Instructions
- Read the article “Tried and True” and answer the following questions:
- In your own words explain the differences between the “rules-based approach”, the “people-based approach” and the “situation-based approach” used in this scenario.
- Do you feel that one approach leads to a better outcome? Why or why not?
- Submit your answer to the discussion forum by 11:59 pm on Sunday. Your response will be marked based on the discussion rubric.
- Read the article “Body Language Basics” and answer the following questions:
- Explain how you can use a better understanding of body language in your role as an adjuster. Do you feel this can help? Consider ways that it may hinder your relationship with your claimant.
- Submit your answer to the discussion forum by 11:59 pm on Sunday. Your response will be marked based on the discussion rubric.
Please note that the average mark of both postings will be the mark allocated for the Online Discussion # 4 for this week. They are not marked as two separate assignments.
How to Submit your Assignment
Post your response to Discussion / Assignment 4 by 11:59 pm on Sunday of this week.
Grading Criteria
Access the Rubric for Online Discussions.docx
Assignment Resources and Links
- Direct links to articles above
- http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/features/tried-and-true/
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201108/body-language-basics
Documents/Rubric for Online Discussions.docx
Rubric for Online Discussions / Assignments # ___ Name ___________________________________________ Score: _____________
|
Outstanding |
Good |
Fair |
Acceptable |
Not Completed |
|
|
Thinking / Reflection |
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are logical and supported with evidence. Highly informative and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used. |
Arguments are pertinent to the topic. Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported. Arguments are informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used. |
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical or supported. Somewhat informative and understandable. |
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at all, logical and supported. Not very informative and understandable. |
No evidence. |
|
Structure |
There is a logical flow to the topics / arguments. Conclusion flows clearly from the arguments presented. |
Discussion is fairly well organized. Conclusion flows from the rest of the discussion. |
Discussion weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable. |
Discussion is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t flow from the rest of the discussion. |
No evidence. |
|
Interest Factor |
Language and style are appropriate for intended audience. Main points are memorable. Reader is very engaged. Discussion presents well developed analysis and synthesis. Clearly demonstrates critical thinking. |
Language and style of discussion appropriate. Reader is engaged. Discussion presents reasonable analysis and synthesis. Demonstrates critical thinking. |
Language and style only fair. Reader is only somewhat engaged. Less-developed analysis and synthesis. Critical thinking is abstract and hard to follow. |
Language and style are poor. Reader finds it hard to follow. Analysis and synthesis lacking. There is little evidence of critical thinking. |
No evidence. |
|
Conclusion |
The conclusion is engaging and reflects personal learning. |
The conclusion restates the learning. |
The conclusion does not adequately restate the learning. |
Incomplete and/or unfocused. |
Not applicable. |
|
|
No errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. No errors in sentence structure and word usage. |
Almost no errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Almost no errors in sentence structure and word usage. |
Many errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Many errors in sentence structure and word usage. |
Numerous and distracting errors in punctuation, capitalization and spelling. Numerous and distracting errors in sentence structure and word usage. |
Not applicable. |