Discussion: Foundational Neuroscience

profileyemisij
NURS6630Week2DiscussionRubricDetails.html

Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

  Excellent Point range: 90–100 Good Point range: 80–89 Fair Point range: 70–79 Poor Point range: 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 cited with 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. 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 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. 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, 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. 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, 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 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 cited with fewer than two credible references. Poor Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 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. Fair Point range: 70–79 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Poor Point range: 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 Point range: 90–100 9 (9%) - 10 (10%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. Good Point range: 80–89 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Posts main Discussion by due date. Meets requirements for full participation. Fair Point range: 70–79 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Posts main Discussion by due date. Poor Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 80–89 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Fair Point range: 70–79 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Poor Point range: 0–69 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:

First Response: Writing--

Levels of Achievement: Excellent Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 0–69 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

First Response: Timely and full participation--

Levels of Achievement: Excellent Point range: 90–100 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. Good Point range: 80–89 4 (4%) - 4 (4%) Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. Fair Point range: 70–79 3 (3%) - 3 (3%) Posts by due date. Poor Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 80–89 8 (8%) - 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Fair Point range: 70–79 7 (7%) - 7 (7%) Response is on topic, may have some depth. Poor Point range: 0–69 0 (0%) - 6 (6%) Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Feedback:

Second Response: Writing--

Levels of Achievement: Excellent Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 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 Point range: 0–69 0 (0%) - 3 (3%) Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Feedback:

Second Response: Timely and full participation--

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

Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric