NRS 493 Benchmark - Capstone Change Project Objectives

NRS 493 Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NRS 493 Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives

Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives

Assessment Description

Review your problem or issue and the cultural assessment. Consider how the findings connect to your topic and intervention for your capstone change project. Write a list of three to five objectives for your proposed intervention. Below each objective, provide a one or two sentence rationale.

After writing your objectives, provide a rationale for how your proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations.

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 not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.

Benchmark Information

This benchmark assignment assesses the following programmatic competencies:

RN to BSN

1.5: Advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations.

Rubric Criteria

Total 5 points

Criterion	1. 1: Unsatisfactory	2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory	3. 3: Satisfactory	4. 4: Good	5. 5: Excellent
Documentation of Sources Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)	0 points Sources are not documented.	0.11 points Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.	0.12 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.	0.13 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.	0.15 points Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Objectives Objectives	0 points A list of objectives for the proposed intervention is omitted. Fewer than three objectives are presented.	0.94 points NA	0.99 points NA	1.11 points NA	1.25 points Three to five objectives are presented.
Thesis Development and Purpose Thesis Development and Purpose	0 points Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.	0.19 points Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.	0.2 points Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.	0.22 points Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.	0.25 points Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)	0 points Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.	0.19 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.	0.2 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.	0.22 points Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.	0.25 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Argument Logic and Construction Argument Logic and Construction	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.	0.19 points Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.	0.2 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.	0.22 points Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.	0.25 points Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Rationale for Autonomy and Social Justice Rationale for How Proposed Project and Objectives Advocate for Autonomy and Social Justice for Individuals and Diverse Populations (C1.5)	0 points Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is omitted.	0.94 points Incomplete rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is not established.	0.99 points Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is summarized. Some advocacy is established.	1.11 points Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is generally established.	1.25 points Well-supported rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is clearly established.
Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention	0 points Rationale for each objective is omitted.	1.13 points Rationale is incomplete. There are omissions. Rationale provided does not explain the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention.	1.19 points General rationale is provided for each objective and generally summarizes the relationship of most findings to the topic and proposed intervention. There are some inaccuracies or minor omissions.	1.34 points Rationale is provided for each objective and explains the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Some detail is needed for clarity.	1.5 points Rationale is clearly provided for each objective and thoroughly explains the relationship of the findings to the topic and proposed intervention.
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)	0 points Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.	0.08 points Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.	0.08 points Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.	0.09 points Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.	0.1 points All format elements are correct.

Criterion

1. 1: Unsatisfactory

2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory

3. 3: Satisfactory

4. 4: Good

5. 5: Excellent

Documentation of Sources

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

0 points

Sources are not documented.

0.11 points

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

0.12 points

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

0.13 points

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

0.15 points

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

Objectives

0 points

A list of objectives for the proposed intervention is omitted. Fewer than three objectives are presented.

0.94 points

0.99 points

1.11 points

1.25 points

Three to five objectives are presented.

Thesis Development and Purpose

0 points

Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

0.19 points

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

0.2 points

Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

0.22 points

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

0.25 points

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

Criteria 3Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)

0 points

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

0.19 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present.

0.2 points

Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used.

0.22 points

Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used.

0.25 points

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

Argument Logic and Construction

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.

0.19 points

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

0.2 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.

0.22 points

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

0.25 points

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

Rationale for Autonomy and Social Justice

Rationale for How Proposed Project and Objectives Advocate for Autonomy and Social Justice for Individuals and Diverse Populations (C1.5)

0 points

Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is omitted.

0.94 points

Incomplete rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is not established.

0.99 points

Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is summarized. Some advocacy is established.

1.11 points

Rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy is generally established.

1.25 points

Well-supported rationale for how proposed project and objectives advocate for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is presented. Advocacy for autonomy and social justice for individuals and diverse populations is clearly established.

Rationale for How Findings Relate to the Topic and Proposed Intervention

0 points

Rationale for each objective is omitted.

1.13 points

Rationale is incomplete. There are omissions. Rationale provided does not explain the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention.

1.19 points

General rationale is provided for each objective and generally summarizes the relationship of most findings to the topic and proposed intervention. There are some inaccuracies or minor omissions.

1.34 points

Rationale is provided for each objective and explains the relationship of findings to the topic and proposed intervention. Some detail is needed for clarity.

1.5 points

Rationale is clearly provided for each objective and thoroughly explains the relationship of the findings to the topic and proposed intervention.

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

0 points

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

0.08 points

Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.

0.08 points

Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

0.09 points

Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

0.1 points

All format elements are correct.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NRS 493 Benchmark – Capstone Change Project Objectives

Grading Rubric

Performance Category	100% or highest level of performance 100% 16 points	Very good or high level of performance 88% 14 points	Acceptable level of performance 81% 13 points	Inadequate demonstration of expectations 68% 11 points	Deficient level of performance 56% 9 points	Failing level of performance 55% or less 0 points
Total Points Possible= 50	16 Points	14 Points	13 Points	11 Points	9 Points	0 Points
Scholarliness Demonstrates achievement of scholarly inquiry for professional and academic topics.	Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements: Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s). Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts. Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.* Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.	Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements: Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s). Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts. Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.* Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.	Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in all of the following elements: Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s). Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts. Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.* Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.	Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements: Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s). Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts. Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.* Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.	Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements: Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s). Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts. Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.* Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information.	Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three or more of the following elements Provides evidence of scholarly inquiry relevant to required TD topic(s). Presents specific information from scholarly sources to develop a comprehensive presentation of facts. Uses at least one outside scholarly reference that is relevant, less than 5 years old (use of older references requires instructor permission) and reliable for the required topic.* Uses in-text citation and full reference at end of posting when presenting another person’s thoughts as quotes or paraphrase of information
	16 Points	14 Points	13 Points	11 Points	9 Points	0 Points
Application of Course Knowledge Demonstrate the ability to analyze and apply principles, knowledge and information learned in the outside readings and relate them to real-life professional situations	Presentation of information was exceptional and included all of the following elements: Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic. Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience. Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.	Presentation of information was good, but was superficial in places and included all of the following elements: Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic. Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience. Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.	Presentation of information was minimally demonstrated in the all of the following elements: Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic. Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience. Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.	Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in one of the following elements: Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic. Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from and scholarly resources to a professional experience. Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.	Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in two of the following elements: Applies principles, knowledge and information from scholarly resources to the required topic. Applies facts, principles or concepts learned from scholarly resources to a professional experience. Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.	Presentation of information is unsatisfactory in three of the following elements Applies principles, knowledge and information and scholarly resources to the required topic. Applies facts, principles or concepts learned scholarly resources to a professional experience. Application of information is comprehensive and specific to the required topic.
	10 Points	9 Points			6 Points	0 Points
Interactive Dialogue Initial post should be a minimum of 300 words (references do not count toward word count) The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each (references do not count toward word count) Responses are substantive and relate to the topic.	Demonstrated all of the following: Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words. The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each. Responses are substantive Responses are related to the topic of discussion.	Demonstrated 3 of the following: Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words. The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each. Responses are substantive Responses are related to the topic of discussion.			Demonstrated 2 of the following: Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words. The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each. Responses are substantive Responses are related to the topic of discussion.	Demonstrated 1 or less of the following: Initial post must be a minimum of 300 words. The peer and instructor responses must be a minimum of 150 words each. Responses are substantive Responses are related to the topic of discussion.
	8 Points	7 Points	6 Points	5 Points	4 Points	0 Points
Grammar, Syntax, APA Points deducted for improper grammar, syntax and APA style of writing. The source of information is the APA Manual 6th Edition Error is defined to be a unique APA error. Same type of error is only counted as one error.	The following was present: 0-3 errors in APA format AND Responses have 0-3 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors AND Writing style is generally clear, focused on topic,and facilitates communication.	The following was present: 4-6 errors in APA format. AND/OR Responses have 4-5 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors AND/OR Writing style is somewhat focused on topic.	The following was present: 7-9 errors in APA format. AND/OR Responses have 6-7 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors AND/OR Writing style is slightly focused on topic making discussion difficult to understand.	The following was present: 10- 12 errors in APA format AND/OR Responses have 8-9 grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors AND/OR Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand.	The following was present: 13 – 15 errors in APA format AND/OR Responses have 8-10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors AND/OR Writing style is not focused on topic, making discussion difficult to understand. AND/OR The student continues to make repeated mistakes in any of the above areas after written correction by the instructor.	The following was present: 16 to greater errors in APA format. AND/OR Responses have more than 10 grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. AND/OR Writing style does not facilitate communication
	0 Points Deducted					5 Points Lost
Participation Requirements	Demonstrated the following: Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days					Failed to demonstrate the following: Initial, peer, and faculty postings were made on 3 separate days
	0 Points Lost					5 Points Lost
Due Date Requirements	Demonstrated all of the following: The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT. A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT.					Demonstrates one or less of the following. The initial posting to the graded threaded discussion topic is posted within the course no later than Wednesday, 11:59 pm MT. A minimum of one peer and one instructor responses are to be posted within the course no later than Sunday, 11:59 pm MT.

Also Check Out: NRS 493 Topic 3 DQ 2 Name two different methods for evaluating evidence