Discussion: Strategies for Addressing Questions
In Week 1 you began building a foundation for your success by considering a network; individuals and teams that can help you to clarify and execute on the vision. A network is most helpful when you are comfortable asking questions. Chances are other members of your network have experienced similar questions and may have helped guide others toward resolutions that can be helpful now.
In this Discussion, focus on the questions you are ready to ask as your journey begins. Keep in mind that sharing questions is often a great way to help others who have similar questions—even if they do not realize it!
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
week2 nursing
Just from $13/Page
To Prepare:
- Reflect on questions or concerns you might have as you begin the MSN program.
- Consider the individuals, teams, and departments you previously considered in Week 1 and how they may provide support to address these questions and concerns. Then, identify potential individuals, teams, or departments within Walden or your network that you can turn to for assistance in answering these questions and/or concerns.
By Day 3
Post any questions or concerns that you are willing to share with the group. The Discussion Board represents an opportunity to network with your course colleagues, and others may have the same questions or concerns.
Support main post with 3 of more current, credible sources and cite source within content of posting and on a reference list in proper APA.
Main Posting45 (45%) – 50 (50%)Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.40 (40%) – 44 (44%)Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.35 (35%) – 39 (39%)Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or 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 two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.0 (0%) – 34 (34%)Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
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 sources.
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 Post: Timeliness10 (10%) – 10 (10%)Posts main post by day 3.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does not post by day 3.First Response17 (17%) – 18 (18%)Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.15 (15%) – 16 (16%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses 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.13 (13%) – 14 (14%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.0 (0%) – 12 (12%)Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.Second Response16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses 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.12 (12%) – 13 (13%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.0 (0%) – 11 (11%)Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.Participation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6002_Week_2_Discussion_Rubric
