Benchmark - Capstone Change Project Objectives Health, Medicine Essay

Benchmark - Capstone Change Project Objectives

Review your problem or issue and the cultural assessment. Consider how the findings connect to your topic and intervention for your capstone change project. Write a list of three to five objectives for your proposed intervention. Below each objective, provide a one or two sentence rationale.
After writing your objectives, provide a rationale for how your proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Benchmark Information
This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:
RN to BSN
1.5: Advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations.
RUBRIC
Attempt Start Date: 03-Aug-2020 at 12:00:00 AM
Due Date: 09-Aug-2020 at 11:59:59 PM
Maximum Points: 5.0
RUBRIC: Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NRS-493 NRS-493-O502 Benchmark - Capstone Change Project Objectives 5.0

Criteria Percentage 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) 2: Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) 3: Satisfactory (79.00%) 4: Good (89.00%) 5: Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 80.0%
Objectives 25.0% A list of objectives for the proposed intervention is omitted. Fewer than three objectives are presented. NA NA NA Three to five objectives are presented.

Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention 30.0% Rationale for each objective is omitted. Rationale is incomplete. There are omissions. Rationale provided does not explain the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. General rationale is provided for each objective and generally summarizes the relationship of most findings to the topic and proposed intervention. There are some inaccuracies or minor omissions. Rationale is provided for each objective and explains the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Some detail is needed for clarity. Rationale is clearly provided for each objective and thoroughly explains the relationship of the findings to the topic and proposed intervention.

Rationale for How Proposed Project and Objectives Advocate for Autonomy and Social Justice for Individuals and Diverse Populations (C1.5) 25.0% Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is omitted. Incomplete rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is not established. Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is summarized. Some advocacy is established. Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is generally established. Well-supported rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is clearly established.


Organization and Effectiveness 15.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose 5.0% 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.

Argument Logic and Construction 5.0% 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.

Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% 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), sentence structure, or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they 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.


Format 5.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 2.0% 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.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 3.0% 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.

Total Weightage 100%