Continue to work on the quality benchmark proposal you started in week 1. When you have completed Part 2 of your assignment, save a copy for yourself in an easily accessible place and submit a copy to this drop box.
Part 2: Part 2 requires minimum of 2 additional pages. Use instructor feedback from Week 2 and improve Part 1, then add 2 more body content pages for a total of 4 pages in Week 5. You will not have a conclusion for Part 2. This format must be in 7th edition APA.
Use the instructor feedback given in part 1 to improve your writing prior to adding part 2 of this assignment, especially if you have been given APA feedback. Your instructor will be comparing the feedback given in Week 2 to what you submit in Week 5. If your instructor does not see the requested improvements made, you will get a ‘0’ on this assignment. There is an logical expectation to see growth in your writing from week to week.
For the continued body of your paper, address the following objectives and separate using distinct paragraph headers:
- Research and discuss who has jurisdiction over your quality issue – who has control to make change?
- Who are the stakeholders, investors or decision-makers in this issue and how do they influence this issue?
- What powerbases or resources do you believe are needed to promote change in this quality issue toward improvement?
Part 3: Due in Week 9. This will continue body content adding an additional 2-pages of the body for a total of 6+ pages. You will include a conclusion in Part 3.
*Important: Use the Sample Paper as a template to format your assignment to prevent unnecessary point deduction.
See rubric for grading details.
When you submit this assignment, your paper will automatically run through a plagiarism checker build into Canvas called Turnitin. This will formulate a similarity report and will give you a percentage. If you percentage is greater than 25%, please review the report and see where you are flagged for similarity. You will need to re-do the paper to reduce the percentage to less than 25% before the paper will be accepted for grading. Late penalties may apply.
Rubric
NUR415 Week 5 Assignment Grading Rubric
NUR415 Week 5 Assignment Grading Rubric
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBody of Paper: *Entities that have jurisdiction over the problem *Stakeholders and their roles in addressing the issue *Power bases and their influence *Resources needed to implement change
30 to >25.0 pts
Excellent
*Describes all entities that have jurisdiction over the problem. *Provides a clear and detailed explanation of the stakeholders and their roles. *Fully examines power bases and their influence. *Provides a comprehensive description of needed resources
25 to >15.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
*Describe most entities that have jurisdiction over the problem. *Provides a clear explanation of the stakeholders and their roles *Somewhat examines power bases and their influence. *Provides a limited description of needed resources.
15 to >7.0 pts
Needs Significant Improvement
*All entities not correctly identified. *All stakeholders not identified, or their roles not adequately explained. *Minimally examines power base and their influence. *Minimally examines power base and their influence.
7 to >0 pts
Poor
*Does not describe entities that have jurisdiction over the problem. *Does not identity stakeholders and their roles. *Does not address power bases and their influence. *Does not address the needed resources.
30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFormatting, Mechanics and Grammar
10 to >7.0 pts
Excellent
*Paper updated with format corrections from Week 2’s instructor feedback *General paper formatting follows APA (7th ed) requirements (e.g., title page, correct margins, font, etc.) *No errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.
7 to >3.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
*Some but not all of corrections from the instructor on W2 made. *Minor errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation and spelling that do not interfere with reading/understanding. Some errors with general paper formatting not following APA (7th ed).
3 to >1.0 pts
Needs Significant Improvement
Very few corrections from instructor feedback on W2 assignment made. *Some errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation and spelling that interfere with reading/understanding. Significant issues with general paper formatting following APA (7th ed).
1 to >0 pts
Poor
*Paper not updated with format corrections from Week 2’s instructor feedback. *Numerous errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling that interfere with reading/understanding. Paper not formatted to APA (7th ed) standards.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Formatting for In-text Citations and Reference Page
10 to >7.0 pts
Excellent
No errors in APA format: in-text citation(s); reference page.
7 to >3.0 pts
Needs Some Improvement
Minor errors in APA format: in-text citation(s); reference page.
3 to >1.0 pts
Needs Significant Improvement
Some errors in APA format: in-text citation(s); reference page.
1 to >0 pts
Poor
Numerous errors in APA format: in-text citation(s); reference page.
10 pts
Total Points: 50
PreviousNext
The post Assignment: Part 2 Due, Quality Benchmark Project Proposal appeared first on Nursing Depo.