Nursing Theory
The purpose of this paper is to define, describe, and explain your own beliefs about the four concepts of the nursing metaparadigm and their inter-relationship to one another as they guide your current nursing practice. There are no right or wrong thoughts, feelings, or beliefs; these represent your own philosophical beliefs. Then you must correlate or link your current philosophy to one particular nursing theory, identify these. The reflection paper is to write in MS Word, be typed according to APA format and must be three pages in length. The article should include a title page and reference page; however, these pages are not to be included in the final count. Evaluation criteria are as follows:
Criteria for Personal Philosophy of Nursing Reflection Paper:
1. Introduction & brief description identifies the purpose of the paper and the factors influencing the development of the personal nursing philosophy. 4 points
2. Define, describe and explain your personal thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about the concepts of the 4 nursing metaparadigms: 8 points
a. Person/client
b. Environment
c. Health
d. Nursing
3. Identification and a brief description of the nursing theory found to be the most compatible with the student’s personal nursing philosophy. Discuss the core components of the theory and how it reflects the student’s personal philosophies. 3 points
4. Organization, documentation, references followed APA format. 5 points
Writing Assignment Rubric
|
|
A (15) |
B (13) |
C (11) |
D/F (8) |
Score |
|||||||||||
|
Focus: Purpose |
Purpose is clear |
Shows awareness of purpose |
Shows limited awareness of purpose |
No awareness |
||||||||||||
|
Main idea |
Clearly presents the main idea and supports it throughout the paper. |
There is a main idea supported throughout most of the paper. |
The vague sense of the main idea weakly supported throughout the paper. |
No main idea |
||||||||||||
|
Organization: Overall |
Well-planned and well thought out. Includes title, introduction, statement of main idea, transitions and conclusion. |
Good overall organization includes the main organizational tools. |
There is a sense of organization, although some of the organizational tools are used weakly or missing |
No sense of organization |
||||||||||||
|
Content |
Exceptionally well-presented and argued; ideas are detailed, well developed, supported with specific evidence & facts, as well as examples and specific details. |
Well-presented and argued; ideas are detailed, developed and supported with evidence and details, mostly specific. |
Content is sound and solid; ideas are present but not particularly developed or supported; some evidence, but usually of a generalized nature. |
Content is not sound |
||||||||||||
|
Research (if assignment includes a research component) |
Sources are exceptionally well-integrated, and they support claims argued in the paper very effectively. Quotations and Works Cited conform to APA style sheet. |
Sources are well integrated and support the paper’s claims. There may be occasional errors, but the sources and Works Cited conform to APA style sheet. |
Sources support some claims made in the paper but might not be integrated well within the paper’s argument. There may be a few errors in APA style. |
The paper does not use adequate research or if it does, the sources are not integrated well. They are not cited correctly according to APA style, nor listed correctly on the Works Cited page. |
||||||||||||
|
Grammar & Mechanics |
Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation. |
A few errors in grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation, but not many. |
Shows a pattern of errors in spelling, grammar, syntax and/or punctuation. It could also be a sign of a lack of proof-reading. |
Continuous errors |
||||||||||||
|
APA Guidelines |
Uses APA guidelines accurately and consistently to cite sources and formatting |
Uses APA
guidelines with minor violations to cite sources and formatting |
Reflects incomplete knowledge of APA guidelines |
It does not use APA guidelines. |
||||||||||||
|
|
Total |