Discussion: Using Technology In The Healthcare Industry

Discussion: Using Technology In The Healthcare Industry

Discussion: Using Technology In The Healthcare Industry

Some have argued that the data-to-wisdom continuum cannot be used to define the scope of clinical practice because computers cannot process wisdom. Identify and describe whether this is a fallacy.

Some have argued that the data-to-wisdom continuum cannot be used to define the scope of clinical practice because computers cannot process wisdom. Identify and describe whether this is a fallacy.

ORDER COMPREHESIVE SOLUTION PAPERS ON Discussion: Using Technology In The Healthcare Industry

Rubric Detail

A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name: 12 Week Hybrid Discussion Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Initial Post: Content/Comprehension–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 4 (22.85714%) – 5 (28.57142%) Post demonstrates depth of understanding of course content; Addresses discussion prompt completely; offers clear point of view and detail. Satisfactory 2 (11.42857%) – 3 (17.14285%) Post demonstrates adequate depth of understanding, but does not address all of discussion prompt; point of view is somewhat unclear and detail is limited. Needs Improvement 0 (0.00%) – 1 (5.71428%) Post does not demonstrate depth of understanding of course content; Discussion prompt is minimally addressed; Point of view is unclear and detail is under-developed. Feedback:

Initial Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 2 (11.42857%) – 2 (11.42857%) Submits initial post by deadline. Satisfactory 1 (5.71428%) – 1 (5.71428%) Submits initial post one to three days late. Needs Improvement 0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%) Submits initial post after three days. Feedback:

Initial Post: Spelling/Grammar/Mechanics–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 2 (11.42857%) – 2 (11.42857%) Post has 0-1 spelling or grammatical errors; Properly cites work in APA format where required. Satisfactory 1 (5.71428%) – 1 (5.71428%) Post has 2-3 spelling or grammatical errors; Cites work in APA format where required with few errors. Needs Improvement 0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%) Posts have 4 or more spelling or grammatical errors; Does not cite work where required. Feedback:

Peer Responses: Engagement/Classroom Interaction–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 4 (22.85714%) – 4.5 (25.71428%) Submits required number of response posts; Responses extend the discussion by making connections, relating to others’ ideas and adding supporting detail. Satisfactory 2 (11.42857%) – 3 (17.14285%) Submits required number of response posts; Some connections are made with relevant explanation and detail. Needs Improvement 0 (0.00%) – 1 (5.71428%) Responses are not submitted; Responses are generic, limited, do not extend the discussion or add detail. Feedback:

Peer Responses: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 2 (11.42857%) – 2 (11.42857%) Submits peer response posts by deadline. Satisfactory 0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%)   Needs Improvement 0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%) Submits peer response posts late. Feedback:

Peer Responses: Spelling/Grammar/Mechanics–

Levels of Achievement: Excellent 2 (11.42857%) – 2 (11.42857%) Posts have 0-1 spelling or grammatical errors; Properly cites work in APA format where required. Satisfactory 1 (5.71428%) – 1 (5.71428%) Posts have 2-3 spelling or grammatical errors; Cites work in APA format where required with few errors. Needs Improvement 0 (0.00%) – 0 (0.00%) Posts have 4 or more spelling or grammatical errors; Does not cite work where required. Feedback: Raw Total: 17.25 (of 17.5)