[Domyclass Help]

Assistance for COMM 110 AMU week 5 forum Using and Synthesizing Information Information & Digital Literacy American Military University is available at Domyclass

 

Week 5 Forum: Using and Synthesizing Information

Information and digital literacy impacts the decision-making process in multiple ways from academic research to personal interest. More than ever before, information is at our fingertips and coming at us with lightning speed. How do we sift and use this information? Step 4 of the Big 6 model relates to our use of information and the process of engaging and extracting relevant information. Next, Step 5 of the Big 6 approach focuses on synthesis of information.

Your instructor will set-up four (4) conversation groups this week in which you will select one or more topics to discuss which are of high interest to you. At a minimum, participate in one group, although you are welcome to participate in all group threads. Once the conversation is flowing, participate substantially with your peers to teach one another.

To begin, choose a topic from one of the discussion threads. Select a topic reference source, from the open web, which you deem credible and reliable. Read the source, extract the information and consider how you will engage your group members in the topic and information from the source. Be sure to include source attribution.

How will you synthesize and present the content of the source to share? What do you want your group members to know, and what do they need to know? How will you share the information so that the content is clear and concise? This is an opportunity for you to practice use of information and synthesis as you share with one another your own knowledge combined with a supporting source.

Conversation Groups:

• Health and Wellness
• Buying a Car
• Hobbies
• Vacations

 

Forum Engagement

Please engage in meaningful conversation with your classmates and instructors. Post your initial response no later than 11:55 PM Thursday ET. Respond to your fellow classmates by 11:55 PM ET Sunday.

 

Week 5 Rubric	Exceeds (4)	Meets (3.4)	Needs Improvement (3)	Developing (2.6)	No Attempt (0)
ILO: Critical Thinking (Initial response demonstrated understanding)	Discussion response showed evidence of critical thinking by fully answering all parts of the prompt using both personal experienceAND information from the lesson to highlight points in initial response.	Discussion response showed evidence of critical thinking by fully answering all parts of the prompt using both personal experience OR information from the lesson to highlight points in initial response.	Initial response answered most of discussion prompt ANDdid not provide evidence to support ideas.	Initial response answered half of discussion promptAND did not provide evidence to support ideas	Did not post.
ILO-IS.A.5: Quality of Academic Communication (Academic vs. Casual Language)	Forum communication reflected widely accepted academic writing norms, was easy to understand, and error free.	Forum communication reflected widely accepted academic writing norms, was easy to understand, and contained some minor writing errors.	The majority of forum communication reflected widely- accepted academic writing norms, was difficult to understand at times, and contained multiple writing errors.	The majority of forum communication did not follow widely- accepted academic writing norms, was difficult to understand, and contained numerous writing errors.	Did not post.
Communication Fluency (Quality of dialogue with peers)	Student responded to peers and demonstrated critical thinking by advancing the forum discussion. At least two of the following critical thinking components were used: •Offered advice or strategy; •Posed a question; •Provided an alternative point- of-view; •Acknowledged similar experience; •Shared a resource.	Student responded peers and demonstrated critical thinking by advancing the forum discussion. One of the following critical thinking components was used: •Offered advice or strategy; •Posed a question; •Provided an alternative point- of-view; •Acknowledged similar experience; •Shared a resource.	Student responded to peers, was on-topic, but did not contribute in a meaningful way.	Student responded to peers but response was off-topic.	Did not respond to peers.

[Author]

Posts