NEED A PERFECT PAPER? PLACE YOUR FIRST ORDER AND SAVE 15% USING COUPON:

Discussion questions please see attached. Due tomorrow 9/01/2021 at 1:00 pm NO plagiarism To prepare: By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a s

Discussion questions please see attached. Due tomorrow 9/01/2021 at 1:00 pm NO plagiarism To prepare:

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a s

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Discussion questions please see attached. Due tomorrow 9/01/2021 at 1:00 pm NO plagiarism To prepare:

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific scenario for this Discussion. Please see the “Course Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.

By Day 3 of Week 1
Post an explanation of the disease highlighted in the scenario you were provided. Include the following in your explanation:

The role genetics plays in the disease.
Why the patient is presenting with the specific symptoms described.
The physiologic response to the stimulus presented in the scenario and why you think this response occurred.
The cells that are involved in this process.
How another characteristic (e.g., gender, genetics) would change your response.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6 of Week 1
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days and respectfully agree or disagree with your colleague’s assessment and explain your reasoning. In your explanation, include why their explanations make physiological sense or why they do not Rubric Detail

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

Content

Name: NURS_6501_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

 
Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Main Posting

Points:

Points Range:
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) 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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness

Points:

Points Range:
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by Day 3.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post main post by Day 3.

Feedback:

First Response

Points:

Points Range:
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Second Response

Points:

Points Range:
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Points:

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.

Feedback:

Participation

Points:

Points Range:
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) 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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by Day 3.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post main post by Day 3.

Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

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.

Good
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.

Fair
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.

Poor
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.

Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

N/A

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6501_Discussion_Rubric

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality