WEEK 4 | 5% Discussion Board Week 4 Discussion Board • Research the case of Panavision v. Dennis Toeppen (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1998) and discuss it - as well as your opinion of the case - in your initial post. • Provide an initial post and a response post for this week's discussion board. Discussion Board Goal By completing the discussion board, you will gain a better understanding of entertainment law cases. Discussion Board Specifications Research the case provided and discuss. The discussion of this case should include, but should not be limited to: the cause of action, facts, outcome, and your opinion. • Case Name: Panavision v. Dennis Toeppen (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1998) Deliverable Due • Enter an initial post by Wednesday (midnight, EST) answering the discussion question. • Enter a response post by Sunday (midnight, EST) to at least one of your classmates’ posts. • Your initial post must be a minimum of three paragraphs and cite at least one source (outside of course materials) that supplements this topic. • Your response post must be a minimum of one paragraph. It is not necessary to cite an outside source if one is not used. If one is used, please cite it appropriately. • Follow the guidelines as outlined in the Discussion Board Rubric. Grading Criteria Individual Input and Initiative Group Participation and Interaction Critical Thinking and Analysis Sources and Resources Presentation and Style Grading Criteria - See attached rubric. Grade Weight: 5% WEEK 4 | 5% Discussion Board Discussion Board Rubric Criteria Superior 20-18 points Above Average 17-16 points Average 15-14 points Below Average/Failing Below 13 points Individual Input and Initiative [20%] • Contributions enhanced instructor’s vision for assignment • Inspired rich responses from colleagues • Surpassed typical expectations • Accurately reflected instructor’s intentions • Response affirmed discussion’s focus and direction • Response appropriate to subject • Generally competent, though little sense of engagement • Response revealed little understanding of subject • Lack of compliance with discussion goals • No energy or enthusiasm conveyed Group Participation and Interaction [20%] • Participation fostered “team spirit” • Brought “life” to group • Radiated respect for colleagues • Encouraged and supported colleagues • Diplomatic in disagreement • Participation consistent and rewarding • Comments not integral to discussion (e.g. “I agree with...“) • Courteous, though little rapport with colleagues • Off-topic postings • Irrelevant or outof- context responses to colleagues • Lack of courtesy and etiquette Critical Thinking and Analysis [20%] • Insightful • Fresh, stimulating perspectives • Richly detailed • Comprehensive • Persuasive • Perceptive • Effectively detailed • Logical • Coherent • Good continuity • Competent • Perspectives well- stated, but commonplace • Adequately detailed • Responses did not reveal even minimal grasp of concepts • Little analysis or demonstration of understanding Sources and Resources [20%] • Readings fully integrated into response, and cited correctly • Outside sources well-chosen, with serious effort, and fully cited • Stimulating anecdotes with appropriate detail • Readings wellintegrated into response, and cited correctly • Outside sources only somewhat relevant, though cited correctly • Relevant anecdotes with appropriate detail • Readings acknowledged in response, and cited correctly • Outside sources not utilized correctly, or were inappropriate • Marginal anecdotes with adequate detail • Readings not integrated whatsoever into responses • No outside sources • No relevant anecdotes Grammar [20%] • No significant errors (spelling, grammar, usage, punctuation, capitalization, structure, organization & style) • Presentation enhanced content • Few or minor errors • Presentation adequately conveyed content • Frequent or major errors • Presentation diminished content • Errors abounded to point of distraction • Presentation defeated content Point Deductions: Failure to appropriately cite outside resource – 5 points per incorrect citation Non-repetitive typographical errors – 1 point per error WEEK 4 | 5% Discussion Board DISCUSSION BOARD EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Individual Input and Initiative This category examines what you, the student, “brought to the table” in the discussion with your colleagues and in response to your instructor’s intentions for the assignment: • Did you enter “on target” by firmly addressing questions initially posed by your instructor on the discussion board? • Did your points build upon this material, perhaps stimulate related questions for the group, and thus enhance the overall dynamic of the discussion itself? Applicable Adjectives, Concepts, and Terms: • accuracy, comprehension, development, direction, energy, engagement, enthusiasm, focus, interpretation, pertinence, relevance, understanding 2. Group Participation and Interaction This category evaluates your interaction with colleagues in the discussion: • Did your responses complement those of your colleagues, by building upon their previously-posted comments in a relevant and subject-enhancing manner? • Did your responses reveal accurate comprehension and adequate consideration of your colleagues’ perspectives? • In general, were your contributions effective and productive toward furthering group discussion? • Did your responses and overall tone embody courtesy and supportiveness, particularly in areas of intellectual disagreement with colleagues? Applicable Adjectives, Concepts, and Terms: • contribution, diplomacy, encouragement, etiquette, respect, support, tact, team-building 3. Critical-Thinking and Analysis Courtesy, enthusiasm, comprehension of subject and instructions are each important—but unless accompanied by meaningful content, all are inconsequential. Think of this as the peak of your posts — the summit to which all other criteria are directed. • Were your discussion points well-reasoned and well-supported? • Did your input reward colleagues with interesting insights, revealing full understanding and a comprehensive analysis of the subject? • Did your responses integrate and synthesize opinions and perspectives previously posted by colleagues on the discussion board? WEEK 4 | 5% Discussion Board • Was there consistency and continuity in what you offered the group? Did the responses convey an adequate sense of “flow” and have smooth transitions? • Could your input be counted on to be informative, stimulating, and perhaps even persuasive? Applicable Adjectives, Concepts, and Terms • challenging, coherence, comprehensiveness, consistency, defense, development, insightful, interesting, interpretation, logical, organization, perceptive, persuasive, provocative, reflection, stimulating, unity, validity, well-argued, well-reasoned, well-supported 4. Sources and Resources Primarily, this assesses the following: • Did you properly integrate, quote, and cite course content within your discussion board responses? Looking beyond the assigned readings, however, demonstrates an appreciation for other sources that you may have chosen to apply. • Were outside sources integrated well into responses, and then cited appropriately? Also respected and acknowledged are stories and anecdotes from your own career or life experiences, or from those of admired peers. • Were the anecdotes offered with proper focus and relevant detail toward the discussion subject? • Did the anecdotes enhance or constructively expand the subject under discussion? Applicable Adjectives, Concepts, and Terms: • analogies, anecdotes, documentation, examples, relevance, quotations, selectivity, support 5. Presentation and Style In short, this is the “mechanics” of discussion participation: • Were proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and capitalization all adhered to? • Did your discussion board entries display a consistent command of sentence structure, paragraph organization, and effective vocabulary? • Did your presentation of ideas and examination of topics possess unity and focus? • Was there an overall sense of clarity and coherence to your discussion board postings? Were transitions smooth? Were details varied? Did digressions or over-elaborations mar the work at times? • Overall, did style properly convey, or even enhance, the essence of your content?