Location chosen: Homestead, FL

The final deliverable of the practicum is due this week

Step 3

To be completed by week 6:

1. Prepare a power point presentation on your community assessment following the Community Assessment rubric.
2. Upload your power point presentation into the assignment drop box by Sunday at 11:59 pm MST.

When you have completed your assignment, submit a copy to your instructor. Submit the presentation and slide notes as one document. To do this, go to print the presentation and click next to the “Full Page Slides” to open the dropdown menu. Select “Notes Pages”. You should now see the presentation and the slide notes on one document. Under printer select “Print to PDF” and save the presentation in a safe place. Then submit your assignment. If you have problems submitting this way, it is ok to submit the presentation as a .ppt or .pptx file.

Cite any sources in APA format.

See rubric below for grading details.

Rubric

NUR425 Week 6 Grading Rubric for Community Assessment Practicum Assignment

NUR425 Week 6 Grading Rubric for Community Assessment Practicum Assignment

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Area Identified

Name of community

Geographic location of the community

o State or territory

o Rural, urban

o Map included

10 to >7.0 pts

Excellent

Clear, concise and complete Clearly sets a location for the community Map included of community

7 to >4.0 pts

Average

Map included, but location information is incomplete, either on map or in slide notes

4 to >0 pts

Poor

Missing a map and/or location information

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Community Core

History

Ethnicity and Culture

Religion

Demographics

10 to >7.0 pts

Excellent

All 4 sections are thoroughly researched, reviews relevant literature with no gaps in topic coverage For each section, research is obtained that relates as close to the defined community as possible (ie. For a town county data is often more valuable than state or national data)

7 to >4.0 pts

Average

Partially reviews the 4 sections; reviews relevant literature with some gaps in topic coverage; 1 or more sections with limited information Analysis is unclear in some areas Local data not obtained when it is available to the general public

4 to >0 pts

Poor

1 or more sections are missing. Analysis is confusing and incomplete

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Subsystems of the Community

Physical Environment

Health and Social Services

Economy and Safety

Transportation

Politics and Government

Local Public Health

Education

Recreation

10 to >7.0 pts

Excellent

All 8 sections are thoroughly researched, reviews relevant literature with no gaps in topic coverage For each section, research is obtained that relates as close to the defined community as possible (ie. For a neighborhood city or county data is often more valuable than state or national data)

7 to >4.0 pts

Average

Partially reviews the 8 sections; reviews relevant literature with some gaps in topic coverage; 1 or more sections with limited information Analysis is unclear in some areas Local data not obtained when it is available to the general public

4 to >0 pts

Poor

1 or more sections are missing Analysis is confusing and incomplete

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Interviews

2-3 interviews minimum requirement

Interviews of stakeholders preferred

Stakeholder: persons with a vested interest in the community such as long-term residents, business owners and government officials

Stakeholders provide different points of view than persons who only work in a community or who just moved in

10 to >7.0 pts

Excellent

At least 2 interviews are obtained Information on the participants is included (age, sex, work, length of residence etc. ) Interview information is not combined: it is easy in the final project to see the statements of each person interviewed At least 1 stakeholder interview included

7 to >4.0 pts

Average

At least 2 interviews were obtained, but unable to see the statements of each person interviewed Information on participants not included No stakeholder interviews included Difficult to understand; wording is inconsistent and confusing

4 to >0 pts

Poor

Under 2 interviews included

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Analysis

Based on the assessment

o Strengths of the community

o Challenges of the community

o Health needs of the community

10 to >7.0 pts

Excellent

Group perceptions included that are analytic and logical. Identifies and describes strengths, challenges, and/or health needs of the community that are related to information obtained in the community assessment

7 to >4.0 pts

Average

Briefly identifies and describes strengths, challenges and/or health needs. Links to information in the windshield survey are unclear. Some major strengths/challenges/needs identified in community assessment are not discussed

4 to >0 pts

Poor

Analysis is missing. Not linked to information obtained in the community assessment

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome

Uses Scholarly Sources and General

Uses Scholarly Sources: Assessment data from primary or scholarly/government source; best sources of evidence available

General: Assignment is readable, makes sense, and the plan is practical and realistic

All assignment requirements are included

Is written in correct format

Slide notes accompany each slide, explaining the presented content.

Regardless of style: all resources are required to be listed in APA format

10 to >7.0 pts

Excellent

Multiple scholarly sources used for highest level of evidence In-text/on slide citations consistently seen in final work for source data Images and tables improve comprehension of topic No errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation and spelling No errors in APA formatting, in-text or on- screen citations and reference page Slide notes given for all slides except title pages

7 to >4.0 pts

Average

Few scholarly sources used in-text/on slide citations missing in many cases Few images used Some errors in usage, capitalization, punctuation and spelling but does not interfere with reading/understanding 1-2 errors in APA formatting, in-text or onscreen citations and reference page Many slides missing slide notes, or slide notes are incomplete and only partially address the content presented on the slide

4 to >0 pts

Poor

Did not use scholarly resources and does not reference most of the sources used in the work Images cover text on slides or are inappropriately used Text is too small or difficult to read APA is not correctly used in format or citations Multiple spelling or grammar errors No slide notes attached

10 pts

Total Points: 60