University of Maine School of Nursing Graduate Program Scholarly Project Grading Rubric
Scholarly Project (NUR 697 – 4 Credits)
The student who chooses this graduate capstone option will demonstrate mastery of specialized knowledge through development of a project that benefits the nursing profession or the population served by nurses in advanced roles. Scholarly projects include, but are not limited to, development and testing of a teaching or evaluation tool; development and implementation of a course; development, implementation, and evaluation of a website; or other substantial activity in the area of interest. An accompanying paper and poster presentation will provide a summary and critique of the process and outcome of the scholarly project.
If you are interested in this option, please consult with your academic advisor as early in your program of study as possible. Specific guidelines will be negotiated between the student and advisor.
Grading Rubric for Scholarly Project
Project Development
Excellent (15 points)
The target project population is clearly defined. Theory and research that support the project topic are analyzed, synthesized and applied. The focus is clear. It is well organized and easy to navigate.
Good (12 points)
The target project population could be more precisely defined. Theory and research that support the project topic are analyzed, synthesized and applied but there are gaps. It would benefit from restructuring.
Fair (10 points)
The target project population could be more precisely defined. Theory and research that support the project topic are minimally analyzed, synthesized and applied. The focus is unclear. It is difficult to understand due to poor organization.
Poor (7 points)
The target population is poorly defined. Theory and research that support the project topic are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized and applied. The focus cannot be ascertained from the information provided. Requires major restructuring.
Project Implementation
Excellent (15 points)
Plans for implementation are applicable to the project topic. The implementation plan is realistic, clear and well organized.
Good (12 points)
Plans for implementation are applicable to the project topic but lack some clarity. The implementation plan lacks one of the 3 characteristics: (1) realistic, (2) clear and (3) well organized.
Fair (10 points)
Plans for implementation are minimally applicable to the project topic. The implementation plan lacks two of the 3 characteristics: (1) realistic, (2) clear and (3) well organized.
Poor (7 points)
Plans for implementation are not applicable to the project topic. The implementation plan lacks two of the 3 characteristics: (1) realistic, (2) clear and (3) well organized.
Project Evaluation
Excellent (15 points)
A clear evidence-based evaluation method is developed and executed for the project.
Good (12 points)
The evaluation method lacks strong evidence. There is clear execution of the evaluation method for the project.
Fair (10 points)
The evaluation method is minimally supported by evidence. Execution of the evaluation method for the project is incomplete.
Poor (7 points)
The evaluation method is not supported by evidence. Execution of the evaluation method for the project is incomplete.
Project Paper
Excellent (25 points)
The project paper clearly defines the target population. Theory and research that support the project topic are analyzed, synthesized and applied. Each idea is thoroughly and insightfully explored, explained, and supported using articulate, academic language 100% of the time. The focus of the paper is clear, well organized and easy to navigate
Good (20 points)
The target population for the project paper could be more clearly defined. Theory and research that support the project topic are analyzed, synthesized and applied but there are gaps. Each idea is thoroughly and insightfully explored, explained, and supported using articulate, academic language 80% of the time. The focus could be more precisely defined. It would benefit from restructuring.
Fair (17 points)
The target population for the project paper could be more clearly defined. Theory and research that support the project topic are minimally analyzed, synthesized and applied. Inadequately or ineffectively explains and defends ideas using articulate, academic language 50% of the time. The focus is unclear. It is difficult to understand due to poor organization.
Poor (12 points)
The target population for the project paper is poorly defined. Theory and research that support the project topic are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized and applied. Does not make a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas using articulate, academic language < 50% of the time. The focus cannot be ascertained from the information provided. Requires major restructuring.
Project Poster
Excellent (10 points)
The poster is well organized and easy to follow. Narrative is easy to read from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics enrich the presentation.
Good (8 points)
The poster is organized and somewhat easy to follow. Narrative cannot be read from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics add to presentation.
Fair (6 points)
The poster is not well organized and difficult to follow. Narrative is hard to read from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics are notapplicable to presentation.
Poor (4 points)
The poster is not well organized and is difficult to follow. Narrative is not legible from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics do not support the presentation.
Grammar (sentence structure, subject/ verb agreement, pronoun/antecedent agreement, etc.) Punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice.
Excellent (10 points)
No errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice.
Good (8 points)
Occasional errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/ word choice.
Fair (6 points)
Errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice make it necessary to reread sentences and/or sections to discern meaning.
Poor (4 points)
Coherence of overall meaning unclear due to grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/ word choice. Paper requires extensive editing/ proofreading in this area.
APA Format
Excellent (10 points)
APA format: No errors.
Good (8 points)
APA format: No more than 2 errors
Fair (6 points)
APA format: no more than 5 errors
Poor (4 points)
APA format: greater than 5 errors
Expert Paper (NUR 697-4 Credits)
This graduate capstone option allows the student to develop specialized knowledge in an area of interest. The expert paper will reflect knowledge acquired through critical analysis and synthesis of the literature as well as a variety of activities that promote professional development. Activities may include, but are not limited to, interviews with leaders in the field, participation or attendance in professional forums, and/ or specialized clinical preceptorships. The intent is to develop expertise in a specialized area of study that connects theory, research and practice.
If you are interested in this option, please consult with your academic advisor as early in your program of study as possible. Specific guidelines will be negotiated between the student and advisor.
Grading Rubric for Expert Paper
Review of the Literature: Analysis and Synthesis Connecting Theory and Research
Excellent (30 points)
Analysis and synthesis of theory and research is supported by strong evidence. The focus is clear. It is well organized and easy to navigate.
Good (24 points)
Analysis and synthesis of theory and research is inconsistently supported by evidence. The focus could be more precisely defined. It would benefit from restructuring.
Fair (21 points)
Analysis and synthesis of theory and research is minimally supported by evidence. The focus is unclear. It is difficult to understand due to poor organization.
Poor (15 points)
Analysis and synthesis of theory and research is not supported by evidence. The focus cannot be ascertained from the information provided. Requires major restructuring.
Review of the Literature: Application to Practice
Excellent (30 points)
Application to practice is supported by strong evidence. The focus is clear. It is well organized and easy to navigate.
Good (24 points)
Application to practice is inconsistently supported by evidence. The focus could be more precisely defined. It would benefit from restructuring.
Fair (21 points)
Application to practice is minimally supported by evidence. The focus is unclear. It is difficult to understand due to poor organization.
Poor (15 points)
Application to practice is not supported by evidence. The focus cannot be ascertained from the information provided. Requires major restructuring.
Development and Support
Excellent (20 points)
Thoroughly and insightfully explores, explains, and supports each idea using articulate, academic language 100% of the time.
Good (16 points)
Develops and supports key points using articulate, academic language 80% of the time.
Fair (14 points)
Inadequately or ineffectively explains and defends ideas using articulate, academic language 50% of the time.
Poor (10 points)
Does not make a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas using articulate, academic language < 50% of the time.
Grammar (sentence structure, subject/ verb agreement, pronoun/antecedent agreement, etc.) Punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice.
Excellent (10 points)
No errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice.
Good (8 points)
Occasional errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/ word choice.
Fair (6 points)
Errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice make it necessary to reread sentences and/or sections to discern meaning.
Poor (4 points)
Coherence of overall meaning unclear due to grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/ word choice. Paper requires extensive editing/ proofreading in this area.
APA Format
Excellent (10 points)
APA format: No errors.
Good (8 points)
APA format: No more than 2 errors
Fair (6 points)
APA format: no more than 5 errors
Poor (4 points)
APA format: greater than 5 errors
Synthesis Paper (3-credit Elective + NUR 297 1 – credit)
This graduate capstone option allows the student take an elective course of your choosing. The elective course should be related to your specialty concentration (FNP, Educator, or Individualized MS) and needs to be approved by your academic advisor. This elective track course will form the context of the synthesis paper. The student who chooses this graduate capstone option will demonstrate mastery of specialized knowledge through development of a synthesis paper that benefits the nursing profession or the population served by nurses in advanced roles. The synthesis paper demonstrates the student’s knowledge of advanced nursing practice within the context of the elective course. An accompanying abstract and poster presentation will provide a summary and critique of the process and outcome of the synthesis paper.
Grading Rubric for Synthesis Paper
Synthesis Paper
Excellent (50 points)
The synthesis paper clearly states the issue/problem that is being explore including why it is a concern of the specialty track. The scope of the problem is explored with supporting evidence where appropriate. The concepts of the program are aligned with the elective course completed. The review of the literature includes a minimum of 10 peer- reviewed articles and other appropriate resources. The paper addresses how the content can be utilized by other professionals in the specialty track. Practice changes are recommended based on ethical, theoretical, and evidence- paced underpinnings. Additional research recommendations are addressed. Policy implications are outlined. Each idea is thoroughly & insightfully explored, explained, & supported using articulate, academic language 100% of the time. The focus of the paper is clear, well organized & easy to navigate.
Good (42 points)
The target population for the synthesis paper could be more clearly defined. Theory and research that support the synthesis topic are analyzed, synthesized and applied but there are gaps. Each idea is thoroughly & insightfully explored, explained, & supported using articulate, academic language 80% of the time. The focus could be more precisely defined. It would benefit from restructuring.
Fair (33 points)
The target population for the synthesis paper is poorly defined. Theory and research that support the synthesis topic are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized and applied. Does not make a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas using articulate, academic language < 50% of the time. The focus cannot be ascertained from the information provided. Requires major restructuring.
Poor (25 points)
The target population for the synthesis paper is poorly defined. Theory and research that support the synthesis topic are not sufficiently analyzed, synthesized and applied. Does not make a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas using articulate, academic language <50% of the time. The focus cannot be ascertained from the information provided. Requires major restructuring.
Development and Support
Excellent (20 points)
Thoroughly and insightfully explores, explains, and supports each idea using articulate, academic language 100% of the time.
Good (16 points)
Develops and supports key points using articulate, academic language 80% of the time.
Fair (14 points)
Inadequately or ineffectively explains and defends ideas using articulate, academic language 50% of the time.
Poor (10 points)
Does not make a meaningful attempt to explain or support ideas using articulate, academic language < 50% of the time.
Synthesis Poster
Excellent (10 points)
The poster is well organized and easy to follow. Narrative is easy to read from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics enrich the presentation.
Good (8 points)
The poster is organized and somewhat easy to follow. Narrative cannot be read from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics add to presentation.
Fair (6 points)
The poster is not well organized and difficult to follow. Narrative is hard to read from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics are notapplicable to presentation.
Poor (4 points)
The poster is not well organized and is difficult to follow. Narrative is not legible from a distance of 3 feet. Graphics do not support the presentation.
Grammar (sentence structure, subject/ verb agreement, pronoun/antecedent agreement, etc.) Punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice.
Excellent (10 points)
No errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice.
Good (8 points)
Occasional errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/ word choice.
Fair (6 points)
Errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/word choice make it necessary to reread sentences and/or sections to discern meaning.
Poor (4 points)
Coherence of overall meaning unclear due to grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling/ word choice. Paper requires extensive editing/ proofreading in this area.
APA Format
Excellent (10 points)
APA format: No errors.
Good (8 points)
APA format: No more than 2 errors
Fair (6 points)
APA format: no more than 5 errors
Poor (4 points)
APA format: greater than 5 errors