|
|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less than Satisfactory
75.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
|
4
Good
89.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
|
80.0 %Content
|
|
|
5.0 %Provided an original
summary of the key messages of the IOM report, Future of Nursing: Leading
Change, Advancing Health. Any specific references should be cited.
|
Did not attempt to
provide a summary of the key messages of the IOM report, Future of Nursing:
Leading Change, Advancing Health, or failed to cite specific references to
the IOM report.
|
Provided a skeletal
summary of the key messages of the IOM report, Future of Nursing: Leading
Change, Advancing Health. Some of the specific references to the IOM report
were cited or were done incorrectly.
|
Demonstrates a moderate
knowledge of the subject. Recognizes the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence
on the committee’s initiative.
|
Demonstrates good
knowledge of the subject. Correctly describes the committee’s initiative.
Justifies some of the impacts on the Future of Nursing.
|
Provided an original
summary of the key messages of the IOM report, Future of Nursing: Leading
Change, Advancing Health. References specific to the IOM report were properly
cited.
|
|
|
15.0 %Identify the role
of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative and the American Association
of Retired Persons on the Future of Nursing Campaign for Action and the State
Based Action Coalitions
|
Does not demonstrate
knowledge of role. Fails to identify the impact of the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation Initiative on the Future of Nursing.
|
Demonstrates minimal
knowledge of subject. Does not adequately visualize or justify the work of
the Committee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future
of Nursing.
|
Demonstrates a moderate
knowledge of the subject. Recognizes the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence
on the committee’s initiative.
|
Demonstrates good
knowledge of the subject. Correctly describes the committee’s initiative.
Justifies some of the impacts on the Future of Nursing.
|
Demonstrates a full and
deep knowledge of subject. Develops and explains an informed position on the
committee’s initiative, integrates and justifies the impact on the Future of
Nursing
|
|
|
15.0 %Identify the
importance of the IOM FON report related to the nursing workforce
|
Does not demonstrate
knowledge of the concept or its role. Fails to identify the importance of the
IOM FON report related to the nursing workforce.
|
Demonstrates minimal
knowledge of the subject. Does not adequately visualize or justify the
importance of the IOM FON report related to the nursing workforce.
|
Demonstrates a moderate
knowledge of the subject. Recognizes the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence
on the importance of the IOM FON report related to the nursing workforce.
|
Demonstrates good
knowledge of the subject. Correctly describes importance of the IOM FON
report related to the nursing workforce.
|
Demonstrates a full and
deep knowledge of the subject. Develops and explains the importance of the
IOM FON report, integrates and justifies the importance of the IOM FON report
related to the nursing workforce.
|
|
|
15.0 %Discuss the intent
of the Future of Nursing Campaign for Action
|
Does not demonstrate
knowledge of the concept or its role. Fails to identify the intent of the Future
of Nursing Campaign for Action.
|
Demonstrates minimal
knowledge of the subject. Does not adequately visualize or identify the
intent of the Future of Nursing Campaign for Action.
|
Demonstrates a moderate
knowledge of the subject. Recognizes the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence
on the intent of the Future of Nursing Campaign for Action.
|
Demonstrates good
knowledge of the subject. Correctly describes the intent of the Future of
Nursing Campaign for Action.
|
Demonstrates a full and
deep knowledge of the subject. Develops and explains the intent of the Future
of Nursing Campaign for Action, integrates and justifies the intent of the
Future of Nursing Campaign for Action.
|
|
|
15.0 %Identify the
rationale of state-based action coalitions
|
Does not demonstrate knowledge
of the concept or its role. Fails to identify the rationale of state-based
action coalitions.
|
Demonstrates minimal
knowledge of the subject. Does not adequately identify the rationale of
state-based action coalitions.
|
Demonstrates a moderate
knowledge of the subject. Recognizes the basic ideas. Misinterprets evidence
on the rationale of state-based action coalitions.
|
Demonstrates good
knowledge of the subject. Correctly identifies the rationale of state-based
action coalitions.
|
Demonstrates a full and
deep knowledge of the subject. Develops and explains and identifies the
rationale of state-based action coalitions and justifies a rationale for
state-based action coalitions.
|
|
|
15.0 %Discuss one
state-based action coalition and two initiatives
|
Does not demonstrate
knowledge of the concept or its role. Fails to identify one state-based
action coalition and two initiatives.
|
Demonstrates minimal
knowledge of the subject. Does not adequately identify one state-based action
coalition and two initiatives.
|
Demonstrates a moderate
knowledge of the subject. Recognizes the basic ideas. Identifies but
misinterprets one state-based action coalition and two initiatives.
|
Demonstrates good
knowledge of the subject. Correctly identifies one state-based action coalition
and two initiatives.
|
Demonstrates a full and
deep knowledge of the subject. Develops and explains the one state-based
action coalition and two initiatives, integrates and justifies one
state-based action coalition and two initiatives.
|
|
|
15.0 %Organization and
Effectiveness
|
|
|
5.0 %Thesis Development
and Purpose
|
Paper lacks any
discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
|
Thesis and/or main claim
are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.
|
Thesis and/or main claim
are apparent and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis and/or main claim
are clear and forecast the development of the paper. Is descriptive and
reflective of the arguments and appropriate to purpose.
|
Thesis and/or main claim
are comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper.
Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
|
|
|
15.0 %Organization and
Effectiveness
|
|
|
5.0 %Paragraph
Development and Transitions
|
Paragraphs and
transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections
between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose
and scope. Organization is disjointed.
|
Some paragraphs and
transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or
cohesiveness.Some degree of organization is evident.
|
Paragraphs are generally
competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in
their relationships to each other.
|
A logical progression of
ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence,
and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to
purpose.
|
There is a sophisticated
construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each
other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph
structure is seamless.
|
|
|
15.0 %Organization and
Effectiveness
|
|
|
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
and/or sentence construction are used.
|
Frequent and repetitive
mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice
(register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present.
|
Some mechanical errors or
typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct
sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.
|
Prose is largely free of
mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence
structures and effective figures of speech are used.
|
Writer is clearly in
command of standard, written, academic English.
|
|
|
5.0 %Format
|
|
|
2.0 %Paper Format (1-
inch margins;12-point-font;double-spaced;Times New Roman, Arial, or Courier)
|
Template is not used
appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.
|
Template is used, but
some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is
apparent.
|
Template is used, and
formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.
|
Template is fully used;
There are virtually no errors in formatting style.
|
All format elements are
correct.
|
|
|
3.0 %Research Citations
(In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing
and formatting, as appropriate to assignment)
|
No reference page is
included. No citations are used.
|
Reference page is
present. Citations are inconsistently used.
|
Reference page is
included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately
documented, although some errors may be present.
|
Reference page is present
and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and
GCU style is usually correct.
|
In-text citations and a
reference page are complete. The documentation of cited sources is free of
error.
|
|
