\n
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome<\/span> <\/span> Main Posting<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n 50<\/span> to >44.0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nExcellent<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n \n <\/div>\n 44<\/span> to >39.0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nGood<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n \n <\/div>\n 39<\/span> to >34.0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nFair<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n \n <\/div>\n 34<\/span> to >0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nPoor<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n \n50<\/span> pts<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n \n This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome<\/span> <\/span> Main Post: Timeliness<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n\n\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n 10<\/span> to >0.0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nExcellent<\/div>\n Posts main post by day 3.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n \n <\/div>\n 0<\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nPoor<\/div>\n Does not post by day 3.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n \n10<\/span> pts<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n \n This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome<\/span> <\/span> First Response<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n\n\n\n\n \n <\/div>\n 18<\/span> to >16.0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nExcellent<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n \n <\/div>\n 16<\/span> to >14.0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nGood<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n \n <\/div>\n 14<\/span> to >12.0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nFair<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n\n \n <\/div>\n 12<\/span> to >0<\/span><\/span> pts <\/span><\/p>\nPoor<\/div>\n 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.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/td>\n \n18<\/span> pts<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n \n This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome<\/span> <\/span> Second Response<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n \n | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |