Interdisciplinary Project Rubric
Interdisciplinary Project Rubric
Interdisciplinary Project Rubric
| 70-60 POINTS | 59-35 POINTS | 34-25 POINTS | 24-10 POINTS | 9-0 POINTS | |
| PROGRAM PLANNING PAPER CRITERIA
|
States the goals and measurable outcomes of the DNP project clearly and succinctly.
Clearly identifies the population and stakeholders including patients or clients, providers, government officials, influential people, people whose jobs may be impacted, community activists, and affected businesses.
Identifies the strengths/weakness of the organization in relation to your DNP scholarly project through the use of SWOT. Strengths and weaknesses are well defined.
Completes a thorough financial analysis of program implementation with consideration to cost.
Clearly identifies methods and instruments that will best fit the project (surveys, questionnaires, needs assessment, etc). Data collection is well defined.
Evidence-based practice is incorporated into the project and clearly defined.
Includes cultural needs and learning levels as appropriate with much depth and detail. |
States the goals and measurable outcomes of the DNP project adequately.
Identifies the population and stakeholders including patients or clients, providers, government officials, influential people, people whose jobs may be impacted, community activists, and affected businesses. Is generally clear.
Identifies the strengths/weakness of the organization in relation to your DNP scholarly project through the use of SWOT. Strengths and weaknesses are defined.
Completes a financial analysis of program implementation with consideration to cost.
Identifies methods and instruments that will best fit the project (surveys, questionnaires, needs assessment, etc). Data collection is defined.
Evidence-based practice is incorporated into the project and adequately defined.
Includes cultural needs and learning levels as appropriate with some depth and detail. |
States the goals and measurable outcomes of the DNP project. May be lacking in detail.
Identifies the population and stakeholders including patients or clients, providers, government officials, influential people, people whose jobs may be impacted, community activists, and affected businesses. Lacking detail.
Identifies the strengths/weakness of the organization in relation to your DNP scholarly project through the use of SWOT. Strengths and weaknesses may/may not be clear.
Completes a financial analysis of program implementation with consideration to cost. Some detail lacking.
Identifies methods and instruments that will best fit the project (surveys, questionnaires, needs assessment, etc). Data collection is somewhat defined.
Evidence-based practice is incorporated into the project and minimally defined.
Includes cultural needs and learning levels as appropriate. Minimal depth and detail. |
States the goals and measurable outcomes of the DNP project. May be lacking in detail or unclear.
Identifies the population and stakeholders including patients or clients, providers, government officials, influential people, people whose jobs may be impacted, community activists, and affected businesses. Minimal detail.
Identifies the strengths/weakness of the organization in relation to your DNP scholarly project through the use of SWOT. Strengths and weaknesses may/may not be clear or components missing.
Completes a partial financial analysis of program implementation with consideration to cost.
Identifies methods and instruments that will best fit the project (surveys, questionnaires, needs assessment, etc). Data collection information is minimal. Lacking detail.
Evidence-based practice is incorporated into the project. Detail lacking.
Includes cultural needs and learning levels as appropriate with very little detail. |
Goals and measurable outcomes of the DNP project may be missing or unclear.
Does not identify many of the following: the population and stakeholders including patients or clients, providers, government officials, influential people, people whose jobs may be impacted, community activists, and affected businesses.
May not identify the strengths/weakness of the organization in relation to your DNP scholarly project through the use of SWOT. Some components missing.
Financial analysis of program implementation with consideration to cost not completed or lacking much detail.
Poorly identifies methods and instruments that will best fit the project (surveys, questionnaires, needs assessment, etc). Data collection is minimal or missing.
Evidence-based practice is not incorporated into the project.
Does not include cultural needs and learning levels as appropriate. |
70 points maximum for specific assignment/topic and 30 points maximum using Standard Grading rubric (below) for writing= 100 points total for a writing assignment. This assignment relates to CO 1,2,3,4.
Project Planning Paper Guidelines:
Develop a comprehensive project plan in relation to your DNP project. You might consider different alternatives in an effort to develop a plan that best meets the needs of the organization. Your plan can focus on a single factor, but it must be comprehensive. Please consult your faculty with your selection of the focus prior to beginning your plan. The final paper should not exceed eight pages without title page, references and appendix.
The Following Grading Rubric Will Be Used To Ensure a Consistent Standard for Evaluating DNP Student Papers (Essays):
30 Points Total
| 6-5 POINTS | 4-3 POINTS | 2 POINTS | 1 POINTS | 0 POINTS | |
| Thesis / Topic | Exceptionally clear; easily identifiable, insightful; introduces the topic for the paper; summary in one or two well-written sentences. | Generally clear; is promising; could be a little more inclusive of the content of the paper. | Central idea is adequate but not fully developed; may be somewhat unclear (contains vague terms); only gives a vague idea of the content of the paper. | Difficult to identify with inadequate illustration of key ideas; does not let the reader know what the paper is going to include. | No thesis statement or introduction is identifiable. |
| 6-5 POINTS | 4-3 POINTS | 2 POINTS | 1 POINTS | 0 POINTS | |
| Content / Development | Thesis coherently developed and maintained throughout; thorough explanation of key idea(s) at an appropriate level for the target audience; critical thinking with excellent understanding of the topic; original in scope (this paper made sense, was easy to understand, and did not leave reader with questions due to incomplete development). | Explanation or illustration of key ideas consistent throughout essay; original but may be somewhat lacking in insight; minor topics of the paper could be developed more thoroughly. | Explanation or illustration of some of the key ideas; reader is left with some questions due to inadequate development; content may be a little confusing or unclear as to what the author means. | Little or no relevant detail; many areas that could be expanded. | Paper does not make sense; unclear what the author is trying to say; very little real information presented. |
| 6-5 POINTS | 4-3 POINTS | 2 POINTS | 1 POINTS | 0 POINTS | |
| Organization | Good organization with clear focus and excellent transition between paragraphs; logical order to presentation of information; paragraphs are well-organized; easy to understand and makes sense. | Adequate organizational style with logical transition between paragraphs; overall or paragraph organization could be slightly improved. | Adequate organizational style, although flow is somewhat choppy and may wander occasionally; somewhat confusing due to organization of paper or paragraphs. | Incoherent structure; logic is unclear; paragraph transition is weak; difficult to understand; must re-read parts to figure out what is being said. | No order to content; very confusing and difficult to read; makes no sense. |
| 6-5 POINTS | 4-3 POINTS | 2 POINTS | 1 POINTS | 0 POINTS | |
| Mechanics | Skillful use of language; varied, accurate vocabulary; well-developed sentence structure with minimal errors in punctuation, spelling or grammar; appropriate margins, font; correct application of research style format; use of professional active voice; very well-written paper. | Appropriate use of language with a few errors in grammar, sentence structure, punctuation; fairly accurate interpretation of assignment guidelines, with a few minor errors; readability of paper only slightly affected by mistakes. | Some problems with sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling; may have several run-on sentences or comma splices; some errors in citation style; format does not fully comply with assignment guidelines; somewhat difficult to read due to mistakes. | Many difficulties in sentence structure, grammar, citation style, punctuation, spelling and/or misused words; proper format not used consistently ; many errors in citation style very difficult to understand. | Not written at a graduate level; many mistakes; proper format not used consistently ; many errors in citation style; difficult to read and understand. |
| 6-5 POINTS | 4-3 POINTS | 2 POINTS | 1 POINTS | 0 POINTS | |
| References | Uses sources effectively and documents sources accurately with minimal errors; limited use of direct quotes (No more than 2 or 3); meets reference requirements for assignment; reference list is in correct format. | Appropriate sources and documentation; may have minimal errors with too few or too many in-text citations; missing no more than one reference as required for the assignment. | Some quotes not integrated smoothly into text; several errors with in-text citations or reference list; omitted in-text citations infrequently; missing 2 required references; overuse of direct quotes | Quotes are not well integrated into narrative or are significantly overused; paraphrasing is too close to original work. (Minimal errors only; more significant errors will be considered plagiarism – See Plagiarism statement to right.)
|
