Compare and Contrast Assignment

/in /by

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is for learners to:

Improve their knowledge base and understanding of disease processes in Neurology

Have the opportunity to integrate knowledge and skills learned throughout all core courses in the FNP track and previous clinical courses.

Demonstrate the ability to analyze the literature be able to perform an evidenced-based review of disease presentation, diagnosis and treatment.

Demonstrate professional communication and leadership, while advancing the education of peers.

Demonstrate the ability to take information from assigned readings and translate it into the way you would describe it to a patient or family member in your own words.

Activity Learning Outcomes

Through this discussion, the student will demonstrate the ability to:

1. Interpret subjective and objective data to develop appropriate diagnoses and evidence based management plans for patients and families with complex or multiple diagnoses across the lifespan. (CO 1)

2. Develop management plans based on current scientific evidence and national guidelines. (CO 4)

Requirements:

You will be assigned two diseases to compare and contrast based on the first letter of your last name.

A comparison and contrast assignment’s focus is to identify and explore similarities and differences between two similar diseases. The goal of this exploration is to bring about a better understanding of both diseases.

You will research the two areas of content assigned to you and compare and contrast them in a discussion post. NOTE: A comparison and contrast assignment is not about listing the info regarding each disease separately but rather looking at each disease side by side and discussing the similarities and differences given the categories below. Consider how each patient would actually present to the office. Paint a picture of how that patient would look, act, what story they would tell.  Consider how their history would affect their diagnosis, etc. Evaluation of mastery is focused on the student’s ability to demonstrate specific understanding of how the diagnoses differ and relate to one another.

 

Address the following topics below in your own words:

· Presentation

· Pathophysiology

· Assessment

· Diagnosis

· Treatment

Compare and contrast the following diagnoses as assigned: 

Benign Positional Vertigo and Meniere’s Disease

 

Throughout the Week: Participate in Interactive Dialogue with faculty and students responding to their Part 1 Discussion post moving the discussion forward.

**To see view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric.

DISCUSSION CONTENT
Category Points % Description
App Course Knowledge 50 50% Post contributes unique perspectives/insights applicable to the identified diseases. Demonstrates course knowledge by thorough, thoughtful, specific, evidence-based discussion of similarities and differences between assigned diseases in reference to:

 • Presentation (demographics, onset of symptoms, associated risk factors)

• Pathophysiology (knowledge demonstrated in original dialogue)

 • Assessment (physical assessment, diagnostic testing)

 • Diagnosis

 • Treatment
Evidence Based References  20 20% Discussion post supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. Focus of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the case study information.  In-text citations and full references are provided.
Interactive Dialogue 20 20% Presents diseases together and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (no directquotes from sources)
       
  90 90% Total CONTENT Points= 90
DISCUSSION FORMAT
Category Points % Description
Organization  5 5% Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence.Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines. 
Grammar, Spelling and APA Format 5 5% Reflection post has minimal grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation and APA* errors. Direct quotes (if used) is limited to 1 short statement** which adds substantively to the post. 

* APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included.

**Direct quote should not exceed 15 words & must add substantively to the discussion
      Total FORMAT Points= 10 pts

 

 

Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Content Possible Points = 90 Points

Application of Course Knowledge  Post contributes unique perspectives/insights applicable to the identified diseases. Original dialogue is used with little or zero direct quotes. Demonstrates course knowledge by thorough, detailed, thoughtful, evidence-based discussion of similarities and differences between assigned diseases in reference to:  • Presentation (demographics, onset of symptoms, associated risk factors)  • Pathophysiology (knowledge demonstrated in original dialogue)  • Assessment (physical assessment, diagnostic testing)  • Diagnosis  • Treatment  *Note listing the components of each disease separately without reflecting on them in relation to each other does not demonstrate course knowledge.
50 pts

Excellent

Post contributes unique perspectives/insights applicable to the identified diseases. Post includes original dialogue with little or zero direct quotes. Demonstrates course knowledge by thorough, detailed, thoughtful, evidence-based discussion of similarities and differences between assigned diseases in reference to: • Presentation (demographics, onset of symptoms, associated risk factors) • Pathophysiology (knowledge demonstrated in original dialogue) • Assessment (physical assessment, diagnostic testing) • Diagnosis • Treatment (Using National Guidelines) *Note listing the components of each disease separately without reflecting on them in relation to each other does not demonstrate course knowledge.

 45 pts

V. Good

Post contributes unique perspectives or insights and original dialogue with little or no direct quotes, but lacks some applicability/specificity to the assigned diseases in one assigned area. Some areas not compared and contrasted.

 41 pts

Satisfactory

Post has limited comparison/contrast perspective, insights and/or applicability to assigned disease in more than one assigned area.

 25 pts

Needs Improvement

Post has limited comparison/contrast perspective, insights and/or applicability to assigned disease OR Post lacks fundamental understanding of disease components (presentation, assessment, pathophysiology, diagnosis or treatment) OR The majority of the post is direct quotes without reflection that demonstrates understanding of quoted content.

 0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Wrong assignment submitted OR Post offer no insight, no original dialogue or application to the assigned diseases.

 

 50 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport from Evidence-Based Practice

Discussion post supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the case study information. In-text citations and full references are provided.
20 pts

Excellent

Discussion post fully supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years including National Guidelines. Content of journal articles represents a logical link between the article content and the assigned topics/case study information. In-text citations and complete references are provided.

 18 pts

V. Good

Discussion post is partially supported by evidence from appropriate sources published within the last five years. In-text citations and complete references are provided. Evidence-based reference(s) used but may not fully demonstrate National guidelines or fully support treatment recommendations.

 16 pts

Satisfactory

Discussion post is supported by evidence from appropriate resources however National Guidelines are not referenced in regard to diagnostic testing and treatment planning OR Journal articles do not represent logical link between the article content and assigned topics/ case study.

 10 pts

Needs Improvement

Sources may not be scholarly in nature or may be older than five years. In-text citations and/or full references may be incomplete or missing.

 0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Discussion post contains no evidence-based practice reference or citation. *Students should note that factitious sources, sources that are clearly not read by the student and used, or sources that have incorrect dates will result in an automatic ZERO for this section for the week.

 

 20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInteractive Dialogue

Presents diseases together and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (not quotes from sources)
20 pts

Excellent

Presents diseases together and responds substantively to at least one peer including evidence from appropriate sources, and all direct faculty questions posted. **Substantive posts contribute new, novel perspectives to the discussion using original dialogue (not quotes from sources).

 18 pts

V. Good

Presents diseases together and responds substantively to at least one peer. Does include evidence from appropriate sources. Responds to some direct faculty questions.

 16 pts

Satisfactory

Responds to a student peer and/or faculty, but the nature of the response is not original dialogue or lacks fundamental understanding of concepts discussed. Includes some evidence from appropriate sources.

 10 pts

Needs Improvement

Responds to a student peer and/or faculty questions but the post doesn’t include original dialogue, perspectives or conversation. Does not include evidence from appropriate sources.

 0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Does not respond to at least one peer and/or does not respond to faculty questions posted by Sunday. *A zero may be assessed here for not responding to questions posed by faculty.

 

 20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion Format Possible Points = 10 Points

Organization  Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Headings reflect separation of criterion outlined in assignment guidelines.
5 pts

Excellent

Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence. Organization of topics and transitions among ideas lends clarity to the discussion. Headings and paragraph spacing are used logically and contribute to evidence of the assigned diseases being compared and contrasted.

 4 pts

V. Good

Discussion post presented in a logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, However minimal transitions, headings and spacing used to organize thoughts.

 3 pts

Satisfactory

May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Headings, paragraphs and spacing absent.

 2 pts

Needs Improvement

May be unclear or difficult to follow in places. Weak linkages between assigned diseases.

 0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Assigned diseases are discussed separately and not linked through organization of thoughts, paragraph, spacing or headings.

 

 5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA/Grammar/Spelling

(*) APA style references and in text citations are required; however, there are no deductions for errors in indentation or spacing of references. All elements of the reference otherwise must be included.
5 pts

Excellent

Zero errors in grammar/spelling. Strong ability to communicate thoughts and ideas concisely. Headings and paragraph spacing are used logically and contribute to evidence of the assigned diseases being compared and contrasted.

 4 pts

V. Good

Zero to 2 errors in grammar/spelling but no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas.

 3 pts

Satisfactory

3-6 errors in grammar/spelling with no effect on ability to communicate thoughts and ideas.

 2 pts

Needs Improvement

>6 errors in grammar/spelling which contributes somewhat to effectiveness of ability to communicate thoughts and ideas.

 0 pts

Unsatisfactory

Errors in grammar contribute to a fundamental lack of understanding of information presented.

 

 5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParticipation

Discussion late penalty deductions  A 10% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday at 1159pm MT, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)
0 pts

Minus Points

 0 pts

Minus Points

 

 0 pts