Discussion: Ethical And Legal Foundations Of PMHNP Care Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: NRNP_6665_We

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Rubric Detail

 

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

Name: NRNP_6665_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

·

Grid View

·
List View

 

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

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.

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

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

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

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

Main Posting:

Writing

6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

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

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

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

Main Posting:

Timely and full participation

9 (9%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts main Discussion by due date

8 (8%) – 8 (8%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

Meets requirements for full participation

7 (7%) – 7 (7%)

Posts main Discussion by due date

0 (0%) – 6 (6%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post main Discussion by due date

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 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

7 (7%) – 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%)

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 (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.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

First Response:
Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

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 (8%) – 8 (8%)

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

7 (7%) – 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%)

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 (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.

0 (0%) – 3 (3%)

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response:
Timely and full participation

5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation

Posts by due date

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Meets requirements for full participation

Posts by due date

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Posts by due date

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Does not meet requirements for full participation

Does not post by due date

Total Points: 100

Name: NRNP_6665_Week2_Discussion_Rubric


Exit

Exit

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality