MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
1
Criteria Does Not Meet (0%) Approaches (60%) Meets 80% Exceeds (100%) Total Initial Post relevance to the topic of discussion, applicability, and insight. (20%)
0
The student does not provide coverage of the discussion topic (s); the student does not address the requirements of the weekly discussion. Provide redundant information. ing does not apply to the course concepts, or no example provided from the material explored during the weekly reading or from other relevant examples from the clinical practice. The student does not show applied
12 The student provides partial coverage of the discussion topic (s), does not provide clarity on the key concepts, the student does not address all of the requirements of the weekly discussion. Provide redundant information. ing does not apply to the course concepts, or no example provided from the material explored during the weekly reading or from other relevant examples from the
16 The student provides complete coverage of the discussion topic (s) and clarifies the critical concepts demonstrated in the information presented; the student addresses all of the requirements of the weekly discussion question with adequate attention to detail with some redundancy. ing applies course concepts without examples learned from the material provided during the
20 The student provides in-depth coverage of discussion topic (s), outstanding clarity, and explanation of concepts demonstrated in the information presented; approaches the weekly discussion with depth and breadth, without redundancy, using clear and focused details. ing directly addresses critical issues, questions, or problems related to the topic of discussion. ing applies course concepts with examples learned from the material provided

MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
2
knowledge and understanding of the discussion topic. The student’s initial thread response does not reflect critical thinking.
clinical practice. The student shows some applied knowledge and understanding of the discussion topic. The student’s initial thread response does not reflect critical thinking. The discussion topic is vaguely covered and does not adequately demonstrate an accurate understanding of concepts.
weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice. The student is still showing applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also, ing offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates an understanding of the concepts and ideas about the discussion topic (no use of example). The student’s initial thread response reflects critical thinking and contains thought, insight, and analysis.
during the weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice; the student shows applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also, ing offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates a strong understanding of the concepts and ideas on the discussion topic (use of examples). The student’s initial thread response is rich in critical thinking and full of thought, insight, and analysis; the argument is clear and concise.

MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
3
Quality of Written Communication Appropriateness of audience and word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied—grammar, spelling, punctuation. (20%)
0 The student uses a style and voice inappropriate or does not address the given audience, purpose, etc. Word choice is excessively redundant, clichéd, and unspecific. Inconsistent grammar, spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing (More than five grammatical errors). Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede the communication of meaning.
12 The student uses a style and voice that is somewhat appropriate to the given audience and purpose. Word choice is often unspecific, generic, redundant, and clichéd. Repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader (More than two grammatical errors). Inconsistencies in language, sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
16 The student uses a style and voice appropriate to the given audience and purpose. Word choice is specific and purposeful, and somewhat varied throughout. Minimal mechanical or typographical errors are present but are not overly distracting to the reader (Less than two grammatical errors). Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
20 The student uses a style and voice that are appropriate to the given audience and purpose and shows originality and creativity. Word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied. Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures are used. The student is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Inclusion of the student learning outcomes explored in the
0 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were
6 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were
8 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were
10 The student explains how the applicable Student Learning Outcomes were

MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
4
discussion (10%)
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic.
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic. Instead, the student only provides a list of the applicable Student Learning outcomes.
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic.
explored or related to the weekly discussion topic.
Rigor, currency, and relevance of the scholarly references. (20%)
0 The student does not provide any supporting scholarly references that are current or relevant to the weekly discussion topic.
12 The student provides supporting scholarly references that are not current but relevant to the weekly discussion topic. The student provides only one scholarly reference.
16 The student provides supporting scholarly references that are not current or relevant to the weekly discussion topic. In addition, the student provides at least two scholarly references.
20 The student provides robust support from credible, current (less than five years old), and relevant scholarly references (at least two). The supporting evidence meets or exceeds the minimum number of required scholarly references.
Peer & Professor Responses. Number of responses,
0 The student did not make an effort to participate in the learning discussion
12 The student does not provide substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic
16 The student provides substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic. The
20 The student provides substantive interaction relevant

MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
5
quality of response posts. (20%)
board. The student did not meet the answer post requirements, and s, if submitted, s reflect a lack of engagement or provide a vague answer to the weekly topic. The student does not answer the professor’s feedback/question.
or provide vague responses. The answer provided by the student does not build on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citation/references. The student does not motivate and encourage the group. The student does not respond to two peers. The student does not answer the professor’s feedback/question.
answer provided by the student builds on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citations/references. The student provides frequent attempts to motivate and encourage the group. The student responds to at least two peers. The student does not answer the professor’s feedback/question.
to the weekly topic. The answer provided by the student builds on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citations/references. The student provides frequent attempts to motivate and encourage the group. The student responds to at least two peers and answers the professor’s feedback/question.
Timeliness of the initial post and the answers
0 The student was late for the initial post
6 The student posted the initial thread on
8 The student posted the initial tread on
10 The student posted the initial thread and both

MSN-FNP Discussion Rubric
6
to the peers. (10%)
and the answer to peers or absence of submissions.
time by 11:59 PM on Wednesday, or the student submitted the initial thread late and submitted the answers to peers on time.
time by 11:59 PM on Wednesday and one answer to a peer by Saturday 11:59 PM.
answers to peers on time (Initial post by Wednesday 1159 PM and two replies to peers by Saturday 11:59 PM).

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL – NO PLAGIARISM

(USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)

CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS

The Best Custom Essay Writing Service

About Our Service

We are an online academic writing company that connects talented freelance writers with students in need of their services. Unlike other writing companies, our team is made up of native English speakers from countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand.

Qualified Writers

Our Guarantees:

CLICK TO SUBMIT YOUR ORDER