Post 1. Identify one (1) issue you expect to experience in your transition from student to graduate nurse. Using evidence-based literature, construct two (2) strategies which you could implement to...

Please read the instruction


Post 1. Identify one (1) issue you expect to experience in your transition from student to graduate nurse. Using evidence-based literature, construct two (2) strategies which you could implement to address the identified issue. ( 300 words) (5 reference) use first person i Post 2. Outline 2 of the key differences between your current role as student nurse and your future role as Graduate RN. Support your discussion with evidence-based literature (300 words) (5 reference) use first person i Post 3. Access current research publications from CINAHL and critically reflect on the potential of social media to transform your future practice as a professional practitioner (300 words) (5 reference) use first person i Each post has a word limit of 300 words (+/- 10%) so these 3 posts will be around 1000 and can you please write separately the post which will be 300 words and at the please give reference and same to post 2 and 3. and you can use 1st person as this assignment is about u (student) and reference less than 5 year and apa 6th edition and 1 post equals to 5 reference APPENDICES Appendix A - Criterion Referenced Rubric: ​Assessment 1 - Discussion Forum Posts 1, 2 & 3 Criteria (marks) High Distinction (HD) 100-85% Distinction (D) 84-75% Credit (CR) 74-65% Pass (PA) 64-50% Fail (NN) 49-0% Fail – No Attempt Post 1 Content and Critical Thinking 20 marks Comprehensive, concise discussion that is all directly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Clear identification and comprehensive analysis of a relevant transition issue. Development and construction of strategies that are all clear, relevant and feasible. 20-17marks Significant, concise discussion is directly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Clear identification and mostly thorough analysis of the relevant transition issue. Development and construction of strategies that are mostly clear, relevant and feasible. 16.5-15marks Mostly concise discussion that is mostly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Identification and some analysis of the relevant transition issue. Development and construction of strategies that are vague but are mostly relevant and feasible. 14.5-13 marks Repetitive discussion but content is mostly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Identification but minimal analysis of the relevant transition issue. Development and construction of strategies that are vague but some are relevant and feasible. 12.5-10marks Most of the discussio n is repetitive and is not relevant to the topic/s of the post. Unclear identifica tion and no analysis of the relevant transition issue. Develop ment and construct ion of strategie s that are vague and are mostly not relevant or feasible. 9.5-0 marks There is no post or the content is irrelevant. Post 1 Evaluation of the Evidence 10 marks Discussion is all supported and justified by high quality, credible and appropriate literature and evidence. There is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 10-8.5marks Discussion is almost all supported and justified by high quality, credible and appropriate literature and evidence. There is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 8.4 -7.5 marks Discussion is mostly supported and justified by adequate and appropriate evidence and literature. 7.4 -6.5 marks Discussion is supported by some minimal but appropriate evidence and literature. 6.4-5 marks Discussi on is supporte d by minimal and inapprop riate evidence and literature. 4.5-0 marks There is no evidence or literature. Post 2 Content and Critical Thinking 20 marks Comprehensive, concise discussion that is all directly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Clear identification and detailed analysis and contrast of the identified relevant key role differences. 20-17marks Significant, concise discussion that is directly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Clear identification and mostly thorough analysis of the identified relevant key role differences. 16.5-15marks Mostly concise discussion that is mostly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Identification and some analysis of the identified relevant key role differences. 14.5-13 marks Repetitive discussion but content is mostly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Identification but minimal analysis of the identified relevant key role differences. 12.5-10marks Most of the discussio n is repetitive and is not relevant to the topic/s of the post or there is no attempt. Unclear identifica tion and no analysis of the identified relevant key role differenc es. 9.5-0 marks There is no post or the content is irrelevant. 0 marks Post 2 Evaluation of the Evidence 10 marks Discussion is all supported and justified by high quality, credible and appropriate literature and evidence. There is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 10-8.5marks Discussion is almost all supported and justified by high quality, credible and appropriate literature and evidence. There is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 8.4 -7.5 marks Discussion is mostly supported and justified by adequate and appropriate evidence and literature. 7.4 -6.5 marks Discussion is supported by some appropriate and some inappropriate evidence and literature. 6.4-5 marks Discussi on is supporte d by minimal or no evidence . 4.5-0 marks There is no evidence or literature. 0 marks Post 3 Content and Critical Thinking 20 marks Comprehensive, concise discussion that is all directly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Comprehensive critical reflection on the potential of social media to transform future practice. 20-17marks Mostly thorough and concise discussion that is directly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Significant critical reflection on the potential of social media to transform future practice. 16.5-15marks Mostly concise discussion that is mostly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Identification and some reflection on the potential of social media to transform future practice. 14.5-13 marks Repetitive discussion but content is mostly relevant to the topic/s of the post. Identification but minimal reflection on the potential of social media to transform future practice. 12.5-10marks Most of the discussion is repetitive and is not relevant to the topic/s of the post or there is no attempt. Unclear and inappropriate reflection on the potential of social media to transform future practice or no reflection. 9.5-0 marks There is no post or the content is irrelevant. 0 marks Post 3 Evaluation of the Evidence 10 marks Discussion is all supported and justified by high quality, credible and appropriate literature and evidence. There is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 10-8.5marks Discussion is almost all supported and justified by high quality, credible and appropriate literature and evidence. There is evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 8.4 -7.5 marks Discussion is mostly supported and justified by adequate and appropriate evidence and literature. 7.4 -6.5 marks Discussion is supported by some appropriate and some inappropriate evidence and literature. 6.4-5 marks Discussion is supported by minimal or no evidence. 4.5-0 marks There is no evidence or literature. 0 marks Mechanics and Referencing 5 marks There are no errors with grammar, spelling and punctuation, and the meaning is easily discernible. Accurate use of APA referencing style on all occasions. 9 or more references provided. Accurate and consistent use of a range of in-text citations throughout. 5 marks There are minimal errors with grammar, spelling and punctuation. The meaning is readily discernable. Accurate use of APA referencing style on almost all occasions. 1-3 errors noted. 7 or more references provided. 4 marks There are some errors with grammar, spelling and punctuation. The errors detract The meaning is discernable. Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. 4-5 errors noted. 6 or more references provided. 3 marks Accurate use of APA referencing style on most occasions. 5-10 error noted. 5 or more references provided. 2.5 marks Many inaccuracies with the APA referencing style. More than 10 errors noted. Too many direct quotations (more than 5%). Less than 5 references provided. 2 - 0 marks There are no references used. 0 marks Participatio n 5 marks Screenshot evidence that all three (3) discussion posts have been posted on the relevant tutorial forum during weeks 1-7. 5 marks Screenshot evidence that two (2) of the discussion posts have been posted on the relevant tutorial forum during weeks 1-7. 4 marks Screenshot evidence that one (1)