With the objectives for the SDM Process in place, the next phase of the process requires another collaborative brainstorm to consider actions, alternatives, and their potential consequences. These should address the previously identified objectives and move the SDM process forward.
View rubric
Generate 3 potential actions that would help the interested parties meet or make progress on the objectives identified in your Week 4 Assignment. Each objective should have at least one action associated with it, though some may require more than one. For each action, you must also map out potential consequences that would result from taking action. Be sure to reference aspects of the scenario and relevant data that inform your proposed actions.
Mark as done.
Responses
Due Date: 3 AM ET, Monday
Select three posts and evaluate the proposed actions. Do the actions proposed seem likely to achieve the objective(s) it is associated with? Is there information that supports the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the action? Would the action be strongly opposed by some groups? What alternative(s) would you propose? Can the proposed action be combined with other proposed actions in a ‘hybrid’ suite that might be worth considering?
Rubric
Title:
Week 5 Discussion 1: Alternatives & Consequences
Week 5 Discussion 1: Alternatives & Consequences
Criteria Ratings Pts
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Initial Post
Proposes three potential actions to address the objectives and hypothesizes potential consequences/impacts of the proposed action. Uses proper grammar, appropriate terminology, and correct spelling. Integrates outside sources relevant to the discussion and cites using a standardized citation style (eg, APA, CSE, Chicago, etc.).
Range
threshold: pts
This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
pts
4 pts
—
Edit criterion descriptionDelete criterion row
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResponses
Evaluates three peers’ proposed actions on the grounds of viability, effectiveness, and interested party support. Proposes alternatives and/or hybrid actions. Uses proper grammar, appropriate terminology, and correct spelling. Integrates outside sources relevant to the discussion and cites using a standardized citation style (eg, APA, CSE, Chicago, etc.).
Range
threshold: pts
This area will be used by the assessor to leave comments related to this criterion.
