a follow-up reply or comment but added little value to the discussion. | 0 pointsPosting was missing (or not submitted before 11:59 PM ET Tuesday night). Or the posting did not add value to the discussion. | / 10 |
Follow-up Reply or Comment #2 | 10 pointsPosted a follow-up reply or comment which demonstrated critical thinking and added value to the discussion. | 9.5 pointsPosted an acceptable follow- up reply or comment which added some value to the discussion. | 8 pointsPosted a follow-up reply or comment but added little value to the discussion. | 0 pointsPosting was missing (or not submitted before 11:59 PM ET Tuesday night). Or the posting did not add value to the discussion. | / 10 |
Overall Score