Thoroughly and accurately responds to the Discussion question(s). The response is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Post is supported by three (3) or more scholarly peer-reviewed resources located outside of the course Learning Resources. Response comprehensively, clearly, and accurately demonstrates the pro or con portion of argument for the medication and patient case assigned with explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Discussion is accurate and somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Post is supported by three (3) resources but did not use resources located outside of the course Learning Resources. Response clearly and accurately demonstrates the pro or con portion of argument for the medication and patient case assigned with explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). Noted some inaccuracies to Discussion. One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with fewer than two credible references. Response vaguely demonstrates the pro or con portion of argument for the medication and patient case assigned with little explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Noted several inaccuracies or off topic for Discussion. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. Response does not demonstrate the pro or con portion of argument or student wrote wrong argument for the medication and patient case assigned there is no explanation of why opposing would not be appropriate.

Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Contains one to two APA manual writing rules and style errors.

Written somewhat concisely. Contains more than three to four spelling or grammatical errors. Contains three to four APA formatting errors.

Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than five spelling or grammatical errors. Contains more than five APA manual writing rules and style.

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Main Discussion post is on time— by Day 3.

Meets requirements for full participation. Main Discussion post is 1 day late—by Day 4 of the week.

Mostly meets requirements for full participation. Main Discussion post is 2 days late—by Day 5 of the week.

Does not meet requirements for full participation. Main Discussion post is 3 days late—by Day 6 of the week. If posted on Day 7, grade zero for timeliness. If posted after Day 7, grade zero for the whole response—not accepted late.

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response adds significant new information to Discussion. Response demonstrates critical thinking.

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Response expands some of the Discussion with new information. Response demonstrates some critical thinking.

Response is on topic, may have some depth. Response expands little of the Discussion with new information. Critical thinking is vaguely demonstrated.

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Response does not expand the Discussion with new information. No critical thinking; response leans toward “I agree” or “good point” referencing .

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to all questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by the use of two (2) scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to support ideas and demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English.

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to some questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported using one (1) scholarly, peer-reviewed source to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is written in Standard Edited English.

Response posted in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responds to few questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. The use of one (1) or more sources to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives, but sources are not considered peer-reviewed or scholarly.

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Does not respond to questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. No credible sources are cited.

Response meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Responds to minimum of two (2) colleagues on 2 different days. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

Response meets requirements for full participation. Responds to minimum of one (1) colleague on different day from initial post. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

Responds to minimum of two or one (2 or 1) colleagues on same day. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

Does not meet requirements for full participation. Responds to one (1) or no colleagues. Posts on Day 7 of week. If post after Day 7, grade of zero for whole response as not accepted late.

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response adds significant new information to Discussion Demonstrates critical thinking.

Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. Response expands some of the Discussion with new information. Demonstrates some critical thinking.

Response is on topic, may have some depth. Response expands little of the Discussion with new information. Critical thinking is vaguely demonstrated.

Response may not be on topic, lacks depth. Response does not expand the Discussion with new information. No critical thinking, response leans toward “I agree” or “good point” referencing.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to all questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by the use of two (2) scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to support ideas and demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is effectively written in Standard, Edited English.

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Responds to some questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty., if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported using one (1) scholarly, peer-reviewed source to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives. Response is written in Standard, Edited English.

Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responds to few questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed… The use of one (1) or more sources to support ideas demonstrate synthesis and understanding of Learning Objectives but sources are not considered peer reviewed or scholarly.

Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Does not respond to questions posed by colleagues and/or Faculty, if posed. No credible sources are cited.

Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Responds to minimum of two (2) colleagues on 2 different days. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. Responds to minimum of one (1) colleague on different day from initial post. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

Responds to minimum of two or one (2 or 1) colleagues on same day. Posts by due date of Day 6 of week.

Does not meet requirements for full participation. Responds to one (1) or no colleagues. Posts on Day 7 of week. If post after Day 7, grade of zero for whole response as not accepted late. If post after Day 7, grade of zero for whole response as not accepted late.