Excellent<\/strong><\/p>\nAnswers 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.<\/td>\n
44<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>39.0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Good<\/strong><\/p>\nResponds 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.<\/td>\n 39<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>34.0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Fair<\/strong><\/p>\nResponds 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.<\/td>\n 34<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Poor<\/strong><\/p>\nDoes 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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n 50\u00a0pts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Post: Timeliness<\/td>\n | \n\n\n\n10<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>0.0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Excellent<\/strong><\/p>\nPosts main post by day 3.<\/td>\n 0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Poor<\/strong><\/p>\nDoes not post by day 3.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n 10\u00a0pts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response<\/td>\n | \n\n\n\n18<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>16.0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Excellent<\/strong><\/p>\nResponse 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.<\/td>\n 16<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>14.0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Good<\/strong><\/p>\nResponse 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.<\/td>\n 14<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>12.0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Fair<\/strong><\/p>\nResponse 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.<\/td>\n 12<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>to ><\/strong>0<\/strong>\u00a0pts<\/strong><\/p>\n Poor<\/strong><\/p>\nResponse 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.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n 18\u00a0pts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response<\/td>\n | \n | | | | | | | | | | | |