Post a draft of the Agenda Comparison Grid you completed for Part 1 of the Agenda Comparison Grid and Fact Sheets or Talking Points Brief Assignment.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s laDiscussion_Rubric
- Grid View
- List View
ExcellentGoodFairPoorMain Posting45 (45%) – 50 (50%)Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.40 (40%) – 44 (44%)Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.35 (35%) – 39 (39%)Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or 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 two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.0 (0%) – 34 (34%)Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
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 sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.Main Post: Timeliness10 (10%) – 10 (10%)Posts main post by day 3.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does not post by day 3.First Response17 (17%) – 18 (18%)Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.15 (15%) – 16 (16%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.13 (13%) – 14 (14%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.0 (0%) – 12 (12%)Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.Second Response16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.12 (12%) – 13 (13%)Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.0 (0%) – 11 (11%)Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.Participation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6050_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric
Expert Solution Preview
In response to the request for a draft of the Agenda Comparison Grid completed for Part 1 of the Agenda Comparison Grid and Fact Sheets or Talking Points Brief Assignment, I have created the following grid:
Agenda Comparison Grid
| Criteria | Agency A | Agency B |
| —————– | ————— | ————— |
| Mission | To promote | To provide |
| | healthcare | accessible and |
| | services and | affordable |
| | ensure | healthcare |
| | public health | services to all |
| | and safety | individuals |
| | | |
| Responsibilities | Regulate and | Administer |
| | monitor | healthcare |
| | healthcare | programs and |
| | facilities | services |
| | | |
| Key Strategies | Develop | Develop |
| | regulations | healthcare |
| | and guidelines | policies and |
| | for healthcare | procedures |
| | practices and | to improve |
| | facilities | access and |
| | | quality of |
| | | care |
| | | |
| Target Population | General | Individuals of |
| | population | all ages and |
| | | socioeconomic |
| | | backgrounds |
| | | |
| Funding | Government | Government |
| | grants and | grants and |
| | donations | donations |
| | | |
| Advantages | Broad | Focused |
| | jurisdiction | expertise and |
| | and influence | knowledge |
| | over healthcare | in specific |
| | system | areas |
| | | |
| Disadvantages | Limited focus | Narrow focus |
| | on specific | may lead to |
| | areas of | limited impact |
| | healthcare | on overall |
| | | healthcare |
| | | system |
This draft of the Agenda Comparison Grid provides a comparison of two agencies, Agency A and Agency B, based on various criteria such as mission, responsibilities, key strategies, target population, funding, advantages, and disadvantages. The grid aims to highlight the similarities and differences between the two agencies, allowing for a comprehensive analysis and evaluation.
Please note that the information provided in the grid is fictional and does not represent any specific agencies or organizations.
