Agenda Comparison Grids

  Post a exhaust 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 vary the rubric's laDiscussion_Rubric Grid View List View ExcellentGoodFairPoorMain Posting45 (45%) - 50 (50%)Answers all talents of the displan scrutiny(s) expectations after a while inobservant censorious separation and form of information gained from the plan readings for the module and popular likely sources. Supported by at smallest three popular, likely sources. Written plainly and briefly after a while no actual or spelling errors and largely unites to popular APA manual answerableness rules and mode.40 (40%) - 44 (44%)Responds to the displan scrutiny(s) and is inobservant after a while censorious separation and form of information gained from the plan readings for the module. At smallest 75% of support has abnormal profoundness and variation. Supported by at smallest three likely sources. Written plainly and briefly after a while one or no actual or spelling errors and largely unites to popular APA manual answerableness rules and mode.35 (35%) - 39 (39%)Responds to some of the displan scrutiny(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is subordinately failureing reflecting and censorious separation and form. Somewhat enacts information gained from the plan readings for the module. Post is cited after a while two likely sources. Written subordinately briefly; may include past than two spelling or actual errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.0 (0%) - 34 (34%)Does not accord to the displan scrutiny(s) adequately. Lacks profoundness or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflecting and censorious separation and form. Does not enact information gained from the plan readings for the module. Contains simply one or no likely sources. Not written plainly or briefly. Contains past than two spelling or actual errors. Does not unite to popular APA manual answerableness rules and mode.Main Post: Timeliness10 (10%) - 10 (10%)Posts deep support by day 3.0 (0%) - 0 (0%)0 (0%) - 0 (0%)0 (0%) - 0 (0%)Does not support by day 3.First Response17 (17%) - 18 (18%)Response exhibits form, censorious thinking, and contact to usage settings. Responds largely to scrutinys posed by grant. Provides obvious, brief opinions and ideas that are attended by at smallest two skilled sources. Demonstrates form and agreement of education objectives. Communication is negotiative and deferential to colleagues. Responses to grant scrutinys are largely answered, if posed. Response is potently written in plummet, edited English.15 (15%) - 16 (16%)Response exhibits censorious thinking and contact to usage settings. Communication is negotiative and deferential to colleagues. Responses to grant scrutinys are answered, if posed. Provides obvious, brief opinions and ideas that are attended by two or past likely sources. Response is potently written in plummet, edited English.13 (13%) - 14 (14%)Response is on question and may own some profoundness. Responses attended in the displan may failure potent negotiative despatch. Responses to grant scrutinys are subordinately answered, if posed. Response may failure obvious, brief opinions and ideas, and a few or no likely sources are cited.0 (0%) - 12 (12%)Response may not be on question and failures profoundness. Responses attended in the displan failure potent negotiative despatch. Responses to grant scrutinys are privation. No likely sources are cited.Second Response16 (16%) - 17 (17%)Response exhibits form, censorious thinking, and contact to usage settings. Responds largely to scrutinys posed by grant. Provides obvious, brief opinions and ideas that are attended by at smallest two skilled sources. Demonstrates form and agreement of education objectives. Communication is negotiative and deferential to colleagues. Responses to grant scrutinys are largely answered, if posed. Response is potently written in plummet, edited English.14 (14%) - 15 (15%)Response exhibits censorious thinking and contact to usage settings. Communication is negotiative and deferential to colleagues. Responses to grant scrutinys are answered, if posed. Provides obvious, brief opinions and ideas that are attended by two or past likely sources. Response is potently written in plummet, edited English.12 (12%) - 13 (13%)Response is on question and may own some profoundness. Responses attended in the displan may failure potent negotiative despatch. Responses to grant scrutinys are subordinately answered, if posed. Response may failure obvious, brief opinions and ideas, and a few or no likely sources are cited.0 (0%) - 11 (11%)Response may not be on question and failures profoundness. Responses attended in the displan failure potent negotiative despatch. Responses to grant scrutinys are privation. No likely sources are cited.Participation5 (5%) - 5 (5%)Meets requirements for free-trade by supporting on three opposed days.0 (0%) - 0 (0%)0 (0%) - 0 (0%)0 (0%) - 0 (0%)Does not unite requirements for free-trade by supporting on 3 opposed days.Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6050_Module01_Week01_Discussion_Rubric