due on tuesday

The Discussion Board (DB) is part of the core of online learning. Classroom discussion in an online environment requires the active participation of students and the instructor to create robust interaction and dialogue. Every student is expected to create an original response to the open-ended DB question as well as engage in dialogue by responding to posts created by others throughout the week. At the end of each unit, DB participation will be assessed based on both level of engagement and the quality of the contribution to the discussion.

At a minimum, each student will be expected to post an original and thoughtful response to the DB question and contribute to the weekly dialogue by responding to at least two other posts from students. Two additional responses are required after Friday of each week. Students are highly encouraged to engage on the Discussion Board early and often, as that is the primary way the university tracks class attendance and participation.

The purpose of the Discussion Board is to allow students to learn through sharing ideas and experiences as they relate to course content and the DB question. Because it is not possible to engage in two-way dialogue after a conversation has ended, no posts to the DB will be accepted after the end of each unit.

Assignment Guidelines 

For this Discussion Board assignment, you should use the library and course materials to complete the following: 

• Research quality assurance considerations for system integration choices (starting with your nonfunctional requirements).  
• Compile a list of 5–7 quality assurance categories, and discuss how they will be evaluated in the integration project.  
• Provide details about evaluation methods that could be utilized to ensure quality.  
• Select and discuss why 1 of these methods will best support quality assurance for your integration project. 

Post a new topic to the Discussion Board that contains your responses from the steps listed above. 

Respond to 2 other students’ posts on the Discussion Board, and evaluate their project decisions. 

In your own words, please post a response to the Discussion Board and comment on other postings. You will be graded on the quality of your postings.

For assistance with your assignment, please use your text, Web resources, and all course materials.

Grading Rubric 

  Project Criteria Exceeds: 90%–100% Very good: 80%–89% Meets: 70%–79% Needs Improvement: Below 70%   

Content
(40%)

Response covers all topics indicated in the assignment and adds additional content. The writing was of collegiate level with no errors in spelling or grammar. Response covers most topics indicated in the assignment. The writing was of collegiate level with one or less errors in spelling or grammar. Response covers many topics indicated in the assignment. The writing was of collegiate level with two or less errors in spelling or grammar. Response covers none to some of the topics indicated in the assignment. The writing was less than collegiate level with errors in spelling or grammar.   

Interaction
(40%)

Multiple learner interactions per week that add to the discussion. Responses show evidence of critical analysis with questions to other classmates. At least three learner interactions per week that add to the discussion. Responses show evidence of critical analysis. No less than two learner interactions per week that add to the discussion. Responses show evidence of critical analysis. Zero to one learner interaction per week in the discussion board. Response lacks evidence of critical analysis.   

Supporting Analysis
(20%)

Analysis exceeded minimum requirements. Appropriate sources were used to support analysis and were properly referenced. Basic analysis provided to support discussion. When appropriate to support discussion, appropriate sources were cited and properly referenced. Some limited analysis provided to support discussion. When appropriate to support discussion, sources were cited, appropriate, and properly referenced. No or inaccurate analysis, no sources were cited when needed, analysis and/or sources were not appropriate. When sources used, were not properly referenced.