Discuss the underlying assumptions and potential ramifications of having proxy subjective health status or evaluation measures for children or those unable to speak for themselves

Criteria

(100%)

Initial Post relevance to the topic of discussion, applicability, and insight.

(20%)

The student provides in-depth coverage of discussion topic (s), outstanding clarity, and explanation of concepts demonstrated in the information presented; approaches the weekly discussion with depth and breadth, without redundancy, using clear and focused details. The posting directly addresses key issues, questions, or problems related to the topic of discussion. The posting applies course concepts with examples learned from the material provided during the weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice; the student is showing applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also,

the posting offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates
a strong understanding of the concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic (use of examples). The student’s initial thread response is
rich in critical thinking and full of thought, insight, and analysis; the argument is clear and concise.

Quality of Written Communication

Appropriateness of audience and words choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied. Grammar, spelling, punctuation.

(20%)

The student uses a style and voice that are not only appropriate to the given audience and purpose, but that also shows originality and creativity. Word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied. Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures are used. The student is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Inclusion of the student outcomes explored in the discussion as well as the role-specific competencies as applicable. (10%)

The student provides an explanation of how the applicable Student Learning Outcomes were explored or related to the weekly discussion topic.

Rigor, currency, and relevance of the scholarly references. (20%)

The student provides robust support from credible, current (less than five years old), and relevant scholarly references (at least two). The supporting evidence meets or exceeds the minimum number of required scholarly references.

Peer & Professor Responses. Number of responses,

quality of response posts.

(20%)

The student provides substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic. The answer provided by the student builds on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citation/references. The student provides frequent attempts to motivate and encourage the group. The student responds to at least two peers and answers the professor’s feedback/question.