Description
Review the rubric to make sure you understand the criteria for earning your grade.
Read:
Chapter 3 of Kuhn (1970): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Chapter 4 of Arbnor and Bjerke (2009): Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge
Watch a few minutes of the classic debate Is God Great?(new tab)
Select an example argument you are interested in.
Feel free to watch the entire debate if you are interested, but your goal is simply to find a good example of the analytical reasoning process being used by the debaters.
Note it is not necessary for you to agree with either perspective in the debate! You are only looking for examples of analytical thinking.
By Day 5 of the workshop, prepare and submit an initial discussion posting summarizing your analysis of one of the debate’s arguments:
Briefly describe the example argument you have selected. What point was the debater trying to make?
Explain the debater’s analytical reasoning. Identify whether the debater was using deduction, induction, verification, or abduction.
What weaknesses or flaws do you see in the debater’s argument? How could their position be strengthened or improved?
Your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Appropriately cite the video and any other sources you use and include a reference list.
By the end of the workshop, review your classmates’ postings. Respond to at least two of your classmates by:
Evaluating their analysis of the example argument they have chosen.
Suggesting any additional flaws or weaknesses you see in the argument made by the debater. Make recommendations for how the argument could be improved.
Note it is not important whether you agree or disagree with the debater’s argument. You are scrutinizing your classmate’s analysis and contributing to their evaluation of the debater’s thought process, not taking a position on the underlying issues!
Each of your responses should be at least 150 words in length. Appropriately support your points by citing any sources you use.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Discussion (30 points)
Course: 3WI2024 Found of Doctoral Research (BADM-702-01B)
Criteria
Initial Post
Excellent
Competent
Needs
Improvement
Inadequate/Faili
ng
Criterion Score
15 points
14 points
12 points
8 points
/ 15
Demonstrates (13-14 points)
clear, insightful
critical thinking Demonstrates
in initial post.
competent
critical thinking
Thoroughly
and provides a
addresses the
basic
prompt(s),
explanation in
clearly
initial post.
demonstrating
understanding Adequately
of relevant
addresseses
course
the prompt(s),
concepts using demonstrating
course
basic
materials and
understanding
(9-12 points)
(0-8 points)
Demonstrates
limited critical
thinking and
explanation in
initial post.
Demonstrates
little to no
critical thinking
or explanation
in initial post.
Partially
addresses the
prompt(s) or
addresses only
some of the
prompts,
demonstrating
a limited
Minimally
addresses or
did not address
the prompt(s),
failing to
adequately
demonstrate
an
additional
resources (with
citations and
references).
understanding
of relevant
course
concepts using
course
materials and
additional
resources (with
citations and
references).
understanding
of relevant
course
concepts or
provide
evidence of
critical
thinking.
of relevant
course
concepts using
course
materials and
additional
resources (with
citations and
references).
Criteria
Engagement
with
Instructor
and
Classmates
Excellent
Competent
Needs
Improvement
Inadequate/Faili
ng
Criterion Score
10 points
9 points
8 points
7 points
/ 10
Demonstrates
clear, insightful
critical analysis
of your
classmates’
postings.
Demonstrates
competent
critical analysis
of your
classmates’
postings.
Demonstrates
limited critical
analysis of your
classmates’
postings.
(0-7 points)
Interaction is
Responses
Responses
incomplete
represent high represent
(only one
quality
quality
quality
interaction
interaction
response) or
with at least
with at least
both responses
two classmates two classmates are lacking in
by directly
by directly
quality.
commenting
on their ideas
commenting
on their ideas,
and making
connections to
relevant
content.
expanding the
discussion
productively,
and making
connections to
relevant
Responses
advance the
discussion by
introducing
new ideas,
asking
clarifying
questions, and
synthesizing
concepts.
content.
Demonstrates
little to no
critical analysis
of your
classmates’
postings.
Interaction is
incomplete and
is lacking in
quality.
Criteria
Grammar,
Spelling,
Length, and
Citation
Excellent
Competent
Needs
Improvement
Inadequate/Faili
ng
Criterion Score
5 points
4 points
3 points
2 points
/5
Sentence
structure is
complete with
correct
spelling,
punctuation,
Sentence
structure has
minor errors
(fragments,
run-ons) with
correct
Sentence
structure has
several errors
in sentence
fluency with
multiple
(0-2 points)
capitalization,
varied diction,
spelling,
punctuation,
fragments/run- errors in
ons; poor
sentence
and word
choices.
capitalization,
and limited
diction and
word choices.
spelling,
punctuation,
and/or word
choice.
Assignment
Assignment
sources
correctly
length is
correct with
length is
inappropriate
cited.
correct sources with several
correctly
format and
cited.
citation errors.
Assignment
length is
correct with
Sentence
structure has
serious and
persistent
fluency,
sentence
structure,
spelling,
punctuation,
and/or word
choice.
Assignment
length is
inappropriate
with several
format and
citation errors
or sources not
cited.
Total
/ 30
Overall Score
Excellent
Competent
Needs Improvement
Inadequate/Failing
28 points minimum
25 points minimum
22 points minimum
0 points minimum
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
