Healthcare Policy and Analysis
Muddiest Point and Peer Feedback
Feedback and guidance are an integral part of any successful plan. Accessing the expertise, experience, and ideas of others allows us to fully examine topics and plans to ensure no stone is left unturned.
For this Discussion, you will utilize the expertise of your colleagues to assist you in developing your Personal Legislative Agenda. You will construct 1-2 questions regarding any areas of concerns or guidance for colleague support and suggestion.
Learning Resources
Required Resources
Readings
· Dawes, D. E. (2020).
The political determinants of health. Johns Hopkins University Press.
· Chapter 5, “Wining the Game That Never Ends: Success Means Continuous Employment of the Political Determinants of Health” (pp. 112–130)
· Porche, D. J. (2023).
Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 12, “Evidence Informing Policymaking ” (pp. 175–183)
· Chapter 15, “Politics: Theory and Practice” (pp. 201–237)
·
Document:
Personal Legislative Agenda and Action Plan Exemplar (Word Document)
Download Personal Legislative Agenda and Action Plan Exemplar (Word Document)
· Association of Public Health Nurses Public Health Policy Committee. (2021).
Public health policy advocacy guidebook and tool kitLinks to an external site.
.
·
Congress.govLinks to an external site.. (2022).
· Congress.gov. (2022).
State legislative websitesLinks to an external site.
[Interactive media]. state-legislature-websites
· Gustafson, A. (2017, December 12). How to be a political influence—as an average citizen.
CurrentsLinks to an external site.
.
· Rees, A. (2013, August 6).
Digital and online activismLinks to an external site.
. Reset: Digital for Good.
· Social Current. (n.d.).
Policy, advocacy, and communications toolkitLinks to an external site.
.
· White, N. (2018). Introduction: Why read the
Effective Activist Guide. In
Effective activist: An evidence-based guide to progressive social changeLinks to an external site.
(pp. 6–10). Effective Activist.
To Prepare:
· Begin work on the Personal Legislative Agenda.
· Consider questions or concerns you have about the plan.
Post a response detailing the following:
Construct one to two (1–2) questions for your colleagues detailing any questions or concerns you may have regarding the Personal Legislative Agenda. Your questions should clearly describe areas you may need clarification and/or guidance for the continuation of your work on the Personal Legislative Agenda.
NURS_8100_Week5-7_Discussion2_Rubric
|
NURS_8100_Week5-7_Discussion2_Rubric
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)
|
|
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.
|
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.
|
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.
|
12 to >0 pts
Poor
• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
|
|
30 to >29.0 pts
Excellent
Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.
|
29 to >23.0 pts
Good
Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.
|
23 to >18.0 pts
Fair
Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.
|
18 to >0 pts
Poor
Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.
|
|
30 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
|
|
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
|
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
|
|
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
19 to >15.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.
|
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
|
12 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
|
|
20 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
|
|
10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
9 to >8.0 pts
Good
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
8 to >6.0 pts
Fair
Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
6 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
Total Points: 100
|
