Module 6 Discussion (USLO’s 1, 2, 3)

Module 6 Discussion (USLO’s 1, 2, 3)
Directions:
Please provide a minimum of two current professional resources to support your discussion beyond the assigned readings or journals.
Discussion Rubric
ActionsPlease follow all directions:
Search for a quality initiative article or evidence-based practice article
Discuss the following questions:
What is practice gap or problem identified in the literature?
What was the solution that overcame that barrier?
Think about the positivist versus constructivist paradigm. From which perspective (positivist or constructivist paradigm) do you view the world? Explain why. Think about the research article that you presenting, How would your perspective (positivist or constructivist paradigm) influence how you might feel about the solution, if it were implemented in your practice setting?
In the research article were ethical safeguards identified, if not, what might you look for, Were there vulnerable groups or other considerations?
As the article is reviewed, what form of data or metrics are identified as important, were they qualitative or quantitative, please describe and discuss why they important?
Citation and APA required with each posting.
This is scholarly discussion; 3rd person voice is required.
Supporting literature needs to be in APA format for citations and references.
Rubric
Levels of Achievement Discussion MSN 600 (1)
Levels of Achievement Discussion MSN 600 (1)
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInitial and Peer response: Timeliness
10 ptsEffective
Initial Post completed, on due date and time, peer responses completed on 2 separate days and completed by discussion due date.
8 ptsAcceptable
Initial post completed on time, peer responses are completed on one day, completed by discussion due date.
4 ptsDeveloping
Initial post not completed on time, but peer responses completed by discussion due date.
0 ptsUnacceptable
No initial post or peer response submitted.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCompleteness of Discussion PromptRequired elements
• Answered all question prompts.
• Identified, interpreted, or inferred to the
discussion topic being addressed.
• Explored and/or explained the topic and how it
applied to the discussion forum.
• Analyzed the topic being discussed and applied it
to a fact and/or advocated a position or
recommendation.
30 ptsExceptional
Submitted a complete initial post. All criteria met.
25 ptsEffective
Submitted an incomplete post, missing 1 of the required elements.
20 ptsAcceptable
Submitted an incomplete post, missing 2 of the required elements.
15 ptsDeveloping
Submitted an incomplete post, missing 3 of the required elements.
0 ptsUnacceptable
No initial post submitted, or post was severely off target in addressing the discussion question/topic
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Information/Resources
10 ptsExceptional
Student’s writing is supported with a minimum of two scholarly sources (one can be required reading) dated within the last 5 years (unless considered seminal work) in the initial answer post. Examples of scholarly sources are journal articles, assigned readings, textbooks, lectures, course materials, or authoritative websites.
7.5 ptsEffective
Student’s writing is supported with a minimum of two scholarly sources in the initial answer post but one or more is dated older than 5 years and not considered seminal work or both are required readings.
5 ptsAcceptable
Student’s writing is supported with only one scholarly source other than required reading or with non-scholarly sources dated within the last 5 years in the initial answer post.
2.5 ptsDeveloping
Student’s writing is supported with only one required reading or with non-scholarly sources that are dated older than 5 years and not considered seminal work or is a required reading.
0 ptsUnacceptable
Discussion post not submitted, or student’s writing is not supported with any sources in the initial answer post.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePeer Responses: Discussion Board Engagement
20 ptsExceptional
Posted a minimum of two substantial responses to peers that drive the discussion forward. Substantial responses successfully show evidence of accurately interpreting topical knowledge, identifying relevant arguments, evaluating alternative points of view, justifying key results, explaining assumptions, and/or drawing upon reasonable and thoughtful conclusions.
15 ptsEffective
Posted a minimum of two peer responses but only two peer responses met the criteria for a substantial post.
10 ptsAcceptable
Posted a minimum of two peer responses but only one peer response met the criteria for a substantial post.
5 ptsDeveloping
Posted only one peer response that did not meet the criteria for a substantial post.
0 ptsUnacceptable
No peer responses submitted, or responses were limited to yes/no or I agree/I disagree.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePeer Responses: Application of Information Resources
10 ptsExceptional
A minimum of two peer response posts is supported with at least one separate scholarly source each (not including required reading), dated within the last 5 years unless considered seminal work. Examples of scholarly sources are journal articles, assigned readings, textbooks, lectures, course materials, or authoritative websites.
7.5 ptsEffective
A minimum of two peer response posts are supported with at least one scholarly source each, but one or more is a repeated source, a required reading, or dated older than 5 years and not considered seminal work.
5 ptsAcceptable
Only one peer response post and is supported with at least one separate scholarly source (not including required reading) dated within the last 5 years.
2.5 ptsDeveloping
Only one peer response post and is supported with a non-scholarly source, a required reading, a repeated source, or a source dated older than 5 years and not considered seminal work.
0 ptsUnacceptable
No peer responses submitted, or responses were limited to yes/no or I agree/I disagree.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInitial Post and Peer Responses: Written Communication
10 ptsExceptional
Posts contain proper spelling and grammar and include 0-1 error. Student organized the content, the flow was logical and clear, and the student’s writing included the use of professional language.
5 ptsEffective
Posts contain 2-3 grammar/ spelling errors.
2.5 ptsAcceptable
Posts contain 4-5 grammar/ spelling errors.
1 ptsDeveloping
Posts contain greater than 5 grammar/ spelling errors.
0 ptsUnacceptable
No discussion posts submitted.