Practicum Project Review and Feedback

Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto Practicums offer the opportunity to apply concepts of your area of study. The live application of your nursing knowledge and skills in real-life situations enables you to demonstrate your abilities and complete activities in support of your professional portfolio development. Given the importance of practicums, feedback becomes an element of critical importance. Feedback is another thread in the collaborative bond between preceptors/mentors and learners. For developing nurse educators, feedback helps develop pedagogical and teaching skills. This feedback often begins by sharing self-assessment of practicum efforts, which can then be addressed by learner and mentor. For this Discussion, you assess your progress to date on your Practicum Project. You share the successes you’ve experienced as well as the challenges and offer strategies for addressing challenges.   To prepare: Review the Learning Resources for this week as well as the work you have completed so far on your Practicum Project. Think about some of the challenges you have experienced or are experiencing and how the Learning Resources help to further guide your project development. By Day 3 Post your interim progress report/status on your Practicum Project. Discuss what is going well with your project as well as some of the challenges you are having.  Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses. By Day 5 Respond to at least two of your colleagues’ posts on 2 different days and provide some suggestions about how they might overcome the challenges they are facing. Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your suggestions. Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit! Submission and Grading Information Grading Criteria Name: NURS_6351_Week_4_Discussion_Rubric Grid View List View   Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or 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. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. 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 sources. 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 Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by Day 3. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post main post by Day 3. First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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. 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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. 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited. Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Miller, J., & Boswell, C. (2016). Clinical education experiences. In S. Cannon & C. Boswell (Eds.), Evidence-based teaching in nursing: A foundation for educators (2nd ed., pp. 211–245). Jones & Bartlett Learning. Chang, C.-P., Lee, T.-T., Mills, M. E., & Hsieh, Y.-P. (2019). E-portfolio functional requirements for the final semester baccalaureate practicum course: A qualitative research study. Journal of Professional Nursing, 35(5), 405–411. Fustinoni Magalhães, S. M., Gabrielloni, M. C., Sanna, M. C., & Barbieri, M. (2017). Nursing education: Conceptualizing a pedagogical project from the view of professors. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 30(3), 247–253. Golightly, M., Kennett, N., & Stout, J. A. (2017). Innovative approach to senior practicum students. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(12), 745–747. Goodwin, M., & Jenkins-Weinrub, E. (2015). Student triads: A collaborative approach to practicum experiences for master’s nursing students. Nurse Educator, 40(4), 199–202. Haney, T. S., Sharp, P. B., Nesbitt, C., & Poston, R. D. (2017). Innovative intraprofessional clinical training for clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioner students. Journal of Nursing Education, 56(12), 748–751. Olubummo, C. (2015). Higher learning: Classroom assessment techniques (portfolios). Nursing Management, 46(12), 16–19. Wang, A. H., Lee, C. T., & Espin, S. (2019). Undergraduate nursing students’ experiences of anxiety-producing situations in clinical practicums: A descriptive survey study. Nurse Education Today, 76, 103–108. Wassef, M. E., Riza, L., Maciag, T., Worden, C., & Delaney, A. (2015). Implementing a competency-based electronic portfolio in a graduate nursing program. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 33, TC40-TC46. Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce) Discussion: Practicum Project Review and Feedback 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) N/A 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6351_Week_4_Discussion_Rubric To access your rubric: Week 4 Discussion Rubric