Discussion

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
discussion topic (s);
the student does not
address the
requirements of the
weekly discussion.
Provide redundant
information. The
posting 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
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. The
posting 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
discussion topic (s),
provide clarity on the
key concepts,
demonstrated in the
information
presented; the student
addresses all of the
requirements of the
weekly
discussion question
with adequate
attention to details
with some
redundancy. The
posting 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. The posting
directly addresses key
issues, questions, or
problems related to
the topic of
discussion. The
posting applies course
concepts with
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, the
posting offers original
and thoughtful
insight, synthesis, or
observation that
demonstrates an
understanding of the
concepts and ideas
pertaining to the
discussion topic (no
use of example). The
student’s initial thread
response reflects
critical thinking and
contains thought,
insight, and analysis.
examples learned
from the material
provided during the
weekly reading or
other relevant
examples from the
clinical practice; the
student is showing
applied knowledge
and understanding of
the topic. Also,
the posting offers
original and
thoughtful insight,
synthesis, or
observation that
demonstrates a strong
understanding of the
concepts and ideas
pertaining to the
discussion topic (use
of examples). The
student’s initial thread
response is rich in
critical thinking and
full of thought,
insight, and analysis;
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
3
the argument is clear
and concise.
Quality of
Written
Communication
Appropriateness
of audience and
words 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
communication of
meaning.
12
The student uses a
style and voice that
is somewhat
appropriate to 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 that
are 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 not only
appropriate to the
given audience
and purpose, but
that also 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.
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
4
Inclusion of the
student
outcomes
explored in the
discussion as
well as the rolespecific
competencies as
applicable.
(10%)
0
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were
explored or related to
the weekly discussion
topic.
6
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were
explored or related
to the weekly
discussion topic.
The student only
provides a list of
the applicable
Student Learning
Outcome.
8
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were
explored or related to
the weekly discussion
topic.
10
The student provides
an explanation of how
the applicable Student
Learning Outcomes
were 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 but
relevant to the
weekly discussion
topic. 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.
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
5
Peer &
Professor
Responses.
Number of
responses,
quality of
response posts.
(20%)
0
The student did not
make an effort to
participate in the
learning discussion
board. The student
did not meet the
answer post
requirements, and the
posts, if submitted,
are reflecting a lack
of engagement or
providing a vague
answer to the weekly
topic. The student
does not answer the
professor’s
feedback/question.
12
The student does not
provide substantive
interaction relevant
to the weekly topic
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.
16
The student provides
substantive interaction
relevant to the weekly
topic. The answer
provided by the
student builds on the
discussion question
and ideas of others,
utilizing course
content with
appropriate
citation/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.
20
The student
provides
substantive
interaction
relevant to the
weekly topic. The
answer provided
by the student
builds on the
discussion
question and ideas
of others, utilizing
course content
with appropriate
citation/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.
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
6
Timeliness of
the initial post
and the answers
to the peers.
(10%)
0
The student was late
for the initial post and
the answer to peers,
or absence of
submissions.
6
The student posted
the initial tread on
time by 11:59 PM
on Wednesday, or
the student submits
the initial thread late
and submits the
answers to peers on
time.
8
The student posted the
initial tread on time
by 11:59 PM on
Wednesday and one
answer to a peer by
Saturday 11:59 PM.
10
The student posted the
initial thread and both
answers to peers on
time (Initial post by
Wednesday 1159 PM
and two replies to
peers by Saturday
11:59 PM).