DQ3

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.

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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

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 post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 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 cited with fewer than 2 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 1 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 Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 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

Feedback:

Main Posting: Timely and full participation

Points:

Points Range: 10 (10%) - 10 (10%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

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: 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) - 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%) - 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

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: 4.5 (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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response 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 and full participation posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

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: 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)

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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) - 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%) - 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

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: 4.5 (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

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective Response 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 and full participation Posts by due date

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

NA

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirement for full participation

Feedback:

Total Points: 100