Read the article below and write an article review discussing your thoughts about EPM technology and the implications in respiratory clinical practice.  Click the hyperlinks below to access the article.  Use the submission rubric in the dropbox to guide your response.
Note: This is an extensive article.  Please read the sections: “Introduction”-“Extubation Readiness.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10201…
CriteriaLevel 4
4 points
Level 3
3 points
Level 2
2 points
Level 1
1 point
Criterion Score
RESPONSIVENESS
Responds to assigned or selected topic and connects to related topics
Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., ideas contribute a new dimension to what we know about the topic, unearths something unanticipated);
Is substantive and evidence-based;
Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources in the course and that the assignment answer/paper topic connects in a meaningful way to the course content; and
Is submitted by the due date.
Responds to the assigned or selected topic;
Is substantive and evidence-based;
Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources in the course and that the assignment answer/paper topic connects in a meaningful way to the course content; and
Is submitted by the due date.
Somewhat misses the point of the assigned or selected topic; and/or
Lacks in substance, relying more on anecdotal than evidence; and/or
Contains little evidence that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources in the course and that the assignment answer/paper topic connects in a meaningful way to the course content; and/or Is submitted by the due date.
Misses the point of the assigned or selected topic; and/or
Relies primarily on anecdotal evidence; and/or
Contains little evidence that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources in the course and that the assignment answer paper topic connects in a meaningful way to the course content; and/or Is submitted past the late deadline. 
Score of RESPONSIVENESS,
/ 4
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
In-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course
(e.g., insightful interpretations or analyses; accurate and perceptive parallels, ideas, opinions, and conclusions), showing that the student has absorbed the general principles and ideas presented and makes inferences about the concepts/issues or connects to them to other ideas;
Rich and relevant examples;
Thought-provoking ideas and interpretations, original thinking, new perspectives;
Original and critical thinking; and
Mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of knowledge and skills or strategies presented in the course.
Understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, demonstrating that the student has absorbed the general principles and ideas presented;
Relevant examples;
Thought-provoking ideas and interpretations, some original thinking;
Critical thinking; and
Mastery and application of knowledge and skills or strategies presented in the course.
Minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, while generally accurate, displays some omissions and/or errors; and/or
Few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or
Few if any thought-provoking ideas, little original thinking; and/or
“Regurgitated” knowledge rather than critical thinking; and/or
Little mastery of skills and/or numerous errors when using the knowledge, skills, or strategies presented in the course.
A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course and/or application is inaccurate and contains many omissions and/or errors; and/or
No examples or irrelevant examples; and/or
No thought-provoking ideas or original thinking; and/or
No critical thinking; and/or
Many critical errors when applying knowledge, skills, or strategies presented in the course.
Score of CONTENT KNOWLEDGE,
/ 4
QUALITY OF WRITING
Uses language that is clear, concise, and appropriate;
Has few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax;
Is extremely well organized, logical, and clear and never confuses the reader;
Uses a preponderance of original language and uses direct quotes only when necessary and/or appropriate; and
Provides information about a source when citing or paraphrasing it.
Uses language that is clear;
Has a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax;
Is well organized, logical, and clear;
Uses original language and uses direct quotes when necessary and/or appropriate; and
Provides information about a source when citing or paraphrasing it.
Uses language that is unclear and/or inappropriate; and/or
Has more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and/or
Is poorly organized, is at times unclear and confusing, and has some problems with logical flow; and/or
Reflects an underuse of original language and an overuse of direct quotes and paraphrases; and/or
Sometimes lacks information about a source when citing or paraphrasing it. 
Uses unclear and inappropriate language; and/or
Has many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and/or
Lacks organization in a way that creates confusion for the reader; and/or
Contains many direct quotes from original source materials and/or consistently and poorly paraphrases rather than using original language; and/or
Lacks information about a source when citing or paraphrasing it.