5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8 Assessment 4: Written assignment Due May 24 by 18:00 Points 100 Submitting a file...

1 answer below »
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
Assessment 4: Written assignment
Due May 24 by 18:00 Points 100 Submitting a file upload Available Mar 29 at 0:00 - May 24 at 18:30 about 2 months
Start Assignment
Due date: Monday, Week 9, 6.00pm AEDT/AEST
Word count: Equivalent to 2000 words
Weighting: 40%
Submission: Use the 'Submit assignment' at the top of this page.
Feedback: Tutor feedback provided after the end of term.
Introduction
For this assessment, you will complete a written assignment about the assessment, ventilation and nursing considerations of a critically unwell
person presented in a case study. Skills in analysing and interpreting the key features presented in the case study will help you make informed
clinical decisions about critically unwell people.
By completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your ability to:
Integrate core principles covered in this subject and its prerequisite, Applied Pathophysiology, to establish specialist knowledge of the
impact of treatment on the disease trajectory, acute illness, and management of patients with a range of acute health problems (LO1)
Incorporate knowledge learnt in the subject to recognise and plan an evidence-based intervention for patients experiencing alterations to
health and wellness that occur in the specific context of critical care (LO2)
Demonstrate the capacity to problem-solve, think critically and promote rational inquiry when provided with a clinical scenario (LO3)
Demonstrate skills in communication as it applies to critical care nursing (LO4)
Identify the role of resilience, effective communication, and patient and family education on the outcomes of care (LO5).
Instructions
1. Select a case study:
Joe is a two-month-old boy (actual = predicted weight), admitted generally unwell with a
cough and pyrexia, reduced appetite and minimally wet nappies for two days. Over the
past 4 hours Joe has been tachypnoeic with lengthy dips in his SpO and HR. He has
required frequent nasal suctioning and is on 2 L/minute oxygen via nasal catheter. Due to
poor capillary refill and decreased urine output he has also had an IV fluid bolus for likely
dehydration. Lab results suggest this is bronchiolitis related to Respiratory Syncytial Virus
(RSV). His CXR shows generalised broncho-vascular markings around the hilar region
but no consolidation or collapse.

Case study 1: Joe (bronchiolitis)+
2
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
Figure 1. Joe's chest X-ray
Source Jones, 2015 Jones, J XXXXXXXXXXBronchiolits [X-ray]. Radiopaedia. Retrieved from
https://radiopaedia.org/cases/bronchiolitis-2 (https://radiopaedia.org/cases/bronchiolitis-2)
Over the next 24 hours, his vital signs deteriorate with an increase in his respiratory rate (76 breaths per minute), heart rate (188
beats per minute) and further temperature (39.4 degrees Celsius). He has also required an increase in his FiO due to
persistently low oxygen saturation level (< 88%). He is now lethargic with increased work of breathing manifested by nasal
flaring, soft tissue retractions, head bobbing, a tracheal tug and grunting. Lung auscultation demonstrates wheezing with poor air
entry bilaterally from mid zones to bases. He was commenced on continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) via a nasal mask
at 5 cm H O pressure.
Over the next hour he remained tachypnoeic with increased work of breathing; the CPAP was increased to 8 cm H O pressure.
Worsening respiratory acidosis and fatigue resulted in Joe being sedated, intubated and ventilated. He is now being ventilated
using the mode of pressure control – synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV-PC). Joe is breathing spontaneously.
A chest X-ray shows good position of the nasal endo-tracheal tube.

1. Given Joe’s age, outline and justify the ventilator mode, settings and alarms you would recommend in his case.
After 30 minutes Joe is still sedated and ventilated, but he has become bradycardic and is also triggering low minute ventilation
alarm.
2. Draw a concept map which illustrates:
a. The likely pathophysiological processes underpinning the development of Joe’s bradycardia and low minute ventilation alarm
after he was recently intubated and ventilated; and
b. One nursing intervention related to each of the reasons for the bradycardia and low minute ventilation you have identified.
Joe has now stabilised and remains sedated, intubated and ventilated.
3. Identify and explain five key nursing considerations related to this sedated, intubated and ventilated patient to minimise
complications as associated with mechanical ventilation and that contribute to improving patient outcomes. Justify your
explanation with supporting evidence.
2
2
2
https://radiopaedia.org/cases/bronchiolitis-2
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
Jax is a 73-year-old, 70 kg man (actual = ideal weight; height 175 cm), who has been
admitted following a two-day history of increasing shortness of breath (SOB) at rest,
following a recent lower respiratory tract infection identified as a community acquired
pneumonia. He has a past medical history of emphysema and is a previous smoker of 30
cigarettes/day. Jax is currently receiving oxygen via a reservoir (non-rebreather) mask at
10 L/minute.
Despite oxygen therapy, antibiotics and steroids, Jax has become persistently
tachypnoeic, tachycardic and increasingly confused. He is changed to high flow nasal
cannula and his oxygen saturation at FiO 0.4 is 82%.
His ABG showed pH 7.38, PaCO 64 mmHg, PaO 52, HCO 33 mmol/L, BE +10, while his chest X-ray shows the presence of
multiple bronco-pneumonic bilateral infiltrates and a left lateral pleural effusion.

Figure 1. Jax's chest X-ray
Source Cardinale, Volpicelli, Lamorte, Martino, & Veltri, 2012, p. 399 Cardinale, L., Volpicelli, G., Lamorte, A., Martino, J., &
Veltri, A XXXXXXXXXXRevisiting signs, strengths and weaknesses of Standard Chest Radiography in patients of Acute Dyspnea in
the Emergency Department. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 4(4), 398–407. http://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn XXXXXXXXXX05
Jax was unable to tolerate a trial of non-invasive ventilation and so underwent rapid sequence induction and intubation followed
by mechanical ventilation due to increasing fatigue. He has been commenced on synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation
– volume control (SIMV-VC) mode.

1. Given Jax’s weight, outline and justify the ventilator mode, settings and alarms you would recommend in his case.
He has been ventilated for 30 minutes over which time he has become hypotensive and tachycardic. He also begun triggering the
low minute ventilation alarm.
Case study 2: Jax (pneumonia)+
2
2 2 3

5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
NURS90122 Assessment 4: Written assignment
2. Draw a concept map which illustrates:
a. The likely pathophysiological processes underpinning the development of Jax’s hypotension and low minute ventilation after
he was recently intubated and ventilated; and
b. One nursing intervention related to each of the reasons for the hypotension and low minute ventilation you have identified.
Jax has now stabilised and remains sedated, intubated and ventilated, but is now spontaneously breathing.
3. Identify and explain five key nursing considerations related to this sedated, intubated and ventilated patient to minimise
complications associated with mechanical ventilation and that contribute to improving patient outcomes. Justify your explanation
with supporting evidence.
2. Respond to the questions in your chosen case study, with reference to the 2000-word limit. Each case study asks for the following items:
Evidence of your three-best activity-related discussion posts, including at least one post related to Week 3's concept map practice
discussion board activity. Your week 3 concept maps should be uploaded to the discussion board no later than the end of week
4. Your comments and feedback on your peers concept maps should be posted no later than the end of week 5. The evidence
of your three-best contributions should be provided after the reference list in your written assignment. This is not included in your word
count.
A written response about ventilation mode, settings and alarms
A concept map, submitted as an image, and
A written response about nursing considerations for the patient.
3. Reference your sources in APA style. See the University's re:cite guide (https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite)
(https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite) for guidance on appropriate APA format. The word limit does not include the title page, the reference
list or appendices (or concept map bibliography). In- text reference citations, including direct quotes are counted as part of the word count -
please see FAQs for further details.
4. Submit your assignment as a .pdf.
Plagiarism declaration
By submitting work for assessment I hereby declare that I understand the University’s policy on academic integrity
(https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/) and that the work submitted is original and solely my work, and that I have not been assisted by any
other person (collusion) apart from where the submitted work is for a designated collaborative task, in which case the individual contributions
are indicated. I also declare that I have not used any sources without proper acknowledgment (plagiarism). Where the submitted work is a
computer program or code, I further declare that any copied code is declared in comments identifying the source at the start of the program or
in a header file, that comments inline identify the start and end of the copied code, and that any modifications to code sources elsewhere are
commented upon as to the nature of the modification.
https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/pages/frequently-asked-questions
https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
Criteria Ratings Pts
25 pts
20 pts
Ventilation
mode,
settings &
alarms
25 to >23.0 pts
Outstanding
Outlines and
justifies
appropriate
and/or accurate
ventilation
mode and/or,
settings and/or
alarms for the
patient case
study.
23 to >21.0 pts
Very high
standard
Outlines and
justifies
appropriate
and/or accurate
ventilation
mode and/or,
settings and/or
alarms for the
patient case
study. Minimal
clarifications or
corrections
required.
21 to >18.0 pts
High standard
Outlines and
justifies mostly
appropriate
and/or accurate
ventilation mode
and/or, settings
and/or alarms for
the patient case
study. However,
some important
mode and/or,
settings and/or
alarms for the
patient case study
may not have
been considered
and/or some
corrections
required.
18 to >16.0 pts
Sound
Outlines and
justifies mostly
appropriate and/or
accurate
ventilation mode
and/or, settings
and/or alarms for
the patient case
study. However,
some important
mode and/or,
settings and/or
alarms for the
patient case study
may not have been
considered and/or
frequent
corrections may be
required.
16 to >12.0 pts
Satisfactory (PASS)
Outlines and justifies
mostly appropriate
and/or accurate
ventilation mode
and/or, settings and/or
alarms for the patient
case study. However,
some important mode
and/or, settings and/or
alarms for the patient
case study may not
have been considered
and/or significant
clarification may be
needed, and/or
significant corrections
may be required.
12 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory (FAIL)
No or insufficient outline
and/or justification of
appropriate and/or
ventilation mode and/or,
settings and/or alarms
for the patient case
study. Important mode
and/or, settings and/or
alarms for the patient
case study may have
been omitted and/or not
have been considered
and/or significant
clarification may be
needed, and/or
significant corrections
may be required.
Concept map 20 to >18.0 pts
Outstanding
Structure
presented is
ordered logically.
Concepts are
accurately and
clearly explained.
Links are explicit
and accurate. All
relevant elements
of the case history
are included.
Discipline-specific
language and
terminology is
always used and
accurately
explains the
pathophysiological
links between
concepts and
consequences.
Makes accurate
and explicit links
between the
pathophysiology
and the patient’s
clinical signs and
symptoms.
Accurate
interventions are
identified and
linked
appropriately.
Links are all
relevant.
18 to >16.0 pts
Very high
standard
Structure
presented is
ordered in a
mostly logical
sequence and/or
concepts are
mostly accurately
and clearly
explained and/or
links mostly clear
and accurate
and/or most of the
relevant elements
of the case study
are included
and/or discipline-
specific language
and terminology is
mostly used
and/or
pathophysiological
links between
concepts and
consequences
and mostly
accurately
explained and/or
mostly accurate
interventions are
identified and/or
linked
appropriately
and/or links are
mostly relevant.
Minimal
clarifications or
corrections
required.
16 to >14.0 pts
High standard
Structure
presented is
ordered in a mostly
logical sequence
and/or concepts
are mostly
accurately and
clearly explained
and/or links mostly
clear and accurate
and/or most of the
relevant elements
of the case study
are included and/or
discipline-specific
language and
terminology is
mostly used and/or
pathophysiological
links between
concepts and
consequences and
mostly accurately
explained and/or
mostly accurate
interventions are
identified and/or
linked
appropriately
and/or links are
mostly relevant.
However, some
important concepts
and/or links and/or
consequences
and/or
interventions may
not have been
considered and/or
some corrections
required.
14 to >11.0 pts
Sound
Structure presented
is ordered in a
mostly logical
sequence and/or
most concepts are
accurately and
clearly explained
and/or links are
clear and mostly
accurate and/or
most of the relevant
elements of the
case history are
included. May
include elements
that are not directly
relevant. Discipline-
specific language
and terminology are
used most of the
time. Accurately
explains most of the
pathophysiological
links between
concepts and
consequences.
Mostly accurate
interventions are
identified and linked
appropriately. Links
are mostly relevant.
However, some
important concepts
and/or links and/or
consequences
and/or interventions
may not have been
considered and/or
frequent corrections
may be required.
11 to >9.0 pts
Satisfactory (PASS)
Structure presented
is at times ordered in
a logical sequence
and/or some
concepts are
accurately and
clearly explained
and/or links are clear
and sometimes
accurate. Some of
the relevant elements
of the case history
may not be included.
Includes several
elements that are not
directly relevant.
Discipline-specific
language and
terminology is used
sporadically but
correctly to explain
the
pathophysiological
links between
concepts and
consequences.
Some accurate
interventions are
identified and/or
sometimes linked
appropriately.
However, some
important concepts
and/or links and/or
consequences
and/or interventions
may not have been
considered and/or
significant
clarification may be
needed, and/or
significant
corrections may be
required.
9 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
(FAIL)
Structure is not
logical and/or
concepts are not
clearly explained
and/or the links
are unclear and/or
inaccurate and/or
many elements
may not be
directly relevant to
the case.
Discipline-specific
language and
terminology is
used sporadically
and/or incorrectly
in the attempt to
explain the
pathophysiological
links between
concepts and
consequences.
Makes inaccurate
and unclear links
between the
pathophysiology
and/or
interventions
which may not be
identified and/or
linked
appropriately
and/or many of
the links are not
relevant.
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
Criteria Ratings Pts
25 pts
10 pts
Nursing
considerations
to avoid
complications
25 to >23.0 pts
Outstanding
The five nursing
considerations
identified are
appropriate and
relevant, are
explained
clearly and
accurately and
are justified.
23 to >21.0 pts
Very high
standard
Nursing
considerations
identified are
appropriate
and/or relevant
to minimising
complications
and/or
explained
clearly. Minimal
clarifications or
corrections
required.
21 to >18.0 pts
High standard
Nursing
considerations
identified are
appropriate and/or
relevant to
minimising
complications
and/or explained
clearly. However,
some important
considerations may
not have been
addressed and/or
some corrections
required.
18 to >16.0 pts
Sound
Nursing
considerations
identified are
appropriate and/or
relevant to
minimising
complications and/or
explained clearly.
However, some
important
considerations may
not have been
addressed and/or
frequent corrections
may be required.
16 to >12.0 pts
Satisfactory (PASS)
Nursing considerations
identified are appropriate
and/or relevant to
minimising complications
and/or explained clearly.
However, some important
considerations may not
have been addressed
and/or significant
clarification may be
needed, and/or significant
corrections may be
required.
12 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
(FAIL)
Nursing
considerations
either omitted
and/or
inaccurately
explained
and/or are
irrelevant to
minimising
complications
associated with
mechanical
ventilation.
Structure/
organisation/
task
completion
10 to >8.0 pts
Outstanding
Ideas presented
in coherent
(logical) and
cohesive (linked)
manner.
Completes all
required aspects
of task to an
exemplary
standard. Text
response
organised and
sequenced
appropriate to
genre (eg clear
paragraphing; use
of headings or
sections where
appropriate;
figures, tables
and formulae are
relevant,
formatted
appropriately and
referred to).
Conciseness of
ideas evident;
response falls
within designated
word count range.
The message is
very clear, the
reader finds the
writing easy to
follow; errors in
expression are
rare and non-
distracting;
content relevant.
8 to >7.0 pts
Very high
standard
Ideas presented
in coherent and
cohesive
manner with
minor
inconsistencies
or gaps and/or
completes
required
aspects of task,
though some
parts may have
been more
detailed or more
balance could
have been
evident and/or
organised
appropriate to
genre; minor
errors may be
evident or could
have been
completed more
thoroughly
and/or
conciseness of
ideas generally
evident and/or
the message is
mostly clear, the
reader can
follow the
message; errors
in expression
minimal and
almost always
non-distracting.
7 to >6.0 pts
High standard
Ideas presented in
generally coherent
and cohesive
manner, though
inconsistencies
evident and/or
completes required
aspects of task
though some parts
need to have been
more detailed or
clearly more
balanced and/or
writing organised
appropriate to
genre; though
some minor gaps
may be evident or
elements missing
and/or conciseness
of ideas evident,
though parts may
be verbose or
‘padded out’ and/or
the message is
clear for the most
part, the reader can
follow the message
though there is
sometimes strain;
errors are evident
and at times
distracting; some
content may be not
relevant.
6 to >5.0 pts
Sound
Ideas mostly
presented in
coherent and
cohesive manner,
though
inconsistencies
clearly evident in
logic and links
between sections
and/or completes
required aspects of
task, though some
parts are missing or
not well developed
and/or organised
mostly appropriate
to genre, though
some
inconsistencies,
errors or gaps may
be evident (eg
missing elements;
irrelevant
inclusions;
formatting issues)
and/or conciseness
of ideas evident,
though there is a
clear lack of
balance between
sections (some may
be short while
others are long)
and/or overall, the
message is clear,
though errors
evident and
distracting in parts.
5 to >4.0 pts
Satisfactory
(PASS)
Clear issues with
coherence and
cohesion; at times
logic not evident or
links between
sections not well-
established and/or
completes some
required aspects of
task adequately,
though some parts
are unsatisfactory
and/or organised
approximate to
genre; though
inconsistencies,
errors or gaps are
clearly evident (eg
missing or incorrect
elements or
sections) and affect
overall quality of
response and/or
response needed to
be more concise
and/or overall, the
message is evident,
however, reader
finds it hard to
follow in parts;
errors evident and
distracting; sections
of content may not
be relevant to task.
4 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
(FAIL)
Major issues with
coherence and
cohesion; logic may
not be evident or hard
to follow; links
between sections
may not be clear –
writing may lack flow
and/or task may not
be completed or may
display major gaps in
required elements
and/or organised
somewhat according
to genre; though
major errors or gaps
may be clearly
evident (eg missing
sections, lack of
expected elements)
and affect quality of
writing and/or
conciseness of ideas
may not be evident;
may contain clearly
irrelevant material
and/or overall,
message may not be
evident; very hard to
follow message;
errors distract reader
significantly; whole
sections of content
may not be relevant.
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
Criteria Ratings Pts
10 pts
Evidence of
research and
citation
10 to >8.0 pts
Outstanding
Uses diverse
sources of
information highly
appropriate to the
task. Provides
evidence of
systematic
research and uses
‘classic’/pivotal
works of
scholarship with
high academic
currency in the
discipline. Provides
relevant and
contemporary
evidence collected
discriminately from
a wide range of
appropriate
sources.
Systematically
applies academic
referencing
conventions
appropriately and
accurately in text
and post text; in
text citations match
Reference List.
Breadth and depth
of relevant
references to
support statements
is evidenced.
Systematically
integrates source
information;
evaluates and
synthesises
information
retrieved with own
thoughts and
voice.
8 to >7.0 pts
Very high
standard
Uses a range of
information
appropriate to the
task and/or
provides
evidence of
research and/or
uses
‘classic’/pivotal
works of
scholarship with
high academic
currency in the
discipline and/or
provides relevant
evidence
collected
discriminately
from a range of
sources and/or
applies academic
referencing
conventions
mostly
appropriately and
accurately both in
text and post text;
minor
inaccuracies may
be evident and/or
appropriate and
relevant
references
support
statements and/or
integrates source
information
throughout the
assignment
mostly
successfully;
evaluation and
synthesis with
own voice mostly
successful.
7 to >6.0 pts
High standard
Uses a range of
sources of information
appropriate to the task,
though may not have
included some
‘classic’/pivotal
references and/or
provides consistent
evidence of research,
though could have
been more diverse
and/or provides
relevant evidence
collected from a range
of sources, though may
overly rely on a limited
range and/or applies
academic referencing
conventions
appropriately and
accurately both in text
and post text, though
some mistakes are
evident (eg a missing
page reference for a
direct quote;
punctuation errors)
and/or appropriate and
relevant references
support statements.
Integrates source
information in the
assignment with some
inconsistencies; at time
writer’s voice may be
overshadowed by
external authors’ ideas,
and evaluation may not
always be evident.
6 to >5.0 pts
Sound
Uses readings
mostly appropriate
to the task, though
does not include
some
‘classic’/pivotal or
required references
and/or provides
evidence of
research, though
needed to be more
diverse and/or
provides some
evidence collected
from a number of
sources; though
may be overly
reliant on one or two
sources and/or
applies academic
referencing
conventions
generally
appropriately and
consistently both in
text and post text
though errors are
evident and/or
appropriate and
relevant references
support statements
and/or attempts to
integrate some
source information
in the assignment
but not always
successfully; voice
is subordinate in
parts to external
ideas, evaluation of
information lacking.
5 to >4.0 pts
Satisfactory
(PASS)
Uses limited
sources of
information,
mostly
appropriate to the
task, though texts
lacking relevancy
may have been
used and/or
provides limited
evidence of
research – gaps
clearly evident
and/or provides
limited evidence
collected from a
narrow range of
sources and/or
academic
referencing
conventions
inconsistently
applied both in
text and post
text; errors are
frequent.
Inappropriate and
irrelevant
references are
used to support
statements
and/or integrates
limited source
information in the
assignment;
voice is
frequently
subordinate to
external ideas;
claims made may
be
unsubstantiated
or not evaluated.
4 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
(FAIL)
Evidence of
reading minimal,
and not
appropriate or
relevant to task.
Very limited
evidence of
research – major
gaps clearly
evident. Not
enough evidence
collected from
sources of
information.
Academic
referencing
conventions not
applied both in
text and post
text; errors are
frequent; in text
citations do not
match Reference
List;
understanding of
the role and form
of external
citation not
evident.
Inappropriate
and/or irrelevant
and/or omitted
references to
statements. Fails
to integrate
source
information in the
assignment;
voice is not
evident; claims
are
unsubstantiated
and not
evaluated.
5/16/2021 Assessment 4: Written assignment
https://canvas.lms.unimelb.edu.au/courses/104418/assignments/ XXXXXXXXXX/8
Total Points: 100
Criteria Ratings Pts
10 pts
Participation
in online
discourse
10 to >8.0 pts
Outstanding
Demonstrates
active participation
in relevant
discussion posts
evidenced through
the provision of the
3 best over the
subject. At least
one post must
relate to the week
3 concept map and
be posted by the
end of week 5.
Posts make clearly
relevant,
considered
contribution to the
discussion,
facilitating
reflection/extension
of others’
contributions.
Posts promote
ongoing discussion
and participation of
others, contributing
to an environment
that enhances
learning.
8 to >7.0 pts
Very high
standard
Demonstrates
active participation
in relevant
discussion posts
evidenced through
the provision of the
3 best over the
subject. At least
one post must
relate to the week
3 concept map and
be posted by the
end of week 5.
Posts for the most
part, make
relevant,
considered
contribution to the
discussion,
facilitating
reflection/extension
of others’
contributions.
Posts sometimes
promote ongoing
discussion and
participation of
others, contributing
to an environment
that enhances
learning.
7 to >6.0 pts
High standard
Demonstrates
active participation
in relevant
discussion posts
evidenced through
the provision of the
3 best over the
subject. At least
one post must
relate to the week
3 concept map and
be posted by the
end of week 5.
Posts for the most
part, make
relevant,
considered
contribution to the
discussion,
occasionally
facilitating
reflection/extension
of others’
contributions. Not
all posts promote
ongoing discussion
and participation of
others, contributing
to an environment
that enhances
learning.
6 to >5.0 pts
Sound
Demonstrates
active participation
in relevant
discussion posts
evidenced through
the provision of the
3 best over the
subject. At least
one post must
relate to the week
3 concept map and
be posted by the
end of week 5.
Posts for the most
part, make
relevant,
considered
contribution to the
discussion, but
may not facilitate
reflection/extension
of others’
contributions. Not
all posts promote
ongoing discussion
and participation of
others, contributing
to an environment
that enhances
learning.
5 to >4.0 pts
Satisfactory
(PASS)
Demonstrates
active participation
in relevant
discussion posts
evidenced through
the provision of the
3 best over the
subject. At least
one post must
relate to the week
3 concept map and
be posted by the
end of week 5.
Posts occasionally
make relevant,
considered
contribution to the
discussion, but
may not facilitate
reflection/extension
of others’
contributions. Not
all posts promote
ongoing discussion
and participation of
others, contributing
to an environment
that enhances
learning.
4 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory
(FAIL)
Does not
demonstrate active
participation in
relevant discussion
posts. Evidence is
not provided of 3
contributions or
none relate to the
week 3 concept
map. Alternatively,
evidence of 3 posts
is provided but are
not relevant to the
discussion, and do
not facilitate
reflection/extension
of others’
contributions. Or,
posts provided do
not contribute to an
environment that
enhances learning.
Answered 3 days AfterMay 16, 2021

Solution

Anju Lata Agnihotri answered on May 20 2021
23 Votes

Running Head: Assessment 4
Assessment 4 9
Assessment 4
Case...

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here