Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6630_Week2_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
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
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more