case study 2 from fnp perspective

5

Ideas and concepts are consistently clear and always well explained. Relationships between concepts and ideas are always discussed fairly and always synthesized in a logical fashion with strong, well-founded supporting arguments. All discussion and arguments are thoroughly supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable.

4

Ideas and concepts are clear and well explained. Relationships between concepts and ideas are discussed fairly and synthesized in a logical fashion with well-founded supporting arguments. Discussion and arguments are supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable

3

Ideas and concepts are reasonably well explained. Discussion and arguments are, for the most part, supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable relationships between concepts, and ideas are discussed. These could be further strengthened with additional research or resource materials.

2

Basic ideas and concepts are presented; however, they are under-developed and poorly explained. There is minimal evidence of a relationship between ideas and concepts. Discussion and arguments are not supported with additional research or research that is pertinent and valid.

1

Some basic ideas and concepts are started, but not developed. There is no identifiable relationship between ideas and concepts. There is little or no discussion and/or argument with supporting research.

0

There are no developed ideas or concepts. There is no supporting research.

5

Organizes and synthesizes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

4

Organizes and analyzes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

3

Organizes evidence to reveal important patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

2

Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing important patterns, differences, or similarities.

1

Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

0

Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

5

The paper exhibits a superior command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.

4

The paper exhibits a strong command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impair the flow of communication.

3

The paper exhibits command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.

2

The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.

1

The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.

0

The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.

5

The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.

4

The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

3

The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

2

The required APA elements are not all included. AND/OR there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

1

Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.

0

There is little to no evidence of APA formatting. AND/OR there are no in-text citations AND/OR references.