NURS 6053 Module 2 Professionalism Essay
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Moral Leadership [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Analyze the impact of competing needs of workforce, resources, and patients on policy development
- Analyze the impact of competing needs on healthcare issues/stressors
- Analyze policies and practices for healthcare issues/stressors
- Critique organizational policies and practices for ethical considerations
- Recommend policy or practice changes to balance competing needs and ethical considerations
| Due By | Assignment |
| Week 3, Days 1–2 | Read the Learning Resources. Compose your initial Discussion post. |
| Week 3, Day 3 | Post your initial Discussion post. Begin to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 3, Days 4-5 | Review peer Discussion posts. Compose your peer Discussion responses. Continue to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 3, Day 6 | Post two peer Discussion responses. |
| Week 3, Day 7 | Deadline to submit your assignment. |
Photo Credit: on_WAL_CBLE0001_er1_EN.mov – Freeze frame
Learning Resources
Required Readings
https://www.nursingworld.org/coe-view-only
Note: Review all, with special attention to “Provision 6” (pp. 23–26).
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 6053 Module 2 Professionalism Essay
Required Media
Laureate Education (Producer). (2012). Ethical, Moral, and Legal Leadership [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2009b). Working with Individuals [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
NURS 6053 Module 2 Professionalism Essay Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6053_Module02_Week03_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 | |||||