Health care as a privilege Post your initial response by Day 3. Note Initial Pos

Health care as a privilege
Post your initial response by Day 3.
Note Initial Post: A 3-paragraph (at least 350 words) response. Be sure to use evidence from the readings and include in-text citations. Utilize essay-level writing practice and skills, including the use of transitional material and organizational frames. Avoid quotes; paraphrase to incorporate evidence into your own writing. A reference list is required. Use the most current evidence (usually less than or equal to 5 years old).
Required Content
Presents initial argument in an objective, thorough, and convincing manner, regardless of your personal convictions.–
Excellent 36 (36%) – 40 (40%)
Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.
Proficient 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.
Basic 28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.
Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 27 (27%)
Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.
Required Content
Proposes scholarly and substantial arguments for an opposing position, mirroring the requirements of the initial post.–
Excellent 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)
Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.
Proficient 24 (24%) – 26 (26%)
Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.
Basic 21 (21%) – 23 (23%)
Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.
Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 20 (20%)
Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.
Response Posts
Entered the discussion thread on 3 separate days. Wrote at least two posts to two separate peers.
Responses are appropriate to the topic, substantive, and promoted discussion by one or more of the following:
• contributing insight to move the discussion forward.
• offering substantial and/or different points of view and asks questions to add to discussion
• including extra references or websites for peers to consider
• relating discussion to different areas of practice and applying concepts to practice
**Additional points may be deducted for late posting per the University late policy.–
Excellent 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response posts add substantial ideas and perspectives that invite further analysis and discussion. Participated 3 or more days in the classroom and responded to more than 2 classmates.
Proficient 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response posts are proficient and provide adequate analysis and discussion. Participated 3 days in the classroom and responds to at least two classmates.
Basic 11 (11%) – 11 (11%)
Response posts are limited and provide minimal analysis and discussion. Participated less than 3 days in the classroom and/or responds to less than two classmates.
Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 10 (10%)
Response posts are inadequate and provide no analysis of discussion and/ or there is no participation in the classroom.
Professional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization–
Excellent 4.5 (4.5%) – 5 (5%)
Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.
Proficient 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.
Basic 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision.
Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization.
Professional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone–
Excellent 4.5 (4.5%) – 5 (5%)
Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context.
Proficient 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.
Basic 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.
Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing.
Professional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas–
Excellent 4.5 (4.5%) – 5 (5%)
Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.
Proficient 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.
Basic 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.
Needs Improvement 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Content does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference.