| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| NUR-665E | NUR-665E-O500 | Benchmark - Reflective Analysis | 25.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | 1: Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | 2: Less Than Satisfactory (80.00%) | 3: Satisfactory (88.00%) | 4: Good (92.00%) | 5: Excellent (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Content | 100.0% |
| Lesson Plan Feedback | 10.0% | A description of the lesson plan feedback from the preceptor is not present. | A description of the lesson plan feedback from the preceptor is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of the lesson plan feedback from the preceptor is included but lacks supporting details. | A description of the lesson plan feedback from the preceptor is complete and includes supporting details. | A description of the lesson plan feedback from the preceptor is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details. |
| Instructor Feedback | 10.0% | A description of the instructor feedback from the students is not present. | A description of the instructor feedback from the students is incomplete or incorrect. | A description of the instructor feedback from the students is included but lacks supporting details. | A description of the instructor feedback from the students is complete and includes supporting details. | A description of the instructor feedback from the students is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details. |
| Feedback Comparison | 15.0% | A comparison of preceptor and student feedback to the student's own reflection is not present. | A comparison of preceptor and student feedback to the student's own reflection is incomplete or incorrect. | A comparison of preceptor and student feedback to the student's own reflection is included but lacks supporting details. | A comparison of preceptor and student feedback to the student's own reflection is complete and includes supporting details. | A comparison of preceptor and student feedback to the student's own reflection is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details. |
| Improving Practice (C6.4) | 20.0% | An explanation of how you will implement the feedback from stakeholders to improve practice is not present. | An explanation of how you will implement the feedback from stakeholders to improve practice is incomplete or incorrect. | An explanation of how you will implement the feedback from stakeholders to improve practice is included but lacks supporting details. | An explanation of how you will implement the feedback from stakeholders to improve practice is complete and includes supporting details. | An explanation of how the feedback from stakeholders is used to engage in the professional role of the nurse educator through systematic self-reflection, reflective teaching practice, and exploring opportunities for scholarship is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details. |
| Professional Development | 15.0% | A plan for continuing professional development and refinement of practice is not present. | A plan for continuing professional development and refinement of practice is incomplete or incorrect. | A plan for continuing professional development and refinement of practice is included but lacks supporting details. | A plan for continuing professional development and refinement of practice is complete and includes supporting details. | A plan for continuing professional development and refinement of practice is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting details. |
| Thesis Development and Purpose | 7.0% | 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 | 8.0% | 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. |
| 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) | 5.0% | 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) | 5.0% | 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% |
Elampal
Benchmark-ReflectiveAnalysis.xlsx
