Assingment

Project Title

ExemplaryThoroughly, accurately, and clearly reflect the content of the presentation.

5 to >3 pts

DistinguishedReflects content very well but not thoroughly.

3 to >1 pts

NoviceDoes not reflect content of the presentation.

1 to >0 pts

/5 pts

Introduction:

view longer description

ExemplaryIdentifies a creative, focused, and manageable topic that addresses potentially significant and previously less explored aspects of the topic, problem, and/or project

5 to >3 pts

DistinguishedProject and/or research question moderately described. Moderately clear rationale. Purpose was somewhat focused and clear.

3 to >1 pts

NoviceVaguely described project and/or research question. Weak rationale. Purpose was poorly focused and not sufficiently clear.

1 to >0 pts

/5 pts

Purpose:

view longer description

ExemplaryBackground information is engaging and leads to a clear purpose statement. Relevance to advanced practice nursing and the field of psychiatry is articulated well.

5 to >3 pts

DistinguishedBackground information is at times unclear or uninteresting. Relevance to advanced practice nursing or psychiatry could be more clearly articulated.

3 to >1 pts

NoviceBackground information is illogical or unrelated to the topic. There is no relevance to advanced practice nursing or the field of psychiatry.

1 to >0 pts

/5 pts

Search Strategy

view longer description

ExemplaryMethods are appropriate to address aim/question and connected to the purpose of the research; Identifies method used to support thesis or answer the research question.

10 to >6 pts

DistinguishedMethods are inappropriate to address research aim or question. Methods are unclear or not connected to purpose of research

6 to >2 pts

NoviceResearch strategy was not clearly mentioned but implied; or, not appropriate for purpose of the research

2 to >0 pts

/10 pts

Synthesis of Evidence:

view longer description

ExemplaryThorough comparison and contrast of findings are provided and relate to the main discussion points in the order of their appearance in the purpose statement. Focus is on research findings rather than research methods. Study limitations that might have led to different findings are discussed. Gaps and controversies that exist in the literature are clearly discussed.

20 to >13 pts

DistinguishedComparison and contrast of findings are provided but lack thoroughness. Discussion of findings could relate better to the main discussion points in the purpose statement. Study limitations are discussed, but possible connections to differences in findings are not clearly identified. Gaps and controversies in the literature are discussed, but clarity could be enhanced.

13 to >6 pts

NoviceComparison and contrast of findings are lacking. Discussion of findings does not relate well to the main discussion points in the purpose statement. Study limitations are not mentioned. Gaps (what is unknown and needs to be researched) and controversies that exist in the literature are not discussed.

6 to >0 pts

/20 pts

Implications for Practice:

view longer description

ExemplaryThorough comparison and contrast of findings are provided and relate to the main discussion points in the order of their appearance in the purpose statement. Focus is on research findings rather than research methods.

10 to >6 pts

DistinguishedComparison and contrast of findings are provided but lack thoroughness. Discussion of findings could relate better to the main discussion points in the purpose statement. Study limitations are discussed, but possible connections to differences in findings are not clearly identified. Gaps and controversies in the literature are discussed, but clarity could be enhanced.

6 to >2 pts

NoviceComparison and contrast of findings are lacking. Discussion of findings does not relate well to the main discussion points in the purpose statement. Study limitations are not mentioned. Gaps (what is unknown and needs to be researched) and controversies that exist in the literature are not discussed.

2 to >0 pts

/10 pts

Writing and Scholarly Voice:

view longer description

ExemplaryWriting is fluid, precise, and clear; lexicon of the field is clearly explained and defined; the tone is professional; vocabulary and syntax are mature; scholarly style and format are accurately used; the candidates voice is heard and yields a definitive presence, authority, and understanding of the issues being discussed.

5 to >3 pts

DistinguishedWriting is somewhat developed and professional; spelling, punctuation, grammar, in general, meet program and institutional standards; dissertation formatting is adequate; the lexicon of the respective field is understood and used properly.

3 to >1 pts

NoviceMore work developing academic writing skills necessary; syntax or vocabulary may not be well developed; a reliance on jargon may be a weakness, writing may be difficult to read or understand; tone may not exhibit an understanding of the academic writing genre; errors of spelling, punctuation or formatting may be present; document may have formatting problems, the candidate may not have a command of the fields lexicon.

1 to >0 pts

/5 pts

Oral Presentation

view longer description

ExemplaryNarration and/or answering of questions is engaging, thorough, and adds greatly to the presentation. Presentation is well-rehearsed. Voice, eye contact and pacing hold interest and attention of the audience; introduced self and project.

20 to >12 pts

DistinguishedNarration and/or answering of questions is somewhat lacking. Audio-Video presentation does not support the content of the presentation. Some difficulty communicating ideas. Poor voice projections; some eye contact; no introduction; mispronounced a few words; long pauses; appears somewhat confused.

12 to >3 pts

NoviceNarration and/or answering of questions is lacking, Audio-Video presentation was not submitted or the video was not created using the audio or video platform required in the instructions. Great difficulty communicating ideas. Poor voice projection; no eye contact; no introduction; mispronounced words; stopped or had long pauses; read entirely from notes

3 to >0 pts

/20 pts

Overall Appearance

view longer description

ExemplaryProminently positions title/authors of paper thoroughly but concisely presents main points of introduction, hypotheses/ propositions, research methods, results, and conclusions in a well-organized manner.Overall visually appealing; not cluttered; colors and patterns enhance readability; Uses font sizes/variations which facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the researchGraphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) are engaging and enhance the text content is clearly arranged so that the viewer can understand order without narration

10 to >6 pts

DistinguishedVisual appeal is adequate; somewhat cluttered; colors and patterns detract from readabilityUse of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research is somewhat inconsistent/distractionsGraphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) adequately enhance the textContent arrangement is somewhat confusing and does not adequately assist the viewer in understanding order without narration

6 to >2 pts

NoviceNot very visually appealing; cluttered; colors and patterns hinder readabilityUse of font sizes/variations to facilitate the organization, presentation, and readability of the research is inconsistent/distractingGraphics (e.g., tables, figures, etc.) do not enhance the textContent arrangement is somewhat confusing and does not adequately assist the viewer in understanding order without narration

2 to >0 pts

/10 pts

APA Formatting

view longer description

ExemplaryFollows APA guidelines of components: double space, 12 pt. font, abstract, level headings, hanging indent and in-text citations. The references contain at least the 6-8 required current scholarly academic reference and text