NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric

Select  Grid View  or  List View  to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

· 

· 

  Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement
Main Posting: Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. 44 (44%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)  is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.  supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)  is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.  75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth  supported by at least 3 credible references

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the discussion question(s)  is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.  50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth  supported by at least 3 credible references

31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s)  one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed  is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis  somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.  post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references

0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s)  lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria  lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis  does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.  contains only 1 or no credible references

Main Posting: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely  Contains no grammatical or spelling errors  Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely  May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error  Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely  May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error  Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely  May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors  Contains some APA formatting errors

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Not written clearly or concisely  Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors  Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style

Main Posting: Timely and full participation 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation  posts main discussion by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

First Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings  responds to questions posed by faculty  the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

First Response:  Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed  Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources  Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues  Response to faculty questions are answered if posed  Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources  Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues  Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed  Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources  Response is written in Standard Edited English

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication  Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed  Few or no credible sources are cited

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective  Response to faculty questions are missing  No credible sources are cited

First Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation  posts by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Second Response: Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty  the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)

Response is on topic, may have some depth

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth

Second Response: Writing 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed  Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources  Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues  Response to faculty questions are answered if posed  Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources  Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues  Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed  Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources  Response is written in Standard Edited English

4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication  Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed  Few or no credible sources are cited

0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective  Response to faculty questions are missing  No credible sources are cited

Second Response: Timely and full participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation  Posts by due date

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

NA

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Total Points: 100

NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric. NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS_5050_Week_02_Discussion_Rubric

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Open chat
WhatsApp chat +1 908-954-5454
We are online
Our papers are plagiarism-free, and our service is private and confidential. Do you need any writing help?