NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation-Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.

How to Research and Prepare for NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.

How to Write the Introduction for NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.

How to Write the Body for NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.

Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.

How to Write the Conclusion for NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.

How to Format the References List for NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.

Stuck? Let Us Help You

Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.

Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.

Post your responses to the Discussion based on the course requirements.

Your Discussion postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA guidelines as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources andadditional scholarly sources as appropriate. Initial postings must be 250–350 words (not including references).

Submission and Grading Information

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 11 Discussion

Discussion – Week 11

As a nurse practicing in the age of technology, it is important for you to discriminate between HIT system evaluation and other forms of evaluation. As a doctorally prepared nurse, you may have the opportunity to become involved with the HIT system evaluation process. How can you guide your practice setting to meaningfully evaluate HIT systems? What strategies might you employ to assess the outcomes and effectiveness of a HIT system?

To prepare:

Reflect on the information presented in the Learning Resources, focusing on the various strategies used to evaluate the effectiveness of a health information system.
Consider the strategies you use to evaluate other health care issues. How are those strategies similar or dissimilar to those used for evaluating a health information system?

By Day 3 post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Differentiate the process of evaluating health information technology systems from
NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

other types of evaluation in health care. What specific strategies might you employ for an information system evaluation? What factors might you examine to judge the system’s effectiveness?
Assess the main challenges of designing a successful information system evaluation.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6 respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Click on the Reply button below to post your response.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

Sample Answer for NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

With the increased implementation and integration of information technology (IT) within health care systems it is important to continually assess and evaluate the outcomes of these various systems. Evaluating information technology applications allows for decision makers to gain knowledge regarding the functioning of the IT-based system within the organization (Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). Within the literature, it is apparent that various methods to IT system assessment are present and vary according to the application in use. For example, in assessment of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) it is recommended to utilize randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCT) to gain further insight regarding effectiveness (Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). Further discussion regarding computer-based patient record systems, such as electronic medical records (EMRs), recommend utilizing a systematic survey to assess the impact on medical practice, quality of care, and user as well as patient satisfaction (Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). It is important to involve all stakeholders within evaluation to ensure outcomes are being met and that strategies are effective (American Nurses Association, 2008).

In comparison to other methods of assessment within healthcare, IT assessment involves the inclusion of all stakeholders including patients, staff, and administration. During assessment, various methods of evaluation can be utilized as previously discussed. With regards to evaluation, this should be conducted in a systematic and ongoing matter (American Nurses Association, 2008). As health information technology is continually evolving, evaluation should continue as well to ensure that implementation and technology is effective. Effective technology should include user acceptance, as well as satisfaction of patients which refers to increased or improved quality of care. Furthermore, financial effects should be within budget and not include additional costs (Nahm et al. 2007; Rahimi & Vimarlund, 2007). A barrier to designing a successful evaluation for IT is that a variety of applications may be required dependent upon the technology. Nahm et al. (2007) found that randomized control led trials, pre and post test studies, time and motion studies, surveys and user testing were frequently utilized in outcome assessment.

References

American Nurses Association. (2008). Nursing informatics: Scope and standards of practice.

Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Nahm, E., Vaydia, V., Ho, D., Scharf, B., & Seagull, J. (2007). Outcomes assessment of clinical

information system implementation: A practical guide, Nursing Outlook, 55 (6), 282-288.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2007.09.003.

Rahimi, B., & Vimarlund, V. (2007). Methods to evaluate health information systems in

healthcare settings: A literature review. Journal of Medical Systems, 31(5), 397-432.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10916-007-9082-z

Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8210 Discussion Information System Evaluation

Evaluation of an Information System Change

One of the most important steps in the implementation of an information system change is evaluation. Apart from the need for an evaluation process aligning to an organization’s values, vision, and mission, it should have effective strategies and specific measurements (Sligo et al., 2017). In the last weeks, this project has been dealing with a Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry as the proposed information system change. This latest contribution, therefore, deals with the evaluation of the system change. Various frameworks of evaluation will be discussed. Besides, an evaluation plan table, as well as an overview discussion with the stakeholders, will be presented.

Part 1: Evaluation Report

Evaluation frameworks are important in guiding the several components of an evaluation process from start to finish. The frameworks which will be discussed here will each entail the quality of the information obtained by the implemented change, the impacts on the outcomes of the quality care as caused by the system change, or the structural quality of the system as brought about by the change implementation. One of the frameworks is the Health Information Technology Evaluation Framework. Through this framework, professional, systematic, and organizational contexts can be evaluated. In the organization component, various aspects of the change are evaluated (Cresswell et al.,2020). They include patient and staff knowledge of the new Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system, the cost of care, benefits, impacts on the quality process, the outcome, process, and the evidence-based practice data generated by the system. In addition, the professional and environmental components are essential in the assessment of patient satisfaction with the new Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system and, by extension, the larger aspect of patient and patient privacy.

The next useful framework for evaluating the Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system as the change is the Human/Organizational/Technology factor framework (Singh & Mansotra, 2019). As the name suggests, the framework has technological, organizational, and human aspects. The technology aspect is involved with service quality, information quality, and system quality. When it comes to the system quality, the process of adjustment and system usefulness are identified and evaluated. In addition, the technology component also deals with the quality of information where those who are authorized to access the information are accessed, information associated with the staff or patients, and the information quality response time. The next technology component assesses the Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system technical support required for sustained use of the system.

The other part of the framework is the human component which mainly evaluates the staff and the patient’s needs. For instance, it will be vital in assessing whether or not the new system’s purpose has been met, as well as if the offered training is sufficient in helping in the application of the implemented change. Besides, the human component allows the assessment of knowledge and skills, whether they are properly applied in ensuring that the desired change is obtained as well as proper assignment of roles towards the realization of the desired change. The other part of the framework is the organizational aspect which evaluates the project’s environment and structure. For instance, the environmental aspect deals with the company’s readiness in terms of resources and communication. On the other hand, the structural aspect involves how well the committee and the leadership team manages the new Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system change.

The third evaluation framework is the technology acceptance model. This framework mainly deals with the outcomes of quality care. Among the things which informed the proposal of Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system as a technological change is improving the quality of care as the old manual system was prone to errors such as medication errors. The technology acceptance model, therefore, helps in evaluating how patients and the staff have accepted the use of the new system. This framework proposes that in a case where the end-users of a product perceive it as easy to use, they develop positive attitudes to use it. The framework will therefore help in evaluating perceptions and attitudes of the staff and the patients towards the new system. From their feedback, it will then be possible to know how efficient it is to use the new system and evaluate how the Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system is appropriate to care and how it makes the patient care better.

Part 2: Evaluation Plan Table (Garcia-Dia, 2019)

Goals	Framework Component	Measurements	Measurement Frequency	Reason for the use of the measure
Reduce medication errors	Quality of care outcomes	-Patient attitude and knowledge -patient satisfaction -Patient outcomes	-Monthly basis -Monthly basis -quarterly	– Patient knowledge and attitude will be vital in evaluating the system since they are the ones who are usually at the receiving end of medication errors.
Improve medication ordering	Quality of information	-Medication data correctness -correct labeling -correct medication routes	-weekly -As needed -Weekly	The aspects of medication ordering will be appropriate in reflecting the success or the effectiveness of the new system, and so it vital to measure the correctness of data related to medication, labeling as well as medication route.
Replacement of unwanted steps and the manual steps	Technological component	-Efficiency of the system -Implementation Development -Application	-Monthly -weekly -weekly	Changing from an old way of performing a task to new ways is always a challenge. It is therefore vital to find out how the best the old unwanted and manual process have been eliminated by measuring how the new system is being applied, implemented, and its efficiency.
The ultimate workflows that display the appropriate use of the new Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system	Quality Process	-training and implementation – patient care appropriateness -The quality of the organization	-Weekly -Weekly -Monthly	– The effectiveness of the new system will better be reflected in the efficiency of the process of medication ordering and administration. Therefore, measuring the level of training that can be used in implementing the change is vital. Besides, measuring the quality of the organization on a monthly basis will reflect how best the new system is changing the workflow in terms of medication ordering and administration through the use of the new system.

Part 3: Overview Discussion with the Stakeholder

Brief Introduction to The Project

Before the implementation of the Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system, the facility was using the manual application of health records. With the implementation of the new system, various beneficial outcomes were anticipated. One of the anticipated outcomes is the access of patient’s medical information from various parts of the hospital departments hence ensuring faster, efficient, and quality patient care. Besides, the system’s implementation was also to enable file sharing between various professionals hence allowing faster decision-making regarding patients’ health. The system was also to help in eliminating medical errors such as wrong instructions, omissions, unintended errors, and errors of elapses. Therefore, the project was to work towards improving the process of medication prescriptions.

How The System Is Currently Functioning

With the implementation of the new system, the Computerized Physician/Provider Order Entry system, the facility has moved to adopt the functionality of the new system. For instance, the patient’s medical information access can be achieved from various hospital departments’ hence faster, efficient, and quality patient care. File sharing is enabling faster decision-making concerning patient’s health hence better outcomes. The current system also operates in offering drug-drug interaction alerts and eliminates prescription-related errors.

Monitoring The System

In ensuring that the system serves its purpose and for a long time, various aspects of the system will be monitored. For instance, the security of the system will be monitored from time to time to ensure data integrity is upheld and keep at bay threats such as hackers (Mohsin-Shaikh et al., 2019). The monitoring will be accomplished through a collaboration between the leadership and the hardware and software engineers. The monitoring will be done as frequently as once every week to ensure that the functionality of the system is not compromised. One of the specific focuses, as indicated earlier, is security. The reason for such monitoring is that hackers can steal patient information for personal gain hence compromising the facility, so it is the first thing to focus on during monitoring.

Conclusion

In conclusion, evaluating a change implemented in a system is vital in determining how well the system has been accepted and how well it is functions. Among the things that stakeholders must be aware of is the fact that implementing an information system change does not end when the system starts functioning; indeed, it marks the beginning. The stakeholder’s efforts and inputs are still important in ensuring that the system runs smoothly and that areas that need adjustments are promptly identified and acted upon.

References

Cresswell, K., Williams, R., & Sheikh, A. (2020). Developing and applying a formative evaluation framework for health information technology implementations: a qualitative investigation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), e15068. doi: 10.2196/15068

Garcia-Dia, M. J. (Ed.). (2019). Project Management in Nursing Informatics. Springer Publishing Company.

Mohsin-Shaikh, S., Furniss, D., Blandford, A., McLeod, M., Ma, T., Beykloo, M. Y., & Franklin, B. D. (2019). The impact of electronic prescribing systems on healthcare professionals’ working practices in the hospital setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC health services research, 19(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4554-7

Singh, J., & Mansotra, V. (2019). Towards development of an integrated cloud-computing adoption framework—a case of Indian school education system. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 16(02), 1950016. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019500160

Sligo, J., Gauld, R., Roberts, V., & Villa, L. (2017). A literature review for large-scale health information system project planning, implementation and evaluation. International journal of medical informatics, 97, 86-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.09.007

Content

Name: NURS_8210_Week11_Discussion_Rubric

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30