APA, format

Visual Model - Rubric

Compare and Contrast Quality Improvement, Evidence-Based Practice,

and Research 8 points

Criteria Description

Compare and Contrast Quality Improvement, Evidence-Based Practice, and Research

5. Target 8 points

Visual model compares and contrasts quality improvement, evidence-based

practice, and research and is thorough.

4. Acceptable 7.36 points

Visual model compares and contrasts quality improvement, evidence-based

practice, and research and is detailed.

3. Approaching 7.04 points

Visual model compares and contrasts quality improvement, evidence-based

practice, and research.

2. Insufficient 6.4 points

Visual model compares and contrasts quality improvement, evidence-based

practice, and research, but lacks detail or is incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Examples of Quality Improvement, Evidence-Based Practice, and Research 8 points

Criteria Description

Examples of Quality Improvement, Evidence-Based Practice, and Research

5. Target 8 points

Three examples of quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research are

present. All examples are appropriate.

4. Acceptable 7.36 points

Three examples of quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research are

present. Most examples are appropriate.

Collapse All

3. Approaching 7.04 points

Three examples of quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research are

present.

2. Insufficient 6.4 points

Less than three examples of quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and

research are present.

Application of Examples of Quality Improvement, Evidence-Based Practice,

and Research 8 points

Criteria Description

Application of Examples of Quality Improvement, Evidence-Based Practice, and

Research

5. Target 8 points

A description of why quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research

would be applied in a health care setting is present and thorough.

4. Acceptable 7.36 points

A description of why quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research

would be applied in a health care setting is present and detailed.

3. Approaching 7.04 points

A description of why quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research

would be applied in a health care setting is present.

2. Insufficient 6.4 points

A description of why quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research

would be applied in a health care setting is present, but lacks details or is

incomplete.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

A description of why quality improvement, evidence-based practice, and research

Scholarly Sources 8 points

Criteria Description

Scholarly Sources

5. Target 8 points

A minimum of two peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present. Sources are

distinctive. Addresses all of the requirements stated in the assignment criteria.

4. Acceptable 7.36 points

A minimum of two peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present. Sources address

all of the requirements stated in the assignment criteria.

3. Approaching 7.04 points

A minimum of two peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are present.

2. Insufficient 6.4 points

One or two sources are present, but are not scholarly. Limited research is present.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Peer-reviewed, scholarly sources are not present.

Technical Requirements: Graphics 24 points

Criteria Description

Technical Requirements: Graphics

5. Target 24 points

Graphics are used in the visual model and visual connections contribute to the

understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships.

4. Acceptable 22.08 points

Graphics are used in the visual model and visual connections mostly contribute to

the understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships.

3. Approaching 21.12 points

Graphics are used in the visual model.

2. Insufficient 19.2 points

Graphics are used in the visual model, but they are distracting.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

No graphics are used in the visual model

Aesthetic Quality 5.6 points

Criteria Description

Aesthetic Quality

5. Target 5.6 points

Design is clean. Skillful handling of text and visuals creates a distinctive and

effective presentation. Overall, effective and functional audio, text, or visuals are

evident.

4. Acceptable 5.15 points

Design is appropriate and integrates a variety of objects, charts, and graphs to

amplify the message.

3. Approaching 4.93 points

Design is fairly clean, with a few exceptions. Materials add to, not detract from the

presentation. Materials used were quality products and easy to see or hear.

2. Insufficient 4.48 points

Design detracts from purpose. Text and visuals are too simplistic, cluttered, and

busy. Little or no creativity or inventiveness is present.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Appropriateness 5.6 points

Criteria Description

Appropriateness

5. Target 5.6 points

Student shows a deep understanding of the audience and the situation by selecting

material that enhances understanding. Student creates tools, techniques, or

paradigms that effectively achieve the desired goal.

4. Acceptable 5.15 points

Student selects an effective tool, technique, or paradigm to achieve the desired goal

as defined in the project or course guideline. Student selects materials (photos,

sound files, video clips, apparel, illustrations, etc.) that are appropriate for the

audience and the situation.

3. Approaching 4.93 points

Student selects a tool, technique, or paradigm that achieves a basic representation

as defined in the project or course guideline. Student selects materials (photos,

sound files, video clips, apparel, illustrations, etc.) that are appropriate for the

audience and the situation but some of the development of the material is

inadequate.

2. Insufficient 4.48 points

Student selection of a tool, technique, or paradigm does not relate to the project or

course goal. Student selects materials (photos, sound files, video clips, apparel,

illustrations, etc.) that are not appropriate for the audience and the situation and

are inadequately developed.

Synthesis 4.8 points

Criteria Description

Synthesis

5. Target 4.8 points

Synthesis is unique. Synthesis shows careful planning and attention to how

disparate elements fit together. The combination of elements is verified.

4. Acceptable 4.42 points

Synthesis integrates ideas, images, or objects to form a cohesive whole.

Combination of elements is logical and justified.

3. Approaching 4.22 points

Synthesis integrates ideas, images, or objects but does not adequately form a

cohesive whole. Combination of elements at times is confusing.

2. Insufficient 3.84 points

Synthesis integrates ideas, images, or objects inadequately. The combination of

elements is not logical.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Synthesis does not successfully integrate ideas, images, or objects to form a

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and

language use) 4 points

Criteria Description

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

5. Target 4 points

No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence

structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable 3.68 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence

structure are used.

3. Approaching 3.52 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally

appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient 3.2 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language

choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory 0 points

Format/Documentation 4 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level;

documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.,

5. Target 4 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of

direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.

4. Acceptable 3.68 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching 3.52 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious

errors.

2. Insufficient 3.2 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors

in documentation of sources are evident.

1 U i f 0 i Total 80 points