Analysis of DNP Discussion

December 16, 2022

Analysis of DNP Discussion

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Analysis of DNP Discussion

Analysis, DNP, Discussion

Purpose

The purpose of the graded collaborative discussions is to engage faculty and students in an interactive dialogue to assist the student in organizing, integrating, applying, and critically appraising knowledge regarding advanced nursing practice. Scholarly information obtained from credible sources as well as professional communication are required.

Application of information to professional experiences promotes the analysis and use of principles, knowledge, and information learned and related to real-life professional situations. Meaningful dialogue among faculty and students fosters the development of a learning community as ideas, perspectives, and knowledge are shared.

Due Date

The initial posting to the graded collaborative discussions is due by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT. Peer and faculty responses are due by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT. All posts for Week 8 are due by the close of class on Saturday, 11:59 p.m. MT. Please note that the late assignment policy does not apply to the collaborative discussions.

Discussion Criteria

Application of Course Knowledge: The student post contributes unique perspectives or insights gleaned from personal experience or examples from the healthcare field. The student must accurately and fully discuss the topic for the week in addition to providing personal or professional examples. The student must completely answer the entire initial question.
Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue: The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue.
Peer Response: The student responds substantively to at least one topic-related post by a student peer. A substantive post adds content or insights or asks a question that will add to the learning experience and/or generate discussion.

A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the other student’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
The peer response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
The peer response must occur before Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
The peer response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is summarized and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.

Faculty Response: The student responds substantively to at least one question by course faculty. The faculty question may be directed to the student, to another student, or to the entire class.

A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the faculty’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
The faculty response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
Responses to the faculty member must occur by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
This response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is summarized and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.

III. Integration of Evidence:

The student post provides support from a minimum of at least three (3) sources which may include assigned readings, or weekly module content, or outside scholarly sources. The scholarly source when used is: 1) evidence-based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years, and 4) an in-text citation.

The student initial response to the graded discussion must include at least 1 source. Responses to peer and/or faculty, citations and references are included when information is summarized/synthesized and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.

It is important that student utilizes support from the literature that is grounded in the literature providing sources relevant to the discussion posting. One source may come from the online weekly content.
Scholarly Sources

Two (2) scholarly sources should be used in the discussion board assignments across the week.
These include peer-reviewed publications.
Textbooks are not considered scholarly sources. However, in some assignments, support from textbooks may be used on a limited basis when accompanied with additional scholarly sources if specified in the assignment guidelines or with instructor approval.
Scholarly sources may be present in the weekly readings and students may choose to utilize these.
Wikipedia, Wikis, .com website or blogs should not be used.
Sources should be no more than five years old unless they are historical or seminal references or approved by your instructor.

Literature Sources:

Grey literature is scholarly but not peer-reviewed. These resources can be used but do not meet requirements for peer-reviewed sources.
Refer to the assignment guidelines to determine which grey literature sources (e.g., professional organization website, white papers) are appropriate to be used for discussions or assignments and would constitute receiving full credit for using this resource in the paper or discussion.
Government reports are actually part of the grey literature – they are not peer reviewed and the government’s main purpose is not the publication of literature.
Internet resources on dissertations, a form of grey literature, provide additional views on the scholarly level of this literature
Papers written for Chamberlain College of Nursing should be the student’s original work and contain no more than one short quotation for every three pages or as designated in the assignment guidelines. Quotations should be avoided if possible.

(Chamberlain Guidelines for Writing Professional Papers, 2018)

Professionalism in Communication: The post presents information in logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, and is clearly relevant to the discussion topic. Grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate.
Wednesday Participation Requirement: The student provides a substantive response to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course faculty (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.
Total Participation Requirement: The student provides at least three substantive posts (one to the initial question or topic, one to

a student peer, and one to a faculty question) on two different days during the week.

Discussion Criteria	Highest Level of Performance A	Very Good or High Level of Performance B	Acceptable Level of Performance C	Failing Level of Performance F
	10 points	9 points	8 points	0 points
Application of Course Knowledge: Answers the initial discussion question(s)/topic(s), demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the concepts for the week.	Addresses all aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding.	Addresses most aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding.	Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding.	Does not address the initial question(s).
	10 points	9 points	8 points	0 points
Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue With Peers and Faculty: The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue.	Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.	Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.	Responds to a student peer and/or course faculty, adding minimal depth to the discussion.	No response post to another student or course faculty.
	10 points	9 points	8 points	0 points
Integration of Evidence: Includes assigned readings, or weekly module content, or outside scholarly sources. Includes three sources to support concepts for the week. A scholarly source is defined on page 2 of these guidelines. These sources may be evident across the 3 postings.	Sources are credited.* At least 3 sources to support posts.	Sources are credited.* At least 2 sources to support posts.	Sources are credited.* At least 1 source to support posts.	No scholarly source provided to support posts.
	10 points	9 points	8 points	0 points
Professionalism in Communication	Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (0–1 error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).	Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (2–3 error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).	Presents information using understandable language; information is not organized 4-5 error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).	Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional, or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the post 6 or more error patterns in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
	5 points	0 points
Participation Wednesday Response: Responds to initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT.	Posts a substantive response to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT.	Does not post a substantive response to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
	5 points	0 points
Total Participation Responses: Participates in the discussion thread at least three times on at least 2 different days.	Posts in the discussion at least three times AND on two different days during the discussion week.	Posts fewer than three times OR does not participate on at least two different days during the discussion week.

[Order Now]

Analysis of DNP Discussion

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.