Teaching Plan Proposal: Primary Prevention and Health promotion of Type 2 Diabetes (Prevention and Risk)

Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper

The RN to BSN program at Grand Canyon University meets the requirements for clinical competencies as defined by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) and the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), using nontraditional experiences for practicing nurses. These experiences come in the form of direct and indirect care experiences in which licensed nursing students engage in learning within the context of their hospital organization, specific care discipline, and local communities.
Note: This is an individual assignment. In 1,500-2,000 words, describe the teaching experience and discuss your observations. The written portion of this assignment should include:
Summary of teaching plan
Epidemiological rationale for topic
Evaluation of teaching experience
Community response to teaching
Areas of strengths and areas of improvement
Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
BELLOW IS THE RUBRIC, PLEASE FOLLOW CAREFULLY:
{ Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
NRS-428VN NRS-428VN-OL191 Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper 100.0

Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less Than Satisfactory (65.00%) Satisfactory (75.00%) Good (85.00%) Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 80.0%
Comprehensive Summary of Teaching Plan 15.0% Summary of community teaching plan is omitted. Summary of community teaching plan is incomplete. Overall, the teaching plan is unclear. Summary of community teaching plan is offered, but some elements are vague. Some rationale or evidence is needed for clarity and support. Community teaching plan is clear with a detailed summary of each component. Minor rationale is needed for clarity or support. Focus of community teaching is clear, consistent with community teaching plan, detailed, and well supported. The presentation demonstrates an ability to create effective teaching plans relative to a population.

Epidemiological Rationale for Topic 15.0% Epidemiological rationale for the topic is omitted. Epidemiological rationale is unclear or incorrect. Epidemiological rationale is summarized and provides some support for the topic. More information or evidence is needed for support. Epidemiological rationale is provided and provides general support for the topic. Some detail is needed for clarity. Strong epidemiological rationale is provided and demonstrates support for the topic presented.

Evaluation of Teaching Experience 20.0% Evaluation of teaching experience is omitted or incomplete. Evaluation of teaching experience is unclear or underdeveloped. The narrative is not written in a manner that evaluates the experience. Evaluation of teaching experience is summarized. Some aspects are vague. More detail is needed to fully illustrate an assessment of the experience. Evaluation of the teaching experience is generally presented. Some detail is needed for clarity. A comprehensive evaluation of teaching experience is presented. Insight into self-appraisal in regard to teaching is demonstrated.

Community Response to Teaching Provided 15.0% Community response to teaching is omitted. Community response to teaching is partially summarized. More information is needed. A summary of the community response to teaching is presented. Some areas are unclear. More information is needed for support or clarity. A description of community response to teaching is generally presented. Some information is needed for support or clarity. A detailed description of community response to teaching is presented.

Areas of Strength and Improvement 15.0% Areas of strength and improvement are omitted. Areas of strength and improvement are partially discussed. Areas of strength and improvement are generally discussed. Areas of strength and improvement are discussed. Areas of strength and improvement are thoroughly discussed. The author demonstrates insight into personal strengths and areas where improvement would be beneficial.


Organization, Effectiveness, and Format 20.0%
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 progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics 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) 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.

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. 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.

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%