CLC – Grand Nursing Theorist Assignment: Grand Theorist Report

Question description

This is a Collaborative Learning Community assignment.

In your group, write a report on the chosen theorist/theory that includes the following:

1. Introduction: Identify the theorist and rationale for the selection.
2. Describe the theorist (short biography and major influences on the theorist).
3. Indicate the category under which the theorist falls (can use McEwen & Wills classification or other source).
4. Incorporate assumptions underlying the theory (including how metaparadigm concepts are defined).
5. Include major concepts of the theory.
6. Include major propositions of the theory.
7. Provide examples from the literature of how the theory has been used.
8. Describe how the theory will be integrated into practice at your institution (or how it will be used as a foundation, framework, etc.). This is an action plan.
9. Give concrete examples of how theory would be integrated (e.g., assessment guide) and what patient outcomes could be measured as a result of implementing the theory.
10. Conclusion: Contrast present practice with what would take place if the theory were guiding the practice.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the GCU APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. Please use the theorist mentioned in the prior assignment.

CLC – Grand Nursing Theorist Assignment: Grand Theorist Report  1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less Than Satisfactory 80.00% 3 Satisfactory 88.00% 4 Good 92.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 70.0 %Content 5.0 %Introduction Purpose of the paper is either not present or not evident to the reader. Briefly mentions theory and theorist. May or may not explain the rationale behind its selection. Purpose of the paper is insufficiently developed and/or vague. Briefly mentions theory and theorist. May or may not explain the rationale behind its selection. Purpose of the paper is present, but lacks depth and/or clarity. Outlines the theory and theorist along with the rationale behind its selection. Purpose of the paper is present and clearly evident. Introduces the theory and theorist along with the rationale behind its selection. Purpose of the paper is present and comprehensive, forecasting further development in paper. Introduces the theory and theorist along with the rationale behind its selection. 10.0 %Theorist Identification of theorist is either not present or not evident to the reader. Fails to identify the major influences behind the development of the theory. Identification of theorist is evident but is not clearly presented. Does not justify the impact influences had on the development of the theory. Identification of theorist is present but cursory. Misinterprets evidence on the major influences behind the development of the theory. Identification of theorist is present with evidence that supports claims. Justifies some of the impact influences had on the development of the theory. Identification of theorist is present with rich details that support claims. Accurately presents the major influences behind the development of the theory. 20.0 %Theory Assumptions, Concepts and Propositions Analysis of the major concepts and propositions of the theory is poorly presented. The assumptions underlying the theory are not addressed. Superficially evaluates the major concepts and propositions of the theory. Lacks understanding of the theory in relation to the assumptions underlying the theory. Surface level evaluation of major concepts and propositions of the theory is presented. Minimal information on the assumptions of the theory is provided. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate for the major concepts and propositions of the theory. Assumptions and ideas of the theory are supported. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major concepts and propositions of the theory. Demonstrates a deep understanding of theories and models. Explores the assumptions underlying the theory including how metaparadigm concepts are defined. 15.0 %Practical Application Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is either not present or not evident to the reader. Minimal examples of how theory will change practice are briefly mentioned. Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is evident, but claims are vague and poorly developed. Mentions or outlines examples of how theory will change practice but does not provide adequate details. Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is present, but claims are supported with cursory evidence. Provides a few solid examples of how theory will change practice (ex. assessment guide, staffing plan, patient outcome measurement, interventions) Application of theory with hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is thoroughly presented, and claims are supported with detailed evidence. Provides several concrete examples of how theory will change practice (ex. assessment guide, staffing plan, patient outcome measurement, interventions) Application of theory with a hypothesis of how practice will change as a result is comprehensively presented, and claims are supported with detailed evidence that is reinforced from research. Provides multiple concrete examples of how theory will change practice (ex. assessment guide, staffing plan, patient outcome measurement, interventions) 15.0 %Integration Plan Plan fails to explain how the theory will be integrated, used as a foundation or framework in the practice/administration of the institution. Fails to provide a clear process or address aspects involved. Plan briefly explains how the theory will be integrated, used as a foundation or framework in the practice/administration of the institution. Provides clear process and details. Minimally addresses aspects involved. Plan explains how the theory will be integrated, used as a foundation and framework in the practice/administration of the institution. Provides details but may not cover essential aspects. Plan clearly explains how the theory will be integrated, used as a foundation and framework in the practice/administration of the institution. Provides clear process and details. Addresses many aspects involved. Plan clearly and thoroughly explains how the theory will be integrated, used as a foundation and framework, in the practice/administration of the institution. Provides clear details and thoroughly supports rationale. Addresses multiple aspects involved (training, process changes, etc.). 5.0 %Conclusion Summary of the major points of the paper is either not present or not evident to the reader. Summary of the major points of the paper is present, but it is vague and/or poorly developed. Summary of the major points of the paper is present, but is cursory and lacking depth. Summary of the paper is evident to the reader. Arguments presented follow logical progression and support claims. Summary of paper is clearly evident to the reader. Arguments support all claims with clarity, order, and richness of detail. 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose None Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. 8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction None 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. 5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) None Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. 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. 10.0 %Format 5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) None Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. 5.0 %Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) None No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. 100 %Total Weightage

 

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.