250-350 words apa style
250-350 words apa style
Evaluate one of the technology trends or devices you found most interesting in your readings. I chose Nanorobots living in our bloodstream.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM FREE PAPER NOW
Identify the source in which you read about it and provide a link. https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/U…
Then, analyze at least two ethical issues you believe might be connected with or result from this trend.
EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
Discussion Posting Content
Points:
Points Range: 22 (55%) – 24 (60%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples); evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources; and discerning ideas.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 19 (47.5%) – 21 (52.5%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example); evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources; and discerning ideas.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 17 (42.5%) – 18 (45%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 16 (40%)
Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Feedback:
Peer Feedback and Interaction
Points:
Points Range: 8 (20%) – 8 (20%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 7 (17.5%) – 7 (17.5%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are good but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 6 (15%) – 6 (15%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (12.5%)
Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.
Feedback:
Writing
Points:
Points Range: 8 (20%) – 8 (20%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 7 (17.5%) – 7 (17.5%)
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 6 (15%) – 6 (15%)
Postings are somewhat below graduate-level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (12.5%)
Postings are well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
Show Descriptions
Show Feedback
DISCUSSION POSTING CONTENT–
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT22 (55%) – 24 (60%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples); evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources; and discerning ideas.
GOOD19 (47.5%) – 21 (52.5%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example); evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources; and discerning ideas.
FAIR17 (42.5%) – 18 (45%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
POOR0 (0%) – 16 (40%)
Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Feedback:
PEER FEEDBACK AND INTERACTION–
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT8 (20%) – 8 (20%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
GOOD7 (17.5%) – 7 (17.5%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are good but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
FAIR6 (15%) – 6 (15%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources.
POOR0 (0%) – 5 (12.5%)
Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.
Feedback:
WRITING–
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT8 (20%) – 8 (20%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate-level writing style.
GOOD7 (17.5%) – 7 (17.5%)
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate-level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.
FAIR6 (15%) – 6 (15%)
Postings are somewhat below graduate-level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing.
POOR0 (0%) – 5 (12.5%)
Postings are well below graduate-level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
Total Points: 40
Name: MMHA_6300_ Wk06_Discussion_Rubric
