|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% |
2
Less than Satisfactory
74.00% |
3
Satisfactory
79.00% |
4
Good
87.00% |
5
Excellent
100.00% |
| 70.0 %Content |
|
| 5.0 %Completed Changes and Corrected Errors to Subsequent Paper, Including Transitions for a Scholarly Paper |
Learner did not attach previous paper and did not make changes as indicated. |
N/A |
Learner attached previous paper and has made changes as indicated. Learner needs to incorporate transitions to connect the ideas between the papers |
Learner attached previous paper and has made changes as indicated. Learner needs to incorporate better transitions to connect the ideas between the papers. |
Learner attached previous paper and has made changes as indicated. Learner has includes all necessary transitions to create a scholarly paper. |
| 15.0 %Description of Health Care Entity and Identification of Successes and Failures |
A heath care entity is not described; the success and failures are not identified. |
A heath care entity is identified, but a description is not provided. Quality outcomes or patient safety measures are not utilized to identify the success and failures. Criteria and data are not used to substantiate why the entity is successful. |
A heath care entity is identified and an overall description is provided, but many significant details are missing. The quality measures or patient safety measures utilized fail to accurately identify the successes and failures for the health care entity. Criteria and data do not fully substantiate why the entity is successful, or in what areas. |
A heath care entity is identified and described, including relevant details. Quality outcomes and /or patient safety measures are utilized to identify the success and failures. Criteria and data are presented that help substantiate why the entity is successful in certain areas. |
A heath care entity is identified with details that provide insight into the organization. Quality outcomes or patient safety measures clearly define its success and failures. Very detailed criteria and data are presented to substantiate why the entity is successful, and in what areas. |
| 20.0 %Identification of Quality or Safety Measure That Nursing Science Can Improve, and Analysis of Supporting Data |
Quality or safety measure that nursing science can improve is not identified. Analysis of data is not performed. |
Quality or safety measure that nursing science can improve is suggested, but analysis of data is not performed. |
Quality or safety measure that nursing science can improve is presented, but analysis of data does not completely support claim. |
Quality or safety measure that nursing science can improve is presented. Analysis offers support, but more explanation is required to fully demonstrate how data supports claim. |
Quality or safety measure that nursing science can improve is presented. Analysis is thorough and the data presented supports claim. A very good explanation of the how the data supports the claim is provided. |
| 10.0 %Identification of Potential Obstacles to Implementation of Quality or Safety Measures |
Potential obstacles that may hinder implementation of quality or safety measures are not identified. |
Potential obstacles are identified, but a correlation to how these obstacles will hinder the implication of quality or safety measures is not established. |
Potential obstacles are identified, but a correlation to how these obstacles will hinder the implication of quality or safety measures is unclear. |
Potential obstacles are identified. A correlation to how these obstacles will hinder the implication of quality or safety measures is generally established. |
Potential obstacles are identified. A correlation of how these obstacles will hinder the implication of quality or safety measures is clearly established and shows insight. |
| 10.0 %Identification of Stakeholders and Leaders Needed for Collaboration |
Stakeholders needed for collaboration are not identified. |
Stakeholders needed for collaboration are referenced, but no groups or leaders are identified. |
Stakeholders needed for collaboration are identified, but the roles of the groups or leaders in the implementation are unclear. |
Stakeholders needed for collaboration are identified, and the roles of the groups or leaders in the implementation are generally discussed. |
Stakeholders needed for collaboration are identified, and the roles of the groups or leaders in the implementation are generally discussed. |
| 10.0 %Six to Eight Additional Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations |
None of the required elements (minimum of six topic-related scholarly research sources and six in-text citations) are present. |
Not all required elements are present. One or more elements are missing, or included sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. |
All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, but the source and quality of one or more references is questionable. |
All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, and obtained from reputable professional sources. |
All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources. |
| 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness |
|
| 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose |
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. |
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. |
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. |
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. |
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
| 8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction |
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. |
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. |
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. |
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. |
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
| 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. |
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. |
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| 10.0 %Format |
|
| 5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) |
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. |
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. |
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. |
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. |
All format elements are correct. |
| 5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) |
Sources are not documented. |
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. |
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. |
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
| 100 %Total Weightage |
|
