LOCATING AND CRITICALLY ANALYZING PRIMARY RESEARCH ARTICLES NURS 8000

Sample Answer for LOCATING AND CRITICALLY ANALYZING PRIMARY RESEARCH ARTICLES NURS 8000 Included After Question

What steps do you take to locate primary and peer-reviewed research articles when performing a literature search?

What resources are available to you to engage in a meaningful and successful literature search?

As you have explored throughout this course, Walden University provides vast resources for student support to ensure success in their academic program of study. When it comes to research and using Library resources, several support mechanisms are available to you as well.

Taking the first step to think about a research topic or area of interest and filtering that topic using a series of keywords and operations will be a fundamental component for performing a literature search in Walden Library’s databases. While the ultimate goal is to produce a set or results that match your search criteria, you must keep in mind that that the quality of the research articles obtained will likely vary. Thus, you must critically examine and analyze the aims of the research produced and how it aligns, confirms, or negates your topic or area of research. As you develop proficiency in this area, you will discover that you can extract content themes and frameworks to enhance future research and the need to identify additional research support.

For this Assignment, consult the Walden Library webinars and resources provided. These resources serve as a general good first step for performing literature searches and engaging with the databases of research available to you. Think about a research topic or area of interest to focus on for this Assignment. Then, search the Walden Library to locate and retrieve peer-reviewed research articles that pertain to your topic or area of interest.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

TO PREPARE:

Review the Walden Library webinars presented in the media Learning Resources for this week.
Then, search the Walden Library and locate three peer-reviewed primary research articles that pertain to your practice area and are of particular interest to you.

THE ASSIGNMENT: (6 PARAGRAPHS)

Write a 6-paragraph APA-formatted paper in which you do the following:

Write a 1-pararaph introduction of how you conducted your literature search and the databases consulted in your search in relation to your practice area or area of interest. Be specific and provide examples.
Write a 1-paragraph summary of each of the articles you have selected (a total of 3 paragraphs).
Write 1 paragraph that synthesizesthe three articles using a scholarly voice.
Write a final paragraph in which you discuss the differences between summarizing and synthesizing research. Be specific and provide examples.

Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632). All papers submitted must use this formatting.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 9

Submit your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 9.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as M4Assgn+last name+first initial.
Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.
Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: LOCATING AND CRITICALLY ANALYZING PRIMARY RESEARCH ARTICLES NURS 8000

Title: LOCATING AND CRITICALLY ANALYZING PRIMARY RESEARCH ARTICLES NURS 8000

One of the skills that have to be well developed by a DNP student is research skills, as DNP-prepared nurses are required to formulate solutions to various clinical problems. Central to the skill is an appropriate choice of a topic that forms the basis of a problems statement and uses the fundamentals of research to search in various databases to get relevant information. Obtaining relevant literature is not the end, but a means to an end as an individual has to analyze the sources and evaluate how well it relates to the topic or the problem in question (Eriksen, & Frandsen, 2018). The purpose of this week’s assignment is to describe how a literature search related to a topic of interest was accomplished and a summary of the selected articles.

The Literature Search

Prior to accomplishing the literature search, the problem’s keywords were noted down to help in narrowing down the search results. For instance, one of the most common healthcare issues is healthcare-acquired infections such as catheter-acquired urinary tract infections. Controlling them is therefore key. Using Chlorhexidine for meatal cleaning was then considered as a possible intervention. In searching the databases, keywords were used, and a search was done in databases such as Medline, CIHNAL, PsycINFO, web of science, and google scholar. Various keywords such as “CAUTI,” “management,” and “Prevention,” and “chlorhexidine” were used.

Summary of the Chosen Articles

One of the articles obtained from the literature search is work done by Fasugba et al. This research employed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of utilization of Chlorhexidine for meatal cleaning during catheterization in the prevention of CAUTI. With a sample of 1642, the researchers found a positive effect. For instance, upon the use of the intervention, there was a significant reduction of CAUTI cases from thirteen to only four for every one hundred catheter days. By the end of the study, the intervention was found to reduce the cases of CAUTI by 94% (Fasugba et al., 2019).

Another article retrieved is an article authored by Mitchel et al. to compare the efficacy of using saline versus Chlorhexidine in lowering the rates of CAUTI and the cost associated with each. Using a randomized controlled trial study design, the study revealed that using Chlorhexidine was more efficacious and cost-effective than using saline (Mitchel et al., 2019). The use of Chlorhexidine coincided with a significant drop in the cases of CAUTI in the hospitals, reducing admission days hence leading to reduced costs.

In yet another study, Sarani et al. evaluated the impact of using 2% Chlorhexidine and normal saline in perineal care in a comparative study. Using a quantitative quasi-experimental study design, the researchers managed to obtain some relevant results among women who got admitted to the ICU. While the rates of the groups using normal saline had 77% of CAUTI rates, the use of the 2% Chlorhexidine led to a substantially lower value of only 13%, indicating the importance of using Chlorhexidine (Sarani et al., 2020).

Synthesis of the Articles

The negative impacts of CAUTI are reflected in the research efforts dedicated to finding strategies to control it. The three articles summarized in the previous section show to various degrees the efficacy of using Chlorhexidine for meatal cleaning. While Fasugba et al. focused solely on Chlorhexidine, Mitchell et al. and Sarani et al. did comparison studies to find out how the use of Chlorhexidine compares with the normal saline in controlling CAUTI ((Mitchel et al., 2019, (Sarani et al., 2020)). All three articles reported statistically significant results hence underpinning the importance of using Chlorhexidine for meatal cleaning as an intervention. The level of evidence in these articles is good as they are randomized controlled trials and experimental research studies.

Differences between Summarizing and Synthesizing Research

While the two skills of research summary and research synthesis are both essential for a researcher, the two are different, and it is imperative that a researcher knows the differences. Summarizing research involves restating the key points or findings of research in their own words in a condensed way. On the other hand, synthesizing research entails a combination of ideas from similar sources and bringing in various perspectives and insights through a reflection on the text in question (Gurevitch et al.,2018). The implication is that while through a summary, the important information is pulled together and highlighted, synthesis go steps further to compare and contrast sources, to draw a conclusion, and provide new insights

Conclusion

In conclusion, literature search forms an essential part of the research. A successful and efficient literature search requires that research possesses adept knowledge of using various databases to look for information. In addition, due to the variabilities in the sources obtained, every source must be carefully analyzed and the knowledge synthesized to ascertain if it can be utilized in a setting to solve problems. Therefore, this write-up has focused on literature search, article summary, and a comparison between research synthesis and summary. In addition, a summary of three articles obtained from a database search focusing on a clinical problem has been accomplished.

References

Eriksen, M. B., & Frandsen, T. F. (2018). The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(4), 420. https://dx.doi.org/10.5195%2Fjmla.2018.345

Fasugba, O., Cheng, A. C., Gregory, V., Graves, N., Koerner, J., Collignon, P., … & Mitchell, B. G. (2019). Chlorhexidine for meatal cleaning in reducing catheter-associated urinary tract infections: a multicentre stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 19(6), 611-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30736-9.

Gurevitch, J., Koricheva, J., Nakagawa, S., & Stewart, G. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753

Mitchell, B. G., Fasugba, O., Cheng, A. C., Gregory, V., Koerner, J., Collignon, P., … & Graves, N. (2019). Chlorhexidine versus saline in reducing the risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infection: a cost-effectiveness analysis. International journal of nursing studies, 97, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.04.003.

Sarani, H., Pishkar Mofrad, Z., Faghihi, H., & Ghabimi, M. (2020). Comparison of the Effect of Perineal Care with Normal Saline and 2% Chlorhexidine Solution on the Rate of Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Women Hospitalized in Intensive Care Units: A Quasi-Experimental Study. Medical-Surgical Nursing Journal, 9(2). https://dx.doi.org/10.5812/msnj.106739

Developing the proficiency to locate, read, and evaluate research articles is essential to your success in this doctoral program and your career. With this Assignment, you have the opportunity to become familiar with the Walden Library by searching the databases, reviewing resources, and downloading full-text articles. You are asked to think critically as you do this, keeping in mind that as a doctoral candidate you must be able to enhance your profession’s body of knowledge by synthesizing what you have learned into new insights and applying them in meaningful ways within the practice environment (as a DNP-prepared nurse) or engaging in original research (as a PhD-prepared nurse).

To prepare:

Participate in or review an archived version of the following Walden Library Webinars:
- Introduction to the Walden Library
- Evaluating Online Resources
- An Introduction to Evidence-Based Searching
Then search the Walden Library and locate two peer-reviewed primary research articles that pertain to your practice area and are of particular interest to you.

By Day 7

To complete:

Write a 4-paragraph APA-formatted paper addressing the following:

Write a 1-paragraph summary of each of the articles you have selected (a total of 2 paragraphs).
Write 1 paragraph that synthesizes the two articles using a scholarly voice.
Write a final paragraph in which you discuss the differences between summarizing and synthesizing research.

Due by Day 7 of Week 4.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: LOCATING AND CRITICALLY ANALYZING PRIMARY RESEARCH ARTICLES NURS 8000

Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
Click the Week 4 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 4 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
LOCATING AND CRITICALLY ANALYZING PRIMARY RESEARCH ARTICLES NURS 8000

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 4 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 4 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 4

Grid View
List View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30