Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts by offering suggestions/strategies for working with this database from your own experience, or offering ideas for use of alternative resources.
below is my classmate post
andice Waters
RE: Discussion – Week 3 (During 6 day discussion period).
COLLAPSE
Discussion Week 3
There are several aspects to consider before choosing a topic and writing a scholarly paper. The first aspect would be selecting a topic of interest and then finding a database specific to your assignment. For this assignment, I had to review Nursing Peer-reviewed articles.
I utilized Walden University Library, discovered it was straightforward, and provided several online databases, including ScienceDirect, CINAHL, Medline, Embase, and ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health. Walden Library search menu included a topic section where I could specifically search for Nursing, followed by database types, where I included peer review. All databases found for Nursing Peer-reviewed were listed. (Databases A-Z, n.d., section 1)
While reviewing research articles, it is essential to examine evidence to create an argument. According to Walden University, “You must learn to incorporate other scholars’ writing and arguments into your own. In scholarly writing, you will often use paraphrased material or direct quotations from sources to support your research and strengthen your academic argument.” (Academic Guides: Using Evidence: Overview, n.d., para. 2).
These databases provided several articles to choose from, which I found overwhelming. Not only did I have to find a nursing peer-reviewed article, but I had to find a piece that I could relate to and that I could create an evidence-based argument to support my opinion. I utilized a database for this assignment called ScienceDirect. I chose the article “Randomized Study of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Versus Urgent-Start Temporary Hemodialysis in Patients Transitioning to Kidney Failure.”I recommend utilizing Walden University library and ScienceDirect, it is user-friendly and provides several peer-reviewed nursing articles specific to your needs.
References
Academic guides: Using evidence: Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2022, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/evidence
Databases a-z. (n.d.). Retrieved July 7, 2022, from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/az.php?s=19981
Randomized study of urgent-start peritoneal dialysis versus urgent-start temporary hemodialysis in patients transitioning to kidney failure. (2022, June 11). https://www.sciencedirect.com/search?qs=dialysis. Retrieved July 7, 2022, from https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2468024922014346?token=2C3C73D8E08081156829DCD41B869E6EFDC54248338FFE5282B69E3388CE10827EB5E49D22805900BD117E26CA656520%26originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20220707182724
REPLY QUOTE EMAIL AUTHOR
APA format
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_6002_Week_3_Discussion_Rubric
