Assignment 16703

Note Initial Post: A 3-paragraph (at least 350 words) response. Be sure to use evidence from the readings and include in-text citations. Utilize essay-level writing practice and skills, including the use of transitional material and organizational frames. Avoid quotes; paraphrase to incorporate evidence into your own writing. A reference list is required. Use the most current evidence (usually less than or equal to 5 years old).Required ContentPresents initial argument in an objective, thorough, and convincing manner, regardless of your personal convictions.–Excellent 36 (36%) – 40 (40%)Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.Proficient 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.Basic 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 27 (27%)Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.Required ContentProposes scholarly and substantial arguments for an opposing position, mirroring the requirements of the initial post.–Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.Proficient 24 (24%) – 26 (26%)Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.Basic 21 (21%) – 23 (23%)Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 20 (20%)Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.Response PostsEntered the discussion thread on 3 separate days. Wrote at least two posts to two separate peers.Responses are appropriate to the topic, substantive, and promoted discussion by one or more of the following:• contributing insight to move the discussion forward.• offering substantial and/or different points of view and asks questions to add to discussion• including extra references or websites for peers to consider• relating discussion to different areas of practice and applying concepts to practice**Additional points may be deducted for late posting per the University late policy.–Excellent 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Response posts add substantial ideas and perspectives that invite further analysis and discussion. Participated 3 or more days in the classroom and responded to more than 2 classmates.Proficient 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)Response posts are proficient and provide adequate analysis and discussion. Participated 3 days in the classroom and responds to at least two classmates.Basic 11 (11%) – 11 (11%)Response posts are limited and provide minimal analysis and discussion. Participated less than 3 days in the classroom and/or responds to less than two classmates.Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 10 (10%)Response posts are inadequate and provide no analysis of discussion and/ or there is no participation in the classroom.Professional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization–Excellent 4.5 (4.5%) – 5 (5%)Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.Proficient 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.Basic 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision.Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization.Professional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone–Excellent 4.5 (4.5%) – 5 (5%)Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context.Proficient 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.Basic 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing.Professional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas–Excellent 4.5 (4.5%) – 5 (5%)Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.Proficient 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.Basic 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)Content does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference.