Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout. Content Name: NURS_6501_Week9_Discussion_Rubric · Grid View · List View Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement Main Posting: Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Points: Points Range: 44 (44%) - 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. supported by at least 3 current, credible sources Feedback: Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) - 43 (43%) Responds to the discussion question(s) is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references Feedback: Points: Points Range: 35 (35%) - 39 (39%) Responds to most of the discussion question(s) is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth supported by at least 3 credible references Feedback: Points: Points Range: 31 (31%) - 34 (34%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s) 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 2 credible references Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 30 (30%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) 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 1 or no credible references Feedback: Main Posting: Writing Points: Points Range: 6 (6%) - 6 (6%) Written clearly and concisely Contains no grammatical or spelling errors Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback: Points: Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%) Written clearly and concisely May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback: Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%) Written concisely May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style Feedback: Points: Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%) Written somewhat concisely May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors Contains some APA formatting errors Feedback: Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) - 4 (4%) Not written clearly or conci ...

1. Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6501_Week9_Discussion_Rubric
· Grid View
· List View
Outstanding Performance
Excellent Performance
Competent Performance
Proficient Performance
Room for Improvement
Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical
analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from
the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Points:
Points Range: 44 (44%) - 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative
of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module
and current credible sources.
supported by at least 3 current, credible sources
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 40 (40%) - 43 (43%)
Responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative

2. of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)
is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for
the module.
50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 31 (31%) - 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s)
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 2 credible references
Feedback:
Points:

3. Points Range: 0 (0%) - 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s)
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 1 or no credible references
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Writing
Points:
Points Range: 6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Written clearly and concisely
May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)

4. Written concisely
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Written somewhat concisely
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Contains some APA formatting errors
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Not written clearly or concisely
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
Points:
Points Range: 10 (10%) - 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts main discussion by due date
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)

5. NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Feedback:
First Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.
Points:
Points Range: 9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice

6. settings
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Feedback:
First Response:
Writing
Points:
Points Range: 6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully 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
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

7. Response 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
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

8. Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
Feedback:
First Response:
Timely and full participation
Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts by due date
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Feedback:
Second Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.

9. Points:
Points Range: 9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings * responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Feedback:
Second Response:
Writing
Points:
Points Range: 6 (6%) - 6 (6%)

10. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully 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
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response 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
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)

11. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
Feedback:
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
Points:
Points Range: 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
Posts by due date
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:

12. Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Feedback:
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical
analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from
the course readings for the module and current credible
sources.--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 44 (44%) - 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative
of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module
and current credible sources.
supported by at least 3 current, credible sources
Excellent Performance 40 (40%) - 43 (43%)
Responds to the discussion question(s)
is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative
of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
Competent Performance 35 (35%) - 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the discussion question(s)

13. is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis
representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for
the module.
50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth
supported by at least 3 credible references
Proficient Performance 31 (31%) - 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s)
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 2 credible references
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s)
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 1 or no credible references
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Writing--
Levels of Achievement:

14. Outstanding Performance 6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors
Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Excellent Performance 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Written clearly and concisely
May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Competent Performance 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Written concisely
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style
Proficient Performance 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Written somewhat concisely
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Contains some APA formatting errors
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Not written clearly or concisely
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
Feedback:
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 10 (10%) - 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation

15. posts main discussion by due date
Excellent Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Feedback:
First Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
Excellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings
Competent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
Proficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Feedback:
First Response:

16. Writing--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully 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
Excellent Performance 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response 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
Competent Performance 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
Proficient Performance 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

17. Few or no credible sources are cited
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
Feedback:
First Response:
Timely and full participation--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
posts by due date
Excellent Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Feedback:
Second Response:
Post to colleague's main post that is reflective and justified with
credible sources.--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 9 (9%) - 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice
settings * responds to questions posed by faculty
the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates
synthesis and understanding of learning objectives
Excellent Performance 8.5 (8.5%) - 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice

18. settings
Competent Performance 7.5 (7.5%) - 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or
application to practice setting
Proficient Performance 6.5 (6.5%) - 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Feedback:
Second Response:
Writing--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 6 (6%) - 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response to faculty questions are fully 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
Excellent Performance 5.5 (5.5%) - 5.5 (5.5%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues
Response 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
Competent Performance 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to
colleagues
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

19. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources
Response is written in Standard Edited English
Proficient Performance 4.5 (4.5%) - 4.5 (4.5%)
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective
professional communication
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed
Few or no credible sources are cited
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 4 (4%)
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective
Response to faculty questions are missing
No credible sources are cited
Feedback:
Second Response:
Timely and full participation--
Levels of Achievement:
Outstanding Performance 5 (5%) - 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely and full participation
Posts by due date
Excellent Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Competent Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Proficient Performance 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
NA
Room for Improvement 0 (0%) - 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Feedback:
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6501_Week9_Discussion_Rubric

20. %7B%220.400000
%7B%220.350000
%7B%220.310000
%7B%220.000000
%7B%220.060000
%7B%220.055000
%7B%220.050000
%7B%220.045000
%7B%220.100000
Exit
%7B%220.090000
%7B%220.085000
%7B%220.075000
%7B%220.065000
%7B%220.440000
Required Readings
Huether, S. E., & McCance, K. L. (2017). Understanding
pathophysiology (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

21. · Chapter 35, “Structure and Function of the Digestive System”
This chapter provides information relating to the structure and
function of the digestive system. It covers the gastrointestinal
tract and accessory organs of digestion.
· Chapter 36, “Alterations of Digestive Function”
This chapter presents information relating to disorders of the
gastrointestinal tract and accessory organs of digestion. It also
covers the pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, evaluation, and
treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastritis, peptic
ulcer disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and irritable bowel
syndrome.
· Chapter 37, “Alterations of Digestive Function in Children”
This chapter presents information relating to disorders of the
gastrointestinal tract and liver that affect children. It focuses on
congenital impairment, inflammatory disorders, metabolic
disorders, as well as the impairment of digestion, absorption,
and nutrition.
Hammer, G. D., & McPhee, S. J. (2019). Pathophysiology of
disease: An introduction to clinical medicine (8th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
· Chapter 13, “Gastrointestinal Disease”
This chapter provides a foundation for exploring
gastrointestinal disorders by reviewing the structure and
function of the GI tract. It also describes mechanisms of
regulation of GI tract disorders such as acid-peptic disease,
inflammatory bowel disease, and irritable bowel syndrome.
· Chapter 14, “Liver Disease”

22. This chapter reviews the structure and function of the liver. It
then explores the clinical presentation, etiology, pathogenesis,
pathology, and clinical manifestations of three liver disorders:
acute hepatitis, chronic hepatitis, and cirrhosis.
· Chapter 15, “Disorders of the Exocrine Pancreas”
This chapter begins by reviewing the anatomy, histology, and
physiology of the exocrine pancreas. It then examines the
clinical presentation, etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, and
clinical manifestations of acute and chronic pancreatitis,
pancreatic insufficiency, and pancreatic cancer.
· de Bortoli, N., Martinucci, I., Bellini, M., Savarino, E.,
Savarino, V., Blandizzi, C., & Marchi, S. (2013). Overlap of
functional heartburn and gastroesophageal reflux disease with
irritable bowel syndrome. World Journal of Gastroenterology,
19(35), 5787-5797. doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i35.5787
Required Media
Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2012c). The
gastrointestinal system. Baltimore, MD: Author.
This media presentation outlines the pathophysiology of the
gastrointestinal system and associated alterations.
Optional Resources
American Liver Foundation (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.liverfoundation.org/
National Digestive Diseases Information Clearinghouse. (2016).
Retrieved from http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/index.aspx