NURS 8502 Week 5 Discussion: Exploration of Sources of Evidence
NURS 8502 Week 5 Discussion Exploration of Sources of Evidence
NURS 8502 Week 5 Discussion: Exploration of Sources of Evidence
Imagine it is the final week of the course, and you are ready to present your solution to address your identified practice problem at your practicum site. You present your evidence and plan and recommend the implementation of your proposed solution. Upon hearing your presentation, a stakeholder raises questions about the implementation based on a similar practice problem affecting a business outside of nursing. Unfortunately, you had not explored sources outside of your field, and you neglected to incorporate this evidence into your plan and recommendations.
Evidence is critical in understanding a problem and determining potential solutions to address a change. However, evidence is only as good as the exploration of sources used to gather this evidence. Flawed evidence generation can occur when sources are not carefully, thoughtfully, and thoroughly explored. Furthermore, flawed evidence generation occurs if the evidence is outdated, ignored, or not considered within the context of the proposed solution or practice problem it is meant to address.
For this Exploration of Sources of Evidence Discussion, you will explore the sources of evidence necessary for your identified practice problem. These sources of evidence may be derived from library databases related to nursing, or you may find sources necessary for your practice problem in the form of interviews or library databases related to other fields.
Consider where you might explore sources of evidence for your practice problem.
Where might you find these sources outside of your typical evidence locations?
Consider why this exploration is important and meaningful for your proposed change.
To Prepare the Exploration of Sources of Evidence assignment
- Review the Learning Resources covering the exploration of evidence.
- Consider the evidence necessary for your identified practice problem and consider what types of sources might need to be explored.
- Explore sources beyond the Walden Library database, and consider where evidence might be found outside of “typical” avenues.
By Day 3 of Week 5
Post a response detailing your exploration of sources of evidence for your practice problem. Consider multiple sources of evidence, rather than simply resources from the library: formal and informal interviews, national organizations, internal/external to your organization and/or practice. Consider library sources of information outside of nursing literature (e.g., business journals). Consider the impact of not including resources from specific sources. How might this create a flaw in your ability to support a proposed practice change? Be specific and provide examples.
By Day 5 of Week 5
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by supporting or expanding on their exploration of sources. Do you see any evidence they might be missing? Explain additional perspectives on the issue or exploration of sources described by your colleague.
Submission and Grading Information
ORDER NOW a one-of-a-kind top nursing paper, produced just for you by our most qualified nursing writers. Plagiarism-free in every respect. NURS 8502 Week 5 Discussion: Exploration of Sources of Evidence
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 5 Discussion Rubric
Post by Day 3 of Week 5 and Respond by Day 5 of Week 5
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 5 Discussion
Name: NURS_8502_Week5_Discussion_Rubric
| Excellent
Point range: 90–100 |
Good
Point range: 80–89 |
Fair
Point range: 70–79 |
Poor
Point range: 0–69 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. |
Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s). Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three current credible sources. |
Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s). Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. 50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible references. |
Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s). One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Cited with fewer than two credible references. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s). Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible references. |
| Main Posting:
Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
| Main Posting:
Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post main Discussion by due date. |
| First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
|
| First Response:
Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| First Response:
Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
| Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources. |
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Responds to questions posed by faculty. The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
|
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
|
| Second Response:
Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues. Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed. Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources. Response is written in standard, edited English. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication. Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Few or no credible sources are cited. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication. Response to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. |
| Second Response:
Timely and full participation |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
|
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|
24/7 Nursing Homework Help
Stuck with your nursing assignment? From Essays to Complicated Dissertations? Our accredited nursing paper writers can answer it all!
