Healthcare Policy and Analysis Policy What are legislators currently doing to address your selected advocacy priorities for a vulnerable population?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.