Discussion: What’s in a Name?
Suppose you were using an online job search engine to investigate potential career opportunities for Academic Nurse Educators or NPD Practitioners. If you actually typed “Academic Nurse Educator” or “Nursing Professional Development Practitioner” into a job search engine, you might be amazed by the number of different job titles that come up in the results. In fact, in most cases, you would not see the exact titles “Academic Nurse Educator” or “Nursing Professional Development Practitioner” anywhere in the postings.Examining the job postings more closely, you would also observe a great deal of variation in the roles and responsibilities associated with positions within each specialty.
Given the variety of job titles and roles you would find when doing an Internet search for the titles of Academic Nurse Educator and Nursing Professional Development Practitioner, it stands to reason that the same variability exists in your workplace.
For this Discussion, you will search your professional practice to define the role of the Academic Nurse Educator or the NPD Practitioner. You will then consider why it is important to standardize roles and titles for a specialty.
To prepare:
Search your professional practice for the roles and titles of either the Academic Nurse Educator, the Academic Clinical Nurse Educator, or the NPD Practitioner.
As you search, consider the roles and responsibilities of these individuals.
Consider how the titles and roles are the same and how they may differ from those presented in the resources for this course.
By Day 3 of Week 1
Post the job titles and responsibilities of individuals who may hold one of these roles either in your professional practice or as a future desired role. Your post should include a comparison of the titles and responsibilities in your practice environment with those presented in the resources for this course.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
By Day 6 of Week 1
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days about how job titles and responsibilities for the Academic Nurse Educator, the Academic Clinical Nurse Educator, or the NPD Practitioner are similar to or different from those in your work environment. Then explain the challenges you might encounter with the lack of use of standardized titles as defined by the nursing specialty.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 1 Discussion Rubric
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_6370_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the Discussion question(s) 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 main post by Day 3.
First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. 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. 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 three different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6370_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
