Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

NURS 6003 Discussion: Using the Walden Library

Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

Where can you find evidence to inform your thoughts and scholarly writing? Throughout your degree program, you will use research literature to explore ideas, guide your thinking, and gain new insights. As you search the research literature, it is important to use resources that are peer-reviewed and from scholarly journals. You may already have some favorite online resources and databases that you use or have found useful in the past. For this Discussion, you explore databases available through the Walden Library.

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT on Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

To Prepare:

  • Review the information presented in the Learning Resources for using the Walden Library, searching the databases, and evaluating online resources.
  • Begin searching for a peer-reviewed article that pertains to your practice area and interests you.

By Day 3 of Week 6

Post the following:

Using proper APA formatting, cite the peer-reviewed article you selected that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you and identify the database that you used to search for the article. Explain any difficulties you experienced while searching for this article. Would this database be useful to your colleagues? Explain why or why not. Would you recommend this database? Explain why or why not.

By Day 6 of Week 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts by offering suggestions/strategies for working with this database from your own experience, or offering ideas for using alternative resources.

Submission and Grading Information

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Eaton, S. E. (2010). Reading strategies: Differences between summarizing and synthesizing. Retrieved from https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/reading-strategies-differneces-between-summarizing-and-synthesizing/ Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003

Smith, T. (2009). Critical appraisal of quantitative and qualitative research literature. Austrian Institute of Radiography, 56(3), 6–10. Retrieved from http://www.minnisjournals.com.au/articles/radiographer%20smith%20dec%2009.pdf

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003 Walden University Library. (n.d.). Instructional media: Fundamentals of library research. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/home

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly writing: Overview. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly

Discussion: Using the Walden Library NURS 6003 Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Technical information. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/technical

Document: Academic Success and Professional Development Plan Template (Word document)

Document: Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for success (PDF)

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introdu

RESPONSE

The Walden university library provides a vast amount of resources for scholarly articles, books online databases of different specialties, tutorials, webinars, and so many more. In using the library, I selected scholarly journals pertinent to my chosen academic field on public health nursing. The title of the article I chose is ” Zika Virus”, according to the authors, increased awareness of the health community with the developments in the vector control and the disease tailing system is of great significance in controlling the possible threats connected to the Zika virus in nations. After selecting my topic of interest, one of my first challenges that arise when finding my article was identifying accurately what an appropriate peer review article is, peer-review journal can be defined as an academic study being conducted by a scholar who submits their work for other scholars to review (Cornell, 2018). The Walden library consists of multiple databases that store many collections of books, journals, magazines, newspapers, reports (Walden, n.d). This was a little difficult for me because I did not know how to properly navigate through the library. However, Walden provided a step by step list to help guide students, which was helpful.

The library further broke down into different specialties as a graduate student, it is imperative that when writing a research paper, it should consist of scholarly articles. A literature review should consist of scholarly articles of recent years, the references should be recent and peer-reviewed. When these guidelines are followed during a literature review, evidence-based practice is implemented, resulting in the best and safest quality care for patients (Bernhofer, 2015).

Finally, another strategy to find peer-reviewed research is using a database that is specific to the study area. Researching the keywords of the article from the research questions. Since there are many articles, it is essential to use filters so as to narrow down the search. A resource that I will use in the future is CINAHL Plus since it has journals that focus on nursing and health professionals.

References

Cornell University Library (2018). Distinguishing scholarly from Non-scholarly periodicals. A checklist of criteria: Introduction and Definitions. (n.d). Retrieved from https://guides. library. Cornell. edu/scholarly journals.

Walden University Course Guides. (n.d). Foundations-Library Resources: Searching & Retrieving Materials in the Database S. (n.d). Retrieved April 30, 2019, from https://academic guides, Waldenu.edu/foundations course docs/searching Retrieving

Bernhofer, E. I. (2015). Reviewing the literature. Journal for nurses in Professional Development, 31(4), 191-196.doi.10.1097nnd.0000000000000171

Noorbakhsh, F Fatahi, Y Rezeal, F Dalili, H Gooshki, E Zaim, M & Nicknam, M (2019). Zike Virus Infection, Basic and Clinical Aspects: A Review Article. Iran J Public Health, 48 (1)

SAMPLE 2

Accurate and scholarly writing can often pose a challenge to uninformed writers. “Scholarly writing is written with a purpose and audience in mind and must include evidence” (Laureate Education, 2018). For several years I was challenged with finding articles that were factual, provided evidence and objective. Laureate Education, 2018 states that one of the challenges that new students encounter is the ability to examine evidence objectively. There is so much information out on the internet, that it can overwhelm and confuse students who are not prepared to analyze and critically think through articles for their credibility. “Much of the scholarly research published today is published as journal articles” (Walden University, 2020). Journals are often further broken down into specific areas of interest or academic study. This helps to refine searches when performing research.

The journal I chose is titled “Parental perceptions and predictors of consent for school-located influenza vaccination in urban elementary school children in the United States” (Cheung et al., 2015). I chose this article because I will be focusing my specialty on Public Health and vaccinations is a largely contested area in the medical field. There is overwhelming support in favor of children being vaccinated, but there has been a lot of opinions that have influenced the medical recommendations for children and vaccines. Education played a significant role in how parents perceived vaccinations as well. According to Cheung et all, 2015 vaccine safety is an important concern, specifically among college-educated respondents. The article also shed light on the education that is still needed for parents to understand the necessity for their children to vaccinated against influenza. This article was published in the Influenza Journal. I found this article through researching the Embase database which provides research on biomedical and includes Medline, and focuses on drug and pharmacology information (Walden Library, 2020).

I found this database particularly useful because it includes pharmacology and biomedicine which is a key component in vaccines. I did face some challenges in finding articles that were performed in the United States and published all of their research data, as well as, a research study that was peer reviewed by multiple physicians and has been validated over a two year time frame. I think my peers would also find this database useful if they are specifically looking for journal articles that contained information about pharmacology in their studies. Embase seems to focus more on the biomedical and pharmacological studies in medicine. Embase allowed me to focus on my topic and offered an array of scholarly journal articles that have been peer reviewed and contained an abundance of information. I will be using this database in the future and I recommend it to my peers.

References

Cheung, S., Wang, H., Mascola, L., El Amin, A.N., &  Pannaraj, P.S. (2015). Parental perceptions and predictors of consent for school-located influenza vaccination in urban elementary school children in the United States. Influenza Journal, 9(5), 255-262. https://web-a-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=6ba34695-1a3e-4971-bb16-74aa52adf9b1%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=26073870&db=mnh

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing Purpose, Audience, and Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author

Walden University Library. (n.d.) Evaluating resources: Journals. Retrieve October 5, 2020 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

PEER RESPONSE

Hi Er..,

I found that your discussion post was quite interesting as I could relate to it on a personal level. I have volunteered as a frontline worker to conduct mass immunization procedures for polio, measles, BCG, etc. for infants within impoverished areas of Pakistan. Sadly, the eradication of these fatal diseases is still an enormous challenge within the developing world—which is primarily due to the lack of education among parents and their children alike. Ironically enough, witnessing a similar trend within the United States has been very interesting—especially being a developed country where most individuals attain basic education, yet they refuse to acknowledge that the flu vaccine could prevent disability and death. Research has illustrated that in spite of receiving adequate education regarding influenza by healthcare workers, 49.8 percent of parents refused vaccination altogether (Cameron et al., 2016). Vaccination has also been proven to prevent fatal and contagious illnesses and diseases such as measles, pneumonia, polio, and influenza—yet vaccination coverage remains low among children and adults. According to the CDC, 188 children died of flu between 2017 and 2018—57 percent of them being between the ages of five and seventeen—all of which could have been ultimately prevented simply by getting vaccinated (CDC, 2020). In addition, as this information pertains to public health—such data is easily accessible via online resources (i.e. Google Scholar, VaxView, UNICEF, etc). For example, VaxView provides data for vaccinations within the United States and assists the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with research as to how our nation is protected from preventable diseases. Moreover, “The CDC keeps track of vaccination rates for the vaccines that are recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP)” (CDC, 2016). Moreover, I agree that the Walden University Library features an extensive database with peer-reviewed scholarly articles, books, and media that is available to assist us during our academic journey. (Laureate Education, 2018)

 

References

Cameron, M. A., Bigos, D., Festa, C., Topol, H., & Rhee, K. E. (2016). Missed opportunity:

Why parents refuse influenza vaccination for their hospitalized children. Hospital

Pediatrics, 6(9), 507-512. https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2015-0219

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019, August 15). VaxView | Vaccination coverage

| NIS | Home | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vaxview/index.html

UNICEF. (2020, July 15). Immunization. UNICEF DATA.

https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-health/immunization/

UNICEF. (2020, January 13). About UNICEF Data and Analytics. UNICEF DATA.

https://data.unicef.org/about-us/

Walden University Library. (n.d.-b). Instructional media: Fundamentals of Library Research.

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly Writing: Overview. Welcome – Walden

University Departments & Centers – Academic Guides at Walden University.

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly

RE: Discussion – Week 6

Introduction

Scholarly writing is an essential skill that we need to learn throughout our journey towards academic advancement.  For some, venturing into the world of scholarly writing is unfamiliar territory and can be intimidating (Walden University Writing Center, n.d.). Searching for current, peer-reviewed sources and references supported by evidence is crucial. Since the start of my academic journey at Walden, I have frequented the Walden University Library as it offers a myriad of reliable references from a wide variety of databases.

My Search for Reliable Literature

For my discussion post, I have selected a scholarly journal entitled Use of an Academic Electronic Health Record With an Interprofessional Simulation for Advanced Practice Nursing Students. This study incorporates Academic Electronic Health Records (AEHRs) in a simulated learning environment involving interprofessional healthcare teams (King, T. S., et al., 2020).  I  believe this article is relevant to my chosen MSN path as nursing informatics is a specialty that uses technology to support and improve the delivery of nursing practice by enhancing educational experiences (R2 Library & American Nurses Association, 2015).

The process of selecting scholarly journals pertinent to my chosen academic field poses some challenges. After browsing databases and critically reading articles, the OVID Nursing Journals database sparked my interest the most.  OVID showcases a small collection of nursing journals in various fields of nursing (Walden University Library, n.d.-a). In a physical library, you can easily differentiate a book or journal from a magazine. With the innumerable literature available in the online world, it is more difficult to identify a resource (Walden University Library, n.d.-b). Thus, it takes more careful evaluation of resources to find reliable and pertinent ones.

As much as the OVID Nursing Journals database helped me in my literature search, I believe it will help my colleagues in their writing process. Of the myriad of databases offered by the Walden University Library, the OVID Nursing Journals database is one that I would recommend to my colleagues. It focuses on subjects specific to various nursing fields, thus allowing the ease of finding peer-reviewed articles about nursing topics ranging from general to specialized areas of nursing(Walden University Library, n.d.-a).

Conclusion

As we strive for excellence in our academic writing skills, patience, perseverance, and a lot of practice are crucial.  Completing assignments and other required writings in our MSN program are the little victories we need to celebrate as we continue our academic journey (Laureate Education, 2018).

References

King, T. S., Schubert, C., Pittman, O., Rohrig, L., McClerking, C., and Barthelmas,T. (2020). Use of an Academic Electronic Health Record With an Interprofessional Simulation for Advanced Practice Nursing Students. https://oce-ovid-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/article/00024776-900000000-99569?sequence=0&clickthrough=y

R2 Library & American Nurses Association. (2015). Nursing Informatics: Scope and Standards of Practice: Second Edition. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1021761&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Walden University Library. (n.d.-a). Databases A-Z: Nursing. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.-b). Instructional media: Fundamentals of Library Research. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly Writing: Overview.

https//academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/home

Module 4 (Weeks 6-7): Scholarship and Nursing Practice

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Scholarship [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). The Walden Journey to a Masters in Nursing: Scholarship [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:

Analyze research databases for identifying peer-reviewed articles
Analyze peer-reviewed research
Justify the use of peer-reviewed research in professional practice
Analyze strategies for finding peer-reviewed research

Due By
Assignment
Week 6, Days 1–4
Read the Learning Resources.
Begin to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 6, Days 1–2
Read the Learning Resources.
Compose your initial Discussion post.
Week 6, Day 3
Post your initial Discussion post.
Begin to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 6, Days 4-5
Review peer Discussion posts.
Compose your peer Discussion responses.
Continue to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 6, Day 6
Post two peer Discussion responses.
Week 6, Day 7
Wrap up discussion.
Week 7, Days 1-6
Continue to compose Part 4 of your Assignment.
Week 7, Day 7
Deadline to submit Part 4 of your Assignment.

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Al-Jundi, A., & Sakka, S. (2017). Critical appraisal of clinical research. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR, 11(5), JE01–JE05. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/26047.9942

Shellenbarger, T. (2016). Simplifying synthesis. Nurse Author & Editor, 26(3). Retrieved from http://naepub.com/reporting-research/2016-26-3-3/

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Instructional media: Fundamentals of library research. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/home

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Common assignments: Synthesizing your sources. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/assignments/literaturereview/synthesizing

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly writing: Overview. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Technical information. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/technical

Document: Academic Success and Professional Development Plan Template (Word document)

Document: Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for success (PDF)

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Purpose, Audience, and Evidence [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for Success [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Discussion:

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6003_Module04_Week06_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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 Response
Points Range: 16 (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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.
Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6003_Module04_Week06_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_6003_Module04_Week06_Discussion_Rubric

Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
Points Range: 45 (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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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: Timeliness
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response
Points Range: 17 (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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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 Response
Points Range: 16 (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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Points Range: 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.

Participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.