NURS_6640_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_6640_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
| 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. NURS 6640_Week5 Discussion Rubric
|
| 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
|
NURS_6640_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
