ASSIGNMENT 1

Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper

Assessment Description

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:

1. Summary of teaching plan

2. Epidemiological rationale for topic

3. Evaluation of teaching experience

4. Community response to teaching

5. Areas of strengths and areas of improvement

You are required to cite a minimum of three sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years, appropriate for the assignment criteria, and relevant to nursing practice. 

Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

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 required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Course Resources if you need assistance.

SEE RUBRIC BELOW:

Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper – Rubric

Collapse All Community Teaching Plan: Teaching Experience Paper – Rubric

Comprehensive Summary of Teaching Plan

15 points

Criteria Description

Comprehensive Summary of Teaching Plan

5. Excellent

15 points

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.

4. Good

12.75 points

Community teaching plan is clear with a detailed summary of each component. Minor rationale is needed for clarity or support.

3. Satisfactory

11.25 points

Summary of community teaching plan is offered, but some elements are vague. Some rationale or evidence is needed for clarity and support.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

9.75 points

Summary of community teaching plan is incomplete. Overall, the teaching plan is unclear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Summary of community teaching plan is omitted.

Epidemiological Rationale for Topic

15 points

Criteria Description

Epidemiological Rationale for Topic

5. Excellent

15 points

Strong epidemiological rationale is provided and demonstrates support for the topic presented.

4. Good

12.75 points

Epidemiological rationale is provided and provides general support for the topic. Some detail is needed for clarity.

3. Satisfactory

11.25 points

Epidemiological rationale is summarized and provides some support for the topic. More information or evidence is needed for support.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

9.75 points

Epidemiological rationale is unclear or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Epidemiological rationale for the topic is omitted.

Evaluation of Teaching Experience

20 points

Criteria Description

Evaluation of Teaching Experience

5. Excellent

20 points

A comprehensive evaluation of teaching experience is presented. Insight into self-appraisal in regard to teaching is demonstrated.

4. Good

17 points

Evaluation of the teaching experience is generally presented. Some detail is needed for clarity.

3. Satisfactory

15 points

Evaluation of teaching experience is summarized. Some aspects are vague. More detail is needed to fully illustrate an assessment of the experience.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

13 points

Evaluation of teaching experience is unclear or underdeveloped. The narrative is not written in a manner that evaluates the experience.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evaluation of teaching experience is omitted or incomplete.

Community Response to Teaching Provided

15 points

Criteria Description

Community Response to Teaching Provided

5. Excellent

15 points

A detailed description of community response to teaching is presented.

4. Good

12.75 points

A description of community response to teaching is generally presented. Some information is needed for support or clarity.

3. Satisfactory

11.25 points

A summary of the community response to teaching is presented. Some areas are unclear. More information is needed for support or clarity.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

9.75 points

Community response to teaching is partially summarized. More information is needed.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Community response to teaching is omitted.

Areas of Strength and Improvement

15 points

Criteria Description

Areas of Strength and Improvement

5. Excellent

15 points

Areas of strength and improvement are thoroughly discussed. The author demonstrates insight into personal strengths and areas where improvement would be beneficial.

4. Good

12.75 points

Areas of strength and improvement are discussed.

3. Satisfactory

11.25 points

Areas of strength and improvement are generally discussed.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

9.75 points

Areas of strength and improvement are partially discussed.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Areas of strength and improvement are omitted.

Thesis Development and Purpose

5 points

Criteria Description

Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent

5 points

Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good

4.25 points

Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory

3.75 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.25 points

Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction

5 points

Criteria Description

Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent

5 points

Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good

4.25 points

Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory

3.75 points

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.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.25 points

Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5 points

Criteria Description

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

5. Excellent

5 points

Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good

4.25 points

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.

3. Satisfactory

3.75 points

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.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3.25 points

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.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

2 points

Criteria Description

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent

2 points

All format elements are correct.

4. Good

1.7 points

Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory

1.5 points

Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

1.3 points

Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources

3 points

Criteria Description

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

5. Excellent

3 points

Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good

2.55 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory

2.25 points

Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

1.95 points

Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Sources are not documented.