Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
- Textbook: pp. 94-103, 267-270
- Lesson
- Minimum of 1 article (academic or credible online source)
Apply the following writing resources to your posts:
Initial Post Instructions
Part 1: Research & Review
Please review the Point: Vaccines Save Lives, an example of a pro article.
Note: The article was pulled from our Chamberlain library’s Points of View Reference Center database. This resource is highly recommended, as it presents many of the topics in the General Education Healthcare field that may be applicable this term. To access the resource from our library website, choose “Databases” on the homepage, and scroll down to “Points of View.” Click “Go.” Scroll down to Health and Medicine. You will see a large list of potential topics ranging from Allergies in Schools to Vegetarianism. When you click on a topic (Vaccines, for example), you will see an overview of the topic, as well as points, counterpoints, and a guide to critical analysis.
To develop your ideas about a selected topic, conduct an online search to find a recent pro article on your topic. The goal is to find an article that takes a clear pro position. Include the following in your post:
- Name of the article
- Author
- URL
- Brief summary of the article.
The article can be an online source from credible websites or academic resources. It must be cited in APA format. For pointers on APA citations, please refer to the Chamberlain Library’s Citation and Writing Assistance website (noted in the Required Resources).
Part 2: Application
For the second part of the initial post, address the following:
- Discuss which of the topic generation methods from this week’s lecture worked best for you and why (or did you use an alternate approach?).
- How will you remain objective about your topic?
- Who is your audience?
- Based on the topic development completed so far, brainstorm 3 potential pros for your topic choice.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the instructor. Strive to provide constructive criticism that will help your fellow students develop their own topics by asking questions, pointing to additional research, or providing professional and personal examples. Help your fellow peers to brainstorm potential pros for their topics. Since many of the topics we will deal with in this course are controversial, a respectful, professional tone is expected.
Note: If you see that someone has already received feedback from two peers, please choose to help a peer who has yet to obtain feedback.
Writing Requirements
- Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
- Initial Post Length: minimum of 3 college-level paragraphs
- APA format for in-text citations and list of references
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Course Outcomes (CO): 1, 3, 5
Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Wednesday
Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
Reference
Lee, D. & Carson-Dewitt, R. (2017). Point: Vaccines save lives. Points of View: Vaccines & Health Hazards, 2.
Discussion Grading Rubric – 25 pts
You’ve already rated students with this rubric. Any major changes could affect their assessment results.
Discussion Grading Rubric – 25 pts
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Initial Post Content
|
7.0 pts
Addresses all aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding regarding all weekly concepts.
|
5.0 pts
Addresses most aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of most of the weekly concepts.
|
3.0 pts
Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question(s), applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding of some of the weekly concepts.
|
0.0 pts
Minimally addresses the initial discussion question(s) or does not address the initial question(s).
|
|
7.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Initial Post Evidence & Sources
|
4.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons, AND at least one outside scholarly source. Sources are credited.
|
3.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion from assigned readings OR online lessons. Sources are credited.
|
2.0 pts
Integrates evidence to support discussion only from an outside source with no mention of assigned reading or lesson. Sources are credited.
|
0.0 pts
Does not integrate any evidence.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Follow-Up Post 1
|
4.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.
|
3.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.
|
2.0 pts
Response does not further the dialogue significantly; adds little depth to the discussion.
|
0.0 pts
Does not respond to another student or instructor.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Follow-Up Post 2
|
4.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.
|
3.0 pts
Response furthers the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.
|
2.0 pts
Response does not further the dialogue significantly; adds little depth to the discussion.
|
0.0 pts
Does not respond to another student or instructor.
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Professional Communication
|
4.0 pts
Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (minimal errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
3.0 pts
Presents information in an organized manner (few errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
2.0 pts
Presents information using understandable language but is somewhat disorganized (some errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
|
0.0 pts
Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the message (numerous errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
|
|
4.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Timeliness of Responses
|
1.0 pts
Student posts an answer to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. M.T.
|
0.0 pts
Student does not post an answer to the initial discussion question(s) by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. M.T.
|
|
1.0 pts
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Frequency of Responses
|
1.0 pts
Posts in the discussion on two different days.
|
0.0 pts
Posts fewer than two different days OR does not participate at all.
|
|
1.0 pts
|
Total Points: 25.0
|