TEACHING PROJECT AND PAPER
Each student will select a teaching project that will be of value in a selected clinical setting and is of interest to the student. The project must have preliminary approval by both the preceptor and faculty member. The following project formats are among those acceptable: poster, pamphlet, staff in-service, class in the community, presentation at a local or regional professional meeting. The faculty member will observe the teaching session or critique the visual project.
Each student will also give a presentation about the project in the 8111 seminar. Please note that the power point presentation for the 8111 seminar should reflect the paper contents, it is not necessary to submit the slides that were used for the teaching assignment. The following criteria are used for the written report and presentation of the project:
A. Introduction and Need Assessment
Overall broad introduction to the general area of interest, followed by a statement of the issue/topic/problem area specifically addressed.
Explanation as to how the topic was chosen and how the need for this project/presentation was determined. If used, include findings from a specifically developed Needs Assessment Form distributed to the intended audience.
Description of how the project/presentation was marketed.
B. Project/Presentation Description
Overall goal/purpose of the project/presentation
Description of target audience and setting that influenced the delivery of the project
Literature review of the topic (summarize at least 5 articles related to the topic)
Format of the project/presentation (lecture, demonstration, discussion, booklet, etc.)
A minimum of 2 specific objectives (cognitive, psychomotor, affective) stated in clear and measurable terms (e.g. “At the conclusion of this program/activity, the learners/participants should….”) linked directly to the project/presentation content outline, and the method for evaluation of learning. Please use the table at the bottom of this page and incorporate this into the body of your paper.
C. Quality of the presentation and paper
Both presentation and paper are of scholarly quality.
|Learning Objective(what do you want them to learn?)||Content Outline(what information are you going to cover?)||Strategies and materials(how are you going to teach this?)||Evaluation(how will you know they learned?)|
D. Paper Length and References
A maximum of 8 pages excluding title page and reference page
A minimum total of 10 references; a minimum of 6 must be evidence-based practice journal articles.
E. Teaching Project Power Point Presentation
A maximum of 10 slides not including title page and reference page.
TEACHING PROJECT PAPER rubric100 points
This rubric will be used to grade your TEACHING Project Paper and Power Point Presentation
|Levels of Achievement|
|Content Introduction PurposeSignificance20 points||18.6 to 20 pointsIdentifies objective and why the objective is important to explore. Determinants of health for project covered in detail and supported by research. -Support for project is complex, complete, & in-depth. Writer involved with subject, not merely doing an assignment. –Clear and appropriate organization, with introduction purpose and significance clearly stated with effective transitions between sections.||17 to 18.59 pointsIdentifies objective and why the objective is important to explore included however not clearly stated.Determinants of health for project addressed but minimally supported and lacking in depth or complexity. Organization, introduction, purpose and significance and transitions slightly lacking clarity and/or appropriateness.||15 to 16.9 pointsIdentification of objective incomplete or missing why the objective is important to explore. -Support for project is not substantially sufficient. Organization, introduction, purpose, significance and transitions are inconsistent, lacking clarity and depth||0 to 14.9 pointsIdentification of objective and why the objective is important to explore is missing.Support for project barely sufficient, and/or organization, introduction, purpose, significance and transitions are inconsistent, lacking clarity and depth|
|Quality of Research/Review of Literature20 points||18.6 to 20 pointsAll components of the review of the literature covered in-depth. Research in depth and beyond the obvious revealing new insights||17 to 18.59 pointsAll components of the review of the literature are addressed but not all of the research is in depth and does not beyond the obvious, does not reveal new insights||15 to 16.9 pointsAll components of the review of literature are addressed by incomplete/sketchy||0 to 14.9 pointsSome components of review of literature missing or not addressed.|
|Participants10 points||9.3 to 10 pointsAll components of participants criteria covered in depth with extensive clear and appropriate discussion of the age/gender/cultural variables that impact the presentation of the project||8.5 to 9.29 pointsAll components of participants criteria covered in depth but discussion of the age/gender/cultural variables that impact the presentation of the project slightly lacking clarity and/or appropriateness||7.5 to 8.49 pointsSome of the components of participants criteria covered in depth but discussion of the age/gender/cultural variables that impact the presentation of the project lacking clarity and/or appropriateness||0 to 7.49 pointsComponents of participants criteria not covered and/or missing or discussion of the age/gender/cultural variables that impact the presentation of the project missing or not appropriate|
|Learning /Content /Materials Table20 points||18.6 to 20 pointsLearning Objectives, Content Outline/Strategies/Materials and Evaluation Table well developed and included in body of the paper with more than 2 objectives stated in clear and measurable terms||17 to 18.59 pointsLearning Objectives/Content Outline/Strategies/Materials and Evaluation Table included in body of the paper with 2 objectives stated in clear and measurable terms, but table not well developed||15 to 16.9 pointsLearning Objectives/Content Outline/Strategies/Materials and Evaluation Table included in body of the paper but with less than 2 objectives stated in clear and measurable terms and table not well developed||0 to 14.9 pointsLearning Objectives/Content Outline/Strategies/Materials and Evaluation Table not included in body of the paper and/or missing objectives stated in clear and measurable terms|
|Levels of Achievement|
|Publicity/Evaluation Plan15 points||13.95 to 15 pointsPublicity and evaluation plans extensive, well-developed and appropriate for project with extensive EBP documentation||12.75 to 13.9 pointsPublicity and evaluation plans developed and appropriate for project but not extensive. EBP documentation adequate||12.75 to 13.9 pointsPublicity and evaluation plans minimally developed and/or inappropriate for project. Minimal EBP documentation||0 to 11.24 pointsPublicity and evaluation plans superficially addressed and/or inappropriate for projectNo EBP documentation.|
|Grammar/ Mechanics10 points||9.3 to 10 points2 or less errors in format or punctuation or capitalization. –Consistent and appropriate voice. — Sophisticated and precise word choice. Paragraph size appropriate –No spelling errors. No slang. –No errors in agreement, pronouns/antecedents, or tense. –Met all style and min/max page requirements||8.5 to 9.29 points4 or less errors in format, punctuation, or capitalization. — Voice mostly consistent and appropriate. Lengthy paragraphs — Fairly effective word choice. –No more than 2 spelling errors. –Fewer than 1 errors in agreement, pronouns/antecedents, or tense. –Met most style and min/max page requirements||7.5 to 8.49 points6 or less errors in format, punctuation or capitalization. Voice somewhat consistent and appropriate. Errors distract from readability. Lengthy paragraphs — Correct word choice. –More than 3 spelling errors. –More than 2 errors in agreement, pronouns/antecedents, or tense. Failed to meet style and/or min/max page requirements||0 to 7.49 pointsMany errors in format, punctuation, or capitalization. Paper fails to flow in a logical sequence. Failed to meet style and/or min/max page requirements.|
|Bibliography5 points||4.65 to 5 pointsSources reliable and properly cited. A minimum of 10 references (>6 EBP journal articles. All references correctly cited in the paper and the bibliography. All information relevant to topic.||4.25 to 4.64 pointsSources reliable and properly cited but has secondary references. A minimum of 10 references (<6 EBP journal articles. All references correctly cited in the paper and the bibliography. Information relevant to topic.||3.75 to 4.24 pointsSources reliable and properly cited. Articles do not substantially support your topic. 10 references (>6 EBP journal articles. All information relevant to topic.||0 to 3.74 pointsSecond hand sources and incorrectly cited. Does not have a minimum of 10 references and/ or have less than 6 EBP journal articles. All information relevant to topic.|