2.1 Discussion
mfpineda88
MSN_Discussion_Guidelines_and_Rubric.html.zipMSN_Discussion_Guidelines_and_Rubric.html
Overview
In your professional experience, you often have conversations with peers that require factual backing or times when you want to research specific information. Because of this, it is useful to practice effectively communicating on industry-relevant topics and sharing your sources.
Discussions provide you an opportunity for scholarly inquiry, reflective practice, and learning through others’ perspectives. They are also an opportunity for social connection with meaningful interactions. You will be able to build a community of practice that follows appropriate etiquette with all posts while increasing your knowledge and clinical reasoning. Discussion posts should be substantive in nature, demonstrating depth and critical thinking.
Directions
For each discussion, you must create one initial post and follow up with at least two response posts.
For your initial post, do the following:
- Write a post of 1 to 2 paragraphs.
- In Module One, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
- In Modules Two through Ten, complete your initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
- Your post must include at least one citation from a credible, current source (within the last five years). Use proper citation methods for your discipline when referencing scholarly or popular sources.
For your response posts, do the following:
- Reply to at least two classmates outside of your own initial post thread.
- In Module One, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
- In Modules Two through Ten, complete your two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
- Demonstrate more depth and thought than saying things like “I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in the discussion prompt.
- You must include at least one citation per response post from a credible, current source (within the last five years). Use proper citation methods for your discipline when referencing scholarly or popular sources.
| Criteria | Exemplary | Proficient | Needs Improvement | Not Evident | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial Post: Comprehension |
Develops an initial post with an organized, clear point of view, using rich and significant detail that generates further questions, discussion, and reflection (100%) |
Develops an initial post with a point of view that generates further questions, discussion, and reflection (90%) |
Develops an initial post with a point of view but with some gaps in detail or that does not fully generate further questions, discussion, or reflection (70%) |
Does not develop an initial post with a point of view (0%) |
30 |
| Initial Post: Sources |
N/A |
Incorporates at least one credible, current source (within the last five years) that supports claims (100%) |
Incorporates at least one source, but sources may not be current or fully support claims (70%) |
Does not include credible sources (0%) |
10 |
| Initial Post: Timeliness |
N/A |
Submits initial post on time (100%) |
Submits initial post one day late (70%) |
Submits initial post two or more days late (0%) |
10 |
| Response Post One: Engagement |
Develops relevant and meaningful response post with clarifying explanation and detail, including at least one credible, current source (within the last five years) (100%) |
Develops relevant response post with some explanation and detail, including at least one credible, current source (within the last five years) (90%) |
Develops a response post that has gaps in relevancy and detail or does not include at least one credible, current source (within the last five years) (70%) |
Develops response post that is generic, with little explanation or detail, and lacks sources (0%) |
10 |
| Response Post Two: Engagement |
Develops relevant and meaningful response post with clarifying explanation and detail, including at least one credible, current source (within the last five years) (100%) |
Develops relevant response post with some explanation and detail, including at least one credible, current source (within the last five years) (90%) |
Develops a response post that has gaps in relevancy and detail or does not include at least one credible, current source (within the last five years) (70%) |
Develops response post that is generic, with little explanation or detail, and lacks sources (0%) |
10 |
| Response Posts: Timeliness |
N/A |
Submits two response posts on time (100%) |
Submits one response post late or submits only one response post (70%) |
Submits two response posts late or does not submit response posts (0%) |
10 |
| All Posts: Articulation of Response |
Initial post and responses are easily understood, clear, and concise, using proper citation methods with no errors in writing mechanics or APA style (100%) |
Initial post and responses are easily understood and use proper citation methods with few errors in writing mechanics or APA style (90%) |
Initial post and responses are understandable and use proper citation methods with a number of errors in writing mechanics or APA style (70%) |
Initial post and responses cannot be understood, do not include citations, do not use APA style, or include many errors in writing mechanics (0%) |
20 |
| Total: | 100% |
Rubric
