Health & Medical Question

#1 In what ways can APRNs utilize telemedicine platforms and remote monitoring technologies to remotely access patients’ medication adherence, therapeutic responses, and potential adverse effects? How does remote patient monitoring impact the delivery of pharmacological interventions and a PRN practice?.Please add references .A link of a rubric for this assignment is attached ,follow the instructions .I also need a short response to 2 classmates regarding the same topic ,like you agree with them and a short paragraph per each .The two answers to the classmate please put en another doc.

#2As an Advanced Nurse Practitioner, you will need to be assessing for pain with every patient you see in consult. Discuss a situation that a patient is experiencing pain, either acute or chronic and how you will be able to measure their pain as it relates to their age, condition and treatment. Please include an evidence based approach for the condition, or the pain scale used.

It must be 250 words in APA style, with one reference.I also attached the rubric named :question #2 rubric to follow the steps .

#3Using the theory of unpleasant symptoms as a guide, what would you look for in an assessment tool for patient symptoms?Rubric attached and name as:rubric question #3.In this assignment is necessary to answer 2 classmates saying that you agree the explanation they did and a short argument .Please attachedThe two answers in the same doc but not in the same of the principal assignment

#4Using the criteria presented in week 2, critique the theory of Self-Efficacy using the internal and external criticism evaluation process.This is related to the assignment you did before .Rubric also attached .Answer two classmate saying that you agree and a short argument .2 different paragraphs with the answers same doc but not together with the main assignment.

note :All of the assignments must have references .

Thanks!

Discussion Board Rubric
Criteria
Ideas,
Arguments,
& Analysis
Connection
to Course
Materials
Unsatisfactory-Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
0-30 points
Ideas expressed lack an
understanding of the
discussion topic. Comments
are irrelevant, off-topic, and/or
confusing to follow. Viewpoint,
if given, is not supported with
evidence or examples.
**If noted to be using AI
(artificial intelligence), a
deduction of 50 Points will be
given for 1st warning, with a
100 point deduction (Zero for
discussion) will be given
thereafter as it violates
academic integrity.**
0-13 points
No connections are made to
readings or other course
materials (lectures, media,
resources, etc.), and/or if
made, are not clearly stated
and are largely personal
opinions. No reference used.
35-39 points
Ideas expressed in discussion
posts show a minimal
understanding of the discussion
topic. Comments are general in
nature and/or occasionally may
not be relevant. Rehashes or
summarizes ideas with limited
analysis, original thought,
and/or supported viewpoints.
40-44 points
Ideas expressed in discussion
posts are mostly substantive
and relevant to topic; some
original thought. Demonstrates
logical thinking, reasoning,
and/or analysis for most part.
Viewpoint is supported with
evidence and/or examples.
45-50 points
Ideas expressed in discussion
posts include original
thought, substantial depth,
and are relevant to topic.
Viewpoint shows strong
logical thinking, reasoning,
and analysis with evidence
and examples. Construction
of new meaning and insights
are evident.
/50
14-15 points
Minimal direct connections are
made to readings and/or other
course materials (lectures,
media, resources, etc.).
Connections are largely inferred
and somewhat unclear at
times. Only 1 reference used
with no in-text citations.
16-17 points
Some direct connections are
made to readings and/or other
course materials (lectures,
media, resources, etc.) and are
clearly stated for the most part.
Only 1 Reference used with intext citations.
18-20 points
Strong, direct connections are
made to readings and/or
other course materials
(lectures, media, resources,
etc.) and are clearly stated.
/20
2 References used, listed,
and appropriate in-text
citations.
Total
Contribution
to Learning
Community
0-13 points
Negligible contribution to the
learning community. Rarely
engages with students and
generally ignores others’ posts
and/or has a negative effect
through misrepresenting
content in other posts,
inappropriate comments
made, and/or attempts to
dominate the discussion.
-10 points with No replies to
peer.
14-15 points
Somewhat contributes to the
learning community but the
focus is generally on own posts.
Occasionally interacts with
others’ postings but little
attempt to involve other
students in the discussion.
Short statements such as “I
agree with…”.
-5 points with only 1 reply to
peer (2 required).
16-17 points
Contributes to the learning
community. Often attempts to
direct group discussion to
present relevant viewpoints and
meaningful reflection by others.
Interacts respectfully with
students.
18-20 points
Effectively contributes to the
learning community.
Frequently initiates dialogue
and motivates group
discussion by providing
feedback to students’
postings, asking follow-up
questions, and through
thoughtful, reflective
comments. Respectfully
encourages a variety of
viewpoints and invites
contributions from others.
Criteria
Writing
Quality
Unsatisfactory-Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
0-6 points
Posts show a below
average/poor writing style that
lacks standard English, and/or is
difficult for readers to follow.
Contains frequent errors in
grammar, punctuation, usage,
and spelling. Not in APA
format.
7 points
Posts show an average and/or
casual writing style using
standard English that is
generally clear but contains
some errors in grammar,
punctuation, usage, and
spelling. APA Format with
major errors more than 3
formatting errors.
8 points
Discussion posts show above
average writing style that is
clear using standard English
with minor errors in grammar,
punctuation, usage, and/or
spelling. APA Format with
minor errors (may include no
in-text citations, formatting
error, or non-paragraph form).
9-10 points
Discussion posts are well
written and clearly articulated
using standard English,
characterized by elements of
a strong writing style with
correct grammar,
punctuation, usage, and
spelling; APA Format with no
errors.
/10
TOTAL POINTS (sum of 5 Criteria)
/100
Source: Rubric by Denise Kreiger, Instructional Design/Technology Services, SC&I, Rutgers, 3/2014
/20
Total
Updated: G. Diaz Sept. 2023
2
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
Criteria
Initial Post
relevance to the
topic of
discussion,
applicability,
and insight.
(20%)
Does Not Meet (0%)
Approaches (60%)
Meets 80%
Exceeds (100%)
0
12
16
20
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. 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
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. 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
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. The
posting applies course
concepts without
examples learned
from the material
provided during the
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 critical
issues, questions, or
problems related to the
topic of discussion.
The posting applies
course concepts with
examples learned from
the material provided
Total
1
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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
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,
the posting 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.
2
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
Quality of
0
Written
The student uses a
Communication style and voice
inappropriate or does
Appropriateness not address the given
of audience and audience, purpose,
word choice is
etc. Word choice is
specific,
excessively
purposeful,
redundant, clichéd,
dynamic, and
and unspecific.
varied—
Inconsistent
grammar,
grammar, spelling,
spelling,
punctuation, and
punctuation.
paragraphing (More
(20%)
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.
Inclusion of the
student
learning
outcomes
explored in the
6
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were
8
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were
0
The student does not
explain how the
Student Learning
Outcomes were
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.
10
The student explains
how the applicable
Student Learning
Outcomes were
3
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
discussion
(10%)
explored or related to explored or related
the weekly discussion to the weekly
topic.
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
4
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
quality of
response posts.
(20%)
board. The student
did not meet the
answer post
requirements, and the
posts, if submitted,
the posts 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.
Timeliness of
0
the initial post
The student was late
and the answers for the initial post
6
The student posted
the initial thread on
8
The student posted
the initial tread on
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.
10
The student posted the
initial thread and both
5
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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).
6
Discussion Board Rubric
Criteria
Ideas,
Arguments,
& Analysis
Connection
to Course
Materials
Unsatisfactory-Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
0-30 points
Ideas expressed lack an
understanding of the
discussion topic. Comments
are irrelevant, off-topic, and/or
confusing to follow. Viewpoint,
if given, is not supported with
evidence or examples.
**If noted to be using AI
(artificial intelligence), a
deduction of 50 Points will be
given for 1st warning, with a
100 point deduction (Zero for
discussion) will be given
thereafter as it violates
academic integrity.**
0-13 points
No connections are made to
readings or other course
materials (lectures, media,
resources, etc.), and/or if
made, are not clearly stated
and are largely personal
opinions. No reference used.
35-39 points
Ideas expressed in discussion
posts show a minimal
understanding of the discussion
topic. Comments are general in
nature and/or occasionally may
not be relevant. Rehashes or
summarizes ideas with limited
analysis, original thought,
and/or supported viewpoints.
40-44 points
Ideas expressed in discussion
posts are mostly substantive
and relevant to topic; some
original thought. Demonstrates
logical thinking, reasoning,
and/or analysis for most part.
Viewpoint is supported with
evidence and/or examples.
45-50 points
Ideas expressed in discussion
posts include original
thought, substantial depth,
and are relevant to topic.
Viewpoint shows strong
logical thinking, reasoning,
and analysis with evidence
and examples. Construction
of new meaning and insights
are evident.
/50
14-15 points
Minimal direct connections are
made to readings and/or other
course materials (lectures,
media, resources, etc.).
Connections are largely inferred
and somewhat unclear at
times. Only 1 reference used
with no in-text citations.
16-17 points
Some direct connections are
made to readings and/or other
course materials (lectures,
media, resources, etc.) and are
clearly stated for the most part.
Only 1 Reference used with intext citations.
18-20 points
Strong, direct connections are
made to readings and/or
other course materials
(lectures, media, resources,
etc.) and are clearly stated.
/20
2 References used, listed,
and appropriate in-text
citations.
Total
Contribution
to Learning
Community
0-13 points
Negligible contribution to the
learning community. Rarely
engages with students and
generally ignores others’ posts
and/or has a negative effect
through misrepresenting
content in other posts,
inappropriate comments
made, and/or attempts to
dominate the discussion.
-10 points with No replies to
peer.
14-15 points
Somewhat contributes to the
learning community but the
focus is generally on own posts.
Occasionally interacts with
others’ postings but little
attempt to involve other
students in the discussion.
Short statements such as “I
agree with…”.
-5 points with only 1 reply to
peer (2 required).
16-17 points
Contributes to the learning
community. Often attempts to
direct group discussion to
present relevant viewpoints and
meaningful reflection by others.
Interacts respectfully with
students.
18-20 points
Effectively contributes to the
learning community.
Frequently initiates dialogue
and motivates group
discussion by providing
feedback to students’
postings, asking follow-up
questions, and through
thoughtful, reflective
comments. Respectfully
encourages a variety of
viewpoints and invites
contributions from others.
Criteria
Writing
Quality
Unsatisfactory-Beginning
Developing
Accomplished
Exemplary
0-6 points
Posts show a below
average/poor writing style that
lacks standard English, and/or is
difficult for readers to follow.
Contains frequent errors in
grammar, punctuation, usage,
and spelling. Not in APA
format.
7 points
Posts show an average and/or
casual writing style using
standard English that is
generally clear but contains
some errors in grammar,
punctuation, usage, and
spelling. APA Format with
major errors more than 3
formatting errors.
8 points
Discussion posts show above
average writing style that is
clear using standard English
with minor errors in grammar,
punctuation, usage, and/or
spelling. APA Format with
minor errors (may include no
in-text citations, formatting
error, or non-paragraph form).
9-10 points
Discussion posts are well
written and clearly articulated
using standard English,
characterized by elements of
a strong writing style with
correct grammar,
punctuation, usage, and
spelling; APA Format with no
errors.
/10
TOTAL POINTS (sum of 5 Criteria)
/100
Source: Rubric by Denise Kreiger, Instructional Design/Technology Services, SC&I, Rutgers, 3/2014
/20
Total
Updated: G. Diaz Sept. 2023
2
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
Criteria
Initial Post
relevance to the
topic of
discussion,
applicability,
and insight.
(20%)
Does Not Meet (0%)
Approaches (60%)
Meets 80%
Exceeds (100%)
0
12
16
20
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
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
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
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
Total
1
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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;
2
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
the argument is clear
and concise.
Quality of
0
Written
The student uses a
Communication style and voice
inappropriate or does
Appropriateness not address the given
of audience and audience, purpose,
words choice is
etc. Word choice is
specific,
excessively
purposeful,
redundant, clichéd,
dynamic, and
and unspecific.
varied.
Inconsistent
Grammar,
grammar, spelling,
spelling,
punctuation, and
punctuation.
paragraphing (More
(20%)
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.
3
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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.
4
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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.
5
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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).
6
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
Criteria
Initial Post
relevance to the
topic of
discussion,
applicability,
and insight.
(20%)
Does Not Meet (0%)
Approaches (60%)
Meets 80%
Exceeds (100%)
0
12
16
20
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
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
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
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
Total
1
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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;
2
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
the argument is clear
and concise.
Quality of
0
Written
The student uses a
Communication style and voice
inappropriate or does
Appropriateness not address the given
of audience and audience, purpose,
words choice is
etc. Word choice is
specific,
excessively
purposeful,
redundant, clichéd,
dynamic, and
and unspecific.
varied.
Inconsistent
Grammar,
grammar, spelling,
spelling,
punctuation, and
punctuation.
paragraphing (More
(20%)
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.
3
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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.
4
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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.
5
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
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).
6