Discussion: Certification and Licensure Plan

yemisij

RubricDetailWEEK1.html

Home >Nursing homework help >Discussion: Certification and Licensure Plan

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NRNP_6675_Week1_Discussion_Rubric

	Excellent 90%–100%	Good 80%–89%	Fair 70%–79%	Poor 0%–69%
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.	Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) - 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 No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth Supported by at least three current credible sources Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 the post has exceptional depth and breadth Supported by at least three credible references Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 supported by fewer than two credible references Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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 one or no credible references Feedback:
Main Posting: Writing	Points: Points Range: 6 (6%) - 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback:
Main Posting: Timely and full participation	Points: Points Range: 9 (9%) - 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts main Discussion by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Posts main Discussion by due date Meets requirements for full participation Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post main Discussion by due date Feedback:
First Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:
First Response: Writing	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Response 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
First Response: Timely and full participation	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback:
Second Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:
Second Response: Writing	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 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. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Second Response: Timely and full participation	Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Posts by due date Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

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.--

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 40 (40%) - 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 No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth Supported by at least three current credible sources Good 80%–89% 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 the post has exceptional depth and breadth Supported by at least three credible references Fair 70%–79% 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 supported by fewer than two credible references Poor 0%–69% 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 one or no credible references Feedback:

Main Posting: Writing--

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 6 (6%) - 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Good 80%–89% 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style with minor errors Fair 70%–79% 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Not written clearly or concisely Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback:

Main Posting: Timely and full participation--

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 9 (9%) - 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts main Discussion by due date Good 80%–89% 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Posts main Discussion by due date Meets requirements for full participation Fair 70%–79% 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post main Discussion by due date Feedback:

First Response: Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources--

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 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. Good 80%–89% 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Fair 70%–79% 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:

First Response:

Writing

-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 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. Good 80%–89% 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. Fair 70%–79% 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Response 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. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

First Response:

Timely and full participation

-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation Posts by due date Good 80%–89% 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation Posts by due date Fair 70%–79% 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Posts by due date Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 2 (2%) Does not meet requirements for full participation Does not post by due date Feedback:

Second Response:

Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources

-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 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. Good 80%–89% 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Fair 70%–79% 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:

Second Response:

Writing

-- Levels of Achievement: Excellent 90%–100% 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. Good 80%–89% 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. Fair 70%–79% 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. Poor 0%–69% 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Second Response:

Timely and full participation

Total Points: 100