Water Quality, a Local and Global Issue
Various health risks surround water supply and water quality and there are often geographical differences in these risks. In this Discussion, you consider the environmental health implications of water for populations around the world, as well as the risks that come with recreational water use. Your Instructor uses the Module 4 Discussion Rubric to grade this Discussion.
Discussion Topic 1
Review the Belize media and discuss with your colleagues the challenges and successes with water quality or scarcity in developing countries as well as more developed countries. Some things you may consider as you discuss this topic: What are the most significant public health issues for water in developing countries? How do those issues differ from those in a developed country? What are some real examples of these issues and what is being done to overcome them? As Belize and other countries build their infrastructure, what can or should they incorporate into their development to retain a healthy water supply? How do socio-ecological factors influence educational interventions and solutions to water related problems?
• Walden University Online Writing Center. (n.d.). Annotated bibliography. Retrieved from http://writingcenter.waldenu.edu/1226.htm
• United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014). Pesticides: Regulating pesticides. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2014). USGS water-quality information. Retrieved from http://water.usgs.gov/owq/
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2014). Water sanitation health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/en/
Module 4 Discussion Rubric (please follow this)
(60 points)
Timeliness On Time Late Missing Post(s)
Timeliness Indicators All internal and final deadlines for Discussion were met
One or more required deadlines missed
(No postings allowed after the last day of the module) One or more required Discussion posts missing
(No postings allowed after the last day of the module)
Grade impact No impact 10% reduction in overall Discussion score per day for each late required post up to last day of the module) 30% reduction in overall Discussion score for each missing required post
No participation=0 points
Discussion Indicators Excellent
Above Average
Average
Fair
Poor
Score
Communication Quality and Clarity
12 Possible Points
Professional, appropriate, and clear communication, with completely correct spelling and sentence structure
AND
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source
(12 points) Appropriate and clear communication, with infrequent minor spelling errors
AND
Statements normally requiring references or citations were always validated with the source
(10–11 points) Writing sometimes not clear
and/or occasional minor spelling or sentence structure errors that somewhat detracted from professional appearance
AND/OR
Statements normally requiring references or citations were validated with the source
(9 points) Writing often not clear, or contained frequent spelling or sentence structure errors that detracted from professional appearance
AND/OR
Statements normally requiring references or citations were sometimes not validated with the source
(7–8 points) Communications were not professional, or not appropriate, or
writing frequently unclear and difficult to follow
AND/OR
Statements normally requiring references or citations were frequently not validated with the source
(0–6 points)
Content
12 Possible Points
All contributions were fully relevant to the topics
(12 points) Most contributions were relevant to the topics and digressions did not detract from the conversation
(10–11 points) Contributions were occasionally vague or off topic, or with slightly distracting digressions
(9 points) Contributions were often not relevant to the topic, too vague, or rambled so that the point was difficult to find
(7–8 points) Contributions were frequently off topic or very vague
(0–6 points)
Uniqueness and Depth
12 Possible Points
Contributions were always highly insightful, thought provoking, original, and of substantial depth
(12 points) Contributions were insightful and original with most contributions in-depth
(10–11 points) Topics were discussed with limited depth, insight, or not always demonstrating original contributions to the discussion.
(9 points) Ideas and comments were often not in-depth or not original (e.g., reliance on “I agree” statements without follow up)
(7–8 points) Ideas and comments were frequently superficial, shallow, or lacking in originality.
(0–6 points)
Engagement and Community Response
12 Possible Points
Postings were always designed to engage others and often stimulated multiple peer responses that furthered the discussion
AND
Strong follow up with peer questions/
comments, demonstrating a true scholarly conversation
(12 points) Postings were designed to engage others and usually stimulated peer responses that furthered the discussion
AND
Good follow up to peer questions/
comments, demonstrating a good conversational flow
(10–11 points) Postings were sometimes not designed to engage others or further the discussion
AND/OR
Sometimes no follow up responses to peer questions/
comments, somewhat inhibiting a good conversational flow
(9 points) Postings often were not designed to engage others or further the discussion
AND/OR
Often no follow up responses to peer questions/
comments, limiting meaningful conversational flow
(7–8 points) Postings were not designed to engage others or further the discussion
AND/OR
No follow up responses posted to peer questions/
comments, leading to little or no meaningful conversational flow
(0–6 points)
Critical Thinking and Analysis
12 Possible Points
Analysis of topics always demonstrated critical thinking.
Specifically,
Strong reliance on facts and validated opinions. Multiple perspectives were considered. Points were always well supported and based on scholarly evidence. Arguments were coherent, organized, and logical. Connections were frequently made between ideas, and conclusions always flowed from evidence.
AND
Contributions always included well-chosen resources that supported and extended the discussion
(12 points) Analysis of topics usually demonstrated critical thinking.
Specifically,
Reliance on facts and validated opinions. Multiple perspectives were usually considered. Points were usually well supported and based on scholarly evidence. Arguments were usually coherent, organized, and logical. Connections were made between ideas, and conclusions flowed from evidence.
AND
Resources frequently supported and extended the discussion
(10–11 points) Some analysis of topics with an occasional deficiency of one or two areas of critical thinking.
Specifically,
Occasional reliance on assumptions and unsubstantiated opinions rather than facts, or occasionally only one view point considered, or occasional use of less scholarly or less appropriate resources, or sometimes unorganized or less logical arguments, or some lack of connection between ideas, or conclusions occasionally did not flow from the evidence.
AND/OR
Resources sometimes did not support and extend the discussion
(9 points) Limited analysis of the topics, with a deficiency of several areas of critical thinking or frequent issues in one area.
Specifically,
Reliance on assumptions and unsubstantiated opinions rather than facts, usually only one view point considered, frequently used less scholarly or less appropriate resources, frequently incoherent, disorganized, or illogical arguments, often a lack of connection between ideas, or conclusions often did not flow from the evidence
AND/OR
Resources frequently did not support and extend the discussion
(7–8 points) Topics were not analyzed and/or critical thinking was not demonstrated
AND/OR
Contributions did not include resources that supported and extended the discussion or were not of appropriate quality or not supportive of the points being made
(0–6 points)
Initial Score (60 possible points):
Instructor comments:
Instructor comments (Timeliness):
Timeliness Factor (late points deducted):
Total Score (60 possible points):
