Discussion: NURS 6003 Module 4 Week 6 Using the Walden Library

Discussion: NURS 6003 Module 4 Week 6 Using the Walden Library

Discussion: NURS 6003 Module 4 Week 6 Using the Walden Library

Discussion: Using the Walden Library
Where can you find evidence to inform your thoughts and scholarly writing? Throughout your degree program, you will use research literature to explore ideas, guide your thinking, and gain new insights. As you search the research literature, it is important to use resources that are peer-reviewed and from scholarly journals. You may already have some favorite online resources and databases that you use or have found useful in the past. For this Discussion, you explore databases available through the Walden Library.

BUY A CUSTOM FREE PAPER HERE ON ;Discussion: NURS 6003 Module 4 Week 6 Using the Walden Library

To Prepare:
• Review the information presented in the Learning Resources for using the Walden Library, searching the databases, and evaluating online resources.
• Begin searching for a peer-reviewed article that pertains to your practice area and interests you.
By Day 3 of Week 6
Post the following:
Using proper APA formatting, cite the peer-reviewed article you selected that pertains to your practice area and is of particular interest to you and identify the database that you used to search for the article. Explain any difficulties you experienced while searching for this article. Would this database be useful to your colleagues? Explain why or why not. Would you recommend this database? Explain why or why not.
Learning Objectives
Students will:

• Analyze research databases for identifying peer-reviewed articles
• Analyze peer-reviewed research
• Justify the use of peer-reviewed research in professional practice
• Analyze strategies for finding peer-reviewed research
________________________________________
Learning Resources
Required Readings

Eaton, S. E. (2010). Reading strategies: Differences between summarizing and synthesizing. Retrieved from https://drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/reading-strategies-differneces-between-summarizing-and-synthesizing/

Smith, T. (2009). Critical appraisal of quantitative and qualitative research literature. Austrian Institute of Radiography, 56(3), 6–10. Retrieved from http://www.minnisjournals.com.au/articles/radiographer%20smith%20dec%2009.pdf

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Databases A-Z: Nursing. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Instructional media: Fundamentals of library research. Retrieved October 4, 2019 from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/instructionalmedia/researchfundamentals

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/home

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Scholarly writing: Overview. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/scholarly

Walden University Writing Center. (n.d.). Webinars: Technical information. Retrieved November 14, 2018, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/webinars/technical

Document: Academic Success and Professional Development Plan Template (Word document)

Document: Introduction to Scholarly Writing: Tips for success (PDF)

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric\’s layout.
Name: NURS_6003_Module04_Week06_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3.
First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.
Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6003_Module04_Week06_Discussion_Rubric