| Course Code |
Class Code |
Assignment Title |
Total Points |
| NRS-440VN |
NRS-440VN-O502 |
Advocacy Through Legislation |
155.0 |
| Criteria |
Percentage |
Unsatisfactory (0.00%) |
Less Than Satisfactory (75.00%) |
Satisfactory (79.00%) |
Good (89.00%) |
Excellent (100.00%) |
Comments |
Points Earned |
| Content |
100.0% |
| Problem, Those Affected, Current Ramifications, and Consequences if Problem Continues |
| 1
| 5.0% |
A description of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is omitted. |
A partial or vague discussion of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. Why the problem would be best addressed through legislation is unclear. |
A summary of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. There are some omissions and inaccuracies. Rationale is needed. |
A discussion of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. Some rationale is needed. |
A well-develop discussion of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. Strong and compelling rationale is provided. Insight into the problem and consequences is demonstrated. |
| Idea for Addressing Solution |
|
|
|
|
| 10.0% |
Idea for addressing the issue and why legislation is the best course for advocacy is omitted. |
Idea for addressing the issue is vague. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is unclear. There are major omissions. |
Idea for addressing the issue is generally outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is summarized. There are some minor omissions. Rationale is needed. |
Idea for addressing the issue is outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is generally explained. Some rationale is needed. |
A logical and well-developed idea for addressing the issue is outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is thoroughly explained. Strong and compelling rationale is provided. |
|
| Research |
Supporting Solution for Problem
15.0%
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are omitted. |
Some support for the idea and its effectiveness in addressing the problem is presented. Findings presented are not substantiated, or do not provide evidence-based support for the idea. |
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are generally presented. More information is needed. There are some inaccuracies. |
Idea for addressing the issue is outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is generally explained. Some rationale is needed. Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are presented. There are minor inaccuracies. Some detail is needed. |
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are presented and demonstrate strong and compiling support for the idea. |
| Stakeholder Support |
10.0%
Stakeholders in support the proposed idea are omitted. |
At least one stakeholder in support of the proposed idea is presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete. |
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are generally presented. More information is needed. There are some inaccuracies.General stakeholders in support of the proposed idea are presented. It is unclear why they are in support of the idea. More information is needed. |
Key stakeholders in support of the proposed idea are presented. It is generally clear why they are in support of the idea. Some detail or rationale is needed. |
All significant stakeholders in support of the proposed idea are presented and a well-supported explanation of why they are in support of the idea are provided. |
| Stakeholder Opposition |
10.0%
Stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are omitted. |
At least one stakeholder in support of the proposed idea is presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete.At least one stakeholder in opposition to the proposed idea is presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete. |
General stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are presented. Explanation for why they are opposed to the idea and strategies for debating or conversing with opposing stakeholders is vague. |
Key stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are presented. A general explanation for why they are opposed to the idea and strategies for debating or conversing with opposing stakeholders is presented. |
All significant stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are presented. A well-supported explanation for why they are opposed to the idea and strategies for debating or conversing with opposing stakeholders is presented. |
| Financial Incentives and Costs |
10.0%
The financial impact for the issue and idea is omitted. |
The financial impact for the issue and idea is only partially presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete. |
The financial impact for the issue and idea is outlined. More information or support is needed for claims. |
The financial impact for the issue and idea is summarized. Support for claims is generally supported. |
The financial impact for the issue and idea is clearly summarized. Strong rationale and support for claims is provided. |
| Legislature Process and Information for Proposal |
10.0%
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are omitted. |
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are largely incomplete. |
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are generally outlined.There are some inaccuracies or omissions. |
The financial impact for the issue and idea is summarized. Support for claims is generally supported.Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are presented. Information or detail is needed in some areas for accuracy or clarity. |
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are clearly and logically presented. The legislative process is clearly understood and insight into legislative advocacy is demonstrated. |
| Christian Principles and Nursing Advocacy |
10.0%
A discussion of how Christian principles supporting unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is omitted. |
A discussion of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is incomplete. It is unclear how the principles support positive patient outcomes and inclusiveness for all populations. |
A summary of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is presented. Some rationale or information is needed to demonstrate how the principles support positive patient outcomes and inclusiveness for all populations. |
A discussion of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is presented. The discussion generally demonstrates how the principles support positive patient outcomes and inclusiveness for all populations. Some detail or information is needed for clarity. |
A well-developed discussion of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is presented. The discussion demonstrates an ability to act impartially and in the interest of promoting inclusive patient care without regard to gender, sexual orientation, culture, race, religion, or belief. |
Research 5.0%
| No outside sources were used to support the assignment. |
Few outside sources were used to support the assignment. Limited research is apparent. |
Research is adequate. Sources are standard in relevance, quality of outside sources, and/or timeliness. |
Research is timely and relevant, and addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. |
Research is supportive of the rationale presented. Sources are distinctive. Addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) |
2.0% |
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. |
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. |
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
| 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% |
