Week6 discussion | NURS 6002N | Walden University
Discussion: Examining Nursing Specialties
You have probably seen one or more of the many inspirational posters about decisions. A visual such as a forked road or a street sign is typically pictured, along with a quote designed to inspire.
Often decisions are not so easily inspired. Perhaps you discovered this when choosing a specialty within the MSN program. This decision is a critical part of your plan for success, and you no doubt want to get it right. This is yet another area where your network can help, as well as other sources of information that can help you make an informed choice.
To Prepare:
- Reflect on your decision to pursue a specialty within the MSN program, including your professional and academic goals as they relate to your program/specialization.
By Day 3
Post an explanation of your choice of a nursing specialty within the program. Describe any difficulties you had (or are having) in making your choice, and the factors that drove/are driving your decision. Identify at least one professional organization affiliated with your chosen specialty and provide details on becoming a member.
Support main post with 3 of more current, credible sources and cite source within content of posting and on a reference list in proper APA.
By Day 6
Be sure to offer support from at least 2 current, credible sources in each required response to classmates’ main post and cite per APA.
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days, by sharing your thoughts on their specialty, supporting their choice or offering suggestions if they have yet to choose.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
Learning Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Required Readings
Document: Academic Success and Professional Development Plan Template (Word document)
Choose among the following to review your specialization’s Scope and Standards of Practice or Competencies:
Nursing Informatics
E-book: Nursing Informatics: Scope and Standards of Practice
“The Scope of Nursing Informatics Practice: Functional Areas of Nursing Informatics” (pp. 18–3
Nursing Education
Website: Competencies for the Academic Nurse Educator
National League for Nursing. (2019). Nurse educator core competency. Retrieved from http://www.nln.org/professional-development-programs/competencies-for-nursing-education/nurse-educator-core-competency
Note: The competencies for the Academic Nurse Educator do not encompass the competencies or scope and standards of practice for the Nursing Professional Developer. The set of competencies associated with that specific role within the Nurse Education specialization will be examined in future competencies throughout your specialization program of study.
Nurse Executive
Website: Nurse Executive Competencies
American Organization for Nursing Leadership. (2015). AONL Nurse Executive competencies. Retrieved from https://www.aonl.org/resources/nurse-leader-competencies
Public Health Nursing
Website: Public Health Nurse Competencies
Quad Council Coalition. (2018). Community/Public Health Nursing [C/PHN] competencies. Retrieved from http://www.quadcouncilphn.org/documents-3/2018-qcc-competencies/
Public Health Nursing
E-book: Public Health Nursing: Scope and Standards of Practice
Optional Resources
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_6002_Week_6_Discussion_Rubric
ExcellentGoodFairPoorMain Posting45 (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: Timeliness10 (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 Response17 (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 Response16 (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.Participation5 (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_6002_Week_6_Discussion_Rubric
