|
|
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
|
|
|
16.0 %Compare the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the impact on competency, and use the comparison to
support group opinion of mandatory continuing nursing education.
|
Fails to effectively compare pros and cons of continuing
nursing education related to the impact on competency. Group’s position is
vague and poorly supported in the presentation.
|
Compares a pro and con of continuing nursing education
related to the impact on competency. Group’s position is vague, but draws
support from more generalized examples from the pro-con comparison.
|
Compares a few of the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the impact on competency. Group’s position is clearly
presented, and draws support from more generalized examples from the pro-con
comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares many of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the impact on competency, and
supports comparisons with logical reasoning and/or research. Clearly
presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and draws
support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares most of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the impact on competency, and
supports comparisons with logical reasoning and research. Clearly and
persuasively presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and
draws support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
|
|
16.0 %Compare the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the impact on knowledge and attitudes, and use the
comparison to support group opinion of mandatory continuing nursing
education.
|
Fails to effectively compare pros and cons of continuing
nursing education related to the impact on knowledge and attitudes. Group’s
position is vague and poorly supported in the presentation.
|
Compares a pro and con of continuing nursing education
related to the impact on knowledge and attitudes. Group’s position is
vague, but draws support from more generalized examples from the pro-con
comparison.
|
Compares a few of the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the impact on knowledge and attitudes. Group’s
position is clearly presented, and draws support from more generalized
examples from the pro-con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares many of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the impact on knowledge and
attitudes, and supports comparisons with logical reasoning and/or research.
Clearly presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and
draws support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares most of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the impact on knowledge and
attitudes, and supports comparisons with logical reasoning and research.
Clearly and persuasively presents group’s position on continuing nursing
education, and draws support from specific examples from the pro/con
comparison.
|
|
|
16.0 %Compare the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education, as it relates to professional certification, and use the
comparison to support group opinion of mandatory continuing nursing
education.
|
Fails to effectively compare pros and cons of continuing
nursing education as it relates to professional certification. Group’s
position is vague and poorly supported in the presentation.
|
Compares a pro and con of continuing nursing education as it
relates to professional certification. Group’s position is vague, but draws
support from more generalized examples from the pro-con comparison.
|
Compares a few of the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education as it relates to professional certification. Group’s position is
clearly presented, and draws support from more-generalized examples from
the pro-con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares many of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education as it relates to professional certification,
and supports comparisons with logical reasoning and/or research. Clearly
presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and draws
support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares most of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing as it relates to professional certification, and
supports comparisons with logical reasoning and research. Clearly and
persuasively presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and
draws support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
|
|
16.0 %Compare the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the ANA Scope and Standards of Practice, and use the
comparison to support group opinion of mandatory continuing nursing
education.
|
Fails to effectively compare pros and cons of continuing
nursing education related to the ANA Scope and Standards of Practice.
Group’s position is vague and poorly supported in the presentation.
|
Compares a pro and con of continuing nursing education
related to the ANA Scope and Standards of Practice. Group’s position is
vague, but draws support from more generalized examples from the pro-con
comparison.
|
Compares a few of the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the ANA Scope and Standards of Practice. Group’s
position is clearly presented, and draws support from more generalized
examples from the pro-con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares many of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the ANA Scope and Standards of
Practice, and supports comparisons with logical reasoning and/or research.
Clearly presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and
draws support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares most of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the ANA Scope and Standards of
Practice, and supports comparisons with logical reasoning and research.
Clearly and persuasively presents group’s position on continuing nursing
education, and draws support from specific examples from the pro/con
comparison.
|
|
|
16.0 %Compare the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the ANA Code of Ethics, and use the comparison to
support group opinion of mandatory continuing nursing education.
|
Fails to effectively compare pros and cons of continuing
nursing education related to the ANA Code of Ethics. Group’s position is
vague and poorly supported in the presentation.
|
Compares a pro and con of continuing nursing education
related to the ANA Code of Ethics. Group’s position is vague, but draws
support from more generalized examples from the pro-con comparison.
|
Compares a few of the pros and cons of continuing nursing
education related to the ANA Code of Ethics. Group’s position is clearly
presented, and draws support from more generalized examples from the
pro-con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares many of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the ANA Code of Ethics, and
supports comparisons with logical reasoning and/or research. Clearly
presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and draws
support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
Thoughtfully compares most of the pros and cons of
continuing nursing education related to the ANA Code of Ethics, and
supports comparisons with logical reasoning and research. Clearly and
persuasively presents group’s position on continuing nursing education, and
draws support from specific examples from the pro/con comparison.
|
|
|
10.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
5.0 %Layout
|
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use
spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is
extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts,
and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings,
indentations, or bold formatting is evident.
|
The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and
busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background.
Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many
different fonts, dark or busy background, over use of bold, or lack of
appropriate indentations of text.
|
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space
appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places
the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background
detracts and does not enhance readability.
|
The layout background and text complement each other and
enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point
size varies appropriately for headings and text.
|
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the
overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white
space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the
point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
|
|
|
10.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
|
|
|
5.0 %Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence
construction, word choice, etc.)
|
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language
use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of primer
prose indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them
inappropriately.
|
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice and/or
word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using
figures of speech appropriately.
|
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the
most part.
|
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of
appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of
speech to communicate clearly.
|
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures
of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are
appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope.
|
|
|
10.0 %Format
|
|
|
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation,
grammar, language use)
|
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning.
|
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader.
|
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not
overly distracting to the reader.
|
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few
may be present.
|
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic
English.
|
|
|
5.0 %Evaluating and Documenting Sources(in-text citations for
paraphrasing and direct quotes, references page listing and formatting, as
appropriate to assignment and style)
|
Contains no title slide, no references section, and no
correctly cited references within the body of the presentation.
|
Title slide is incomplete or inaccurate. References section
includes sources, but many citation errors. Citations are included within
the body of the presentation but with many errors.
|
Title slide has minor errors. References section includes
sources, but they are not consistently cited correctly. Citations are
included within the body of the presentation but with some errors.
|
Title slide is complete. References section includes
correctly cited sources with minimal errors. Correct citations are included
within the body of the presentation.
|
Title slide is complete. References section includes
correctly cited sources. Correct citations are included within the body of
the presentation.
|
|
|
100 %Total Weightage
|
|
|
