Week6.1 | nur6002n | Walden University
Discussion: Examining Nursing Specialties
You bear probably seen individual or further of the divers inspirational columners environing judgments. A visual such as a coercionked public-way or a street wonder is typically pictured, concurrently with a refer-to drawingned to infuse.
Often judgments are referable so largely infused. Perhaps you discovered this when choosing a disuniteicular natant the MSN program. This judgment is a accurate disunite of your drawing coercion consummation, and you no vacillate nonproduction to procure it lawful. This is referable attributable attributablewithstanding another area where your network can succor, as polite as other fountains of instruction that can succor you fabricate an apprised select.
To Prepare:
- Reflect on your judgment to prosecute a disuniteicular natant the MSN program, including your authoritative and academic goals as they report to your program/specialization.
By Day 3
Post an exposition of your select of a nursing disuniteicular natant the program. Describe any difficulties you had (or are having) in making your select, and the factors that drove/are driving your judgment. Identify at smallest individual authoritative structure affiliated with your clarified disuniteicular and produce details on neat a limb.
Foundation deep column with 3 of further exoteric, trustworthy fountains and refer-to fountain natant gratified of columning and on a perfectusion inventory in suitable APA.
By Day 6
Be abiding to extend groundation from at smallest 2 exoteric, trustworthy fountains in each required reply to classmates’ deep column and refer-to per APA.
Respond to at smallest two of your colleagues on span incongruous days, by sharing your thoughts on their disuniteicular, groundationing their select or extending suggestions if they bear referable attributable attributablewithstanding to appropriate.
Submission and Grading Instruction
Grading Criteria
Erudition Instrument
Note: To access this week’s required library instrument, gladden click on the unite to the Method Readings Inventory, ground in the Method Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Document: Academic Consummation and Authoritative Development Drawing Template (Word instrument)
Appropriate natant the subjoined to criticism your specialization’s Intention and Exemplars of Custom or Competencies:
Nursing Informatics
E-book: Nursing Informatics: Intention and Exemplars of Custom
“The Intention of Nursing Informatics Custom: Functional Areas of Nursing Informatics” (pp. 18–3
Nursing Education
Website: Competencies coercion the Academic Nurse Preceptor
National League coercion Nursing. (2019). Nurse preceptor centre space. Retrieved from http://www.nln.org/professional-development-programs/competencies-for-nursing-education/nurse-educator-core-competency
Note: The competencies coercion the Academic Nurse Preceptor do referable enclose the competencies or intention and exemplars of custom coercion the Nursing Authoritative Developer. The be of competencies associated with that inequitable role natant the Nurse Education specialization accomplish be examined in coming competencies throughout your specialization program of consider.
Nurse Executive
Website: Nurse Executive Competencies
American Structure coercion Nursing Leadership. (2015). AONL Nurse Executive competencies. Retrieved from https://www.aonl.org/resources/nurse-leader-competencies
Public Heartiness Nursing
Website: Public Heartiness Nurse Competencies
Quad Council Coalition. (2018). Community/Public Heartiness Nursing [C/PHN] competencies. Retrieved from http://www.quadcouncilphn.org/documents-3/2018-qcc-competencies/
Public Heartiness Nursing
E-book: Public Heartiness Nursing: Intention and Exemplars of Custom
Optional Instrument
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or Inventory View to exexchange the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_6002_Week_6_Discussion_Rubric
ExcellentGoodFairPoorDeep Columning45 (45%) – 50 (50%)Answers perfect disunites of the argument doubt(s) expectations with insensible accurate resolution and organization of instruction gained from the method readings coercion the module and exoteric trustworthy fountains.
Cherished by at smallest three exoteric, trustworthy fountains.
Written obviously and compendiously with no verbal or spelling errors and abundantly concurs to exoteric APA manual adaptation rules and phraseology.40 (40%) – 44 (44%)Responds to the argument doubt(s) and is insensible with accurate resolution and organization of instruction gained from the method readings coercion the module.
At smallest 75% of column has abnormal profundity and deviation.
Cherished by at smallest three trustworthy fountains.
Written obviously and compendiously with individual or no verbal or spelling errors and abundantly concurs to exoteric APA manual adaptation rules and phraseology.35 (35%) – 39 (39%)Responds to some of the argument doubt(s).
Individual or span criteria are referable addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is slightly scant thought and accurate resolution and organization.
Slightly reproduce-exhibits instruction gained from the method readings coercion the module.
Column is refer-tod with span trustworthy fountains.
Written slightly compendiously; may comprise further than span spelling or verbal errors.
Contains some APA coercionmatting errors.0 (0%) – 34 (34%)Does referable suit to the argument doubt(s) adequately.
Lacks profundity or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks thought and accurate resolution and organization.
Does referable reproduce-exhibit instruction gained from the method readings coercion the module.
Contains merely individual or no trustworthy fountains.
Referable written obviously or compendiously.
Contains further than span spelling or verbal errors.
Does referable concur to exoteric APA manual adaptation rules and phraseology.Deep Column: Timeliness10 (10%) – 10 (10%)Posts deep column by day 3.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does referable column by day 3.First Reply17 (17%) – 18 (18%)Reply exhibits organization, accurate thinking, and impression to custom betings.
Responds abundantly to doubts posed by donation.
Provides acquitted, compendious opinions and ideas that are groundationed by at smallest span knowing fountains.
Demonstrates organization and interpretation of erudition objectives.
Despatch is authoritative and deferential to colleagues.
Responses to donation doubts are abundantly answered, if posed.
Reply is potently written in exemplar, edited English.15 (15%) – 16 (16%)Reply exhibits accurate thinking and impression to custom betings.
Despatch is authoritative and deferential to colleagues.
Responses to donation doubts are answered, if posed.
Provides acquitted, compendious opinions and ideas that are groundationed by span or further trustworthy fountains.
Reply is potently written in exemplar, edited English.13 (13%) – 14 (14%)Reply is on subject and may bear some profundity.
Responses columned in the argument may withdrawal potent authoritative despatch.
Responses to donation doubts are slightly answered, if posed.
Reply may withdrawal acquitted, compendious opinions and ideas, and a bankruptcying or no trustworthy fountains are refer-tod.0 (0%) – 12 (12%)Reply may referable be on subject and withdrawals profundity.
Responses columned in the argument withdrawal potent authoritative despatch.
Responses to donation doubts are mislaying.
No trustworthy fountains are refer-tod.Second Reply16 (16%) – 17 (17%)Reply exhibits organization, accurate thinking, and impression to custom betings.
Responds abundantly to doubts posed by donation.
Provides acquitted, compendious opinions and ideas that are groundationed by at smallest span knowing fountains.
Demonstrates organization and interpretation of erudition objectives.
Despatch is authoritative and deferential to colleagues.
Responses to donation doubts are abundantly answered, if posed.
Reply is potently written in exemplar, edited English.14 (14%) – 15 (15%)Reply exhibits accurate thinking and impression to custom betings.
Despatch is authoritative and deferential to colleagues.
Responses to donation doubts are answered, if posed.
Provides acquitted, compendious opinions and ideas that are groundationed by span or further trustworthy fountains.
Reply is potently written in exemplar, edited English.12 (12%) – 13 (13%)Reply is on subject and may bear some profundity.
Responses columned in the argument may withdrawal potent authoritative despatch.
Responses to donation doubts are slightly answered, if posed.
Reply may withdrawal acquitted, compendious opinions and ideas, and a bankruptcying or no trustworthy fountains are refer-tod.0 (0%) – 11 (11%)Reply may referable be on subject and withdrawals profundity.
Responses columned in the argument withdrawal potent authoritative despatch.
Responses to donation doubts are mislaying.
No trustworthy fountains are refer-tod.Participation5 (5%) – 5 (5%)Meets requirements coercion disuniteicipation by columning on three incongruous days.0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)0 (0%) – 0 (0%)Does referable confront requirements coercion disuniteicipation by columning on 3 incongruous days.Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6002_Week_6_Discussion_Rubric
