Task 1a: Analytical Review of a Contemporary Transitional Factor: Written Essay Weight: 25%
Word Count: 2000 words (+/- 10%)
In this task, students are required to demonstrate development of central arguments for the critical review
presentation. The analytical essay requires students to demonstrate critical analysis of factors that influence student transition to beginning level professional nursing practise. Students may choose from one (1) of the following contemporary transitional factors that impacts/influences newly registered nurses:
- Independent decision making
- Impact of shift work
- Horizontal bullying
- Increased independent workloads
- Psychological burn-out
Note that the choices will be capped across each campus so that there is an even spread of topics covered. Students must indicate their choice via the allocation submission portal in moodle during weeks 0-3. The system works on a first-in basis, therefore the longer you leave it to submit your topic choice, you may be limited in options.
The assessment is designed to demonstrate an understanding of the subject matter, literature search and review skills, academic writing and critical analysis abilities.
In the essay, students MUST address the following points related to the contemporary transitional factor in this paper using current literature and nursing Standards, Codes and guidelines as evidence:
- INTRODUCTION– Describe the contemporary transitional factor that can impact new graduate nurses;
- ANALYSIS – Discuss and analyse why the contemporary transitional factor occurs in relation to new graduate nurses;
- RECOMMENDATIONS – Discuss and analyse how and why the factor should be addressed (by both nursing as a profession and healthcare organisations) – include in your response the impact this factor has on the quality of nursing and delivery of patient care.
Prior to preparing your assessment, please take note of the following information:
- This assessment task is to be completed as a literature review.
For information about the requirements of a literature review and how to set it out, please access the following University help sheets:
| literature-review_basic_2020 | literature-review_detailed_2020 | literature-review_planning_2020 | literature-review_structure_2020 |
- Headings and subheadings are to be used to guide the reader through the contents of your review.
- You do not need to identify how you conducted your literature search.
- Two (2) themes should be discussed within your analysis of why the contemporary transitional factor occurs.
- Two (2) strategies should be provided within your response to how and why the factor should be addressed.
- Students should refer to relevant nursing Standards, Codes and guidelines within their recommendations. These should be included in your reference list, but these will not be counted toward the minimum references required.
- Students need to cite at least eight (8) academic references (i.e. current peer reviewed literature).
- Referencing is to be according to APA 7th edition guidelines.
This assessment task relates to the following outcomes/attributes as per the course descriptor: Learning Outcomes: K1; K2; K3; S2; S4; A3
Graduate Attributes: GA1 Thinkers; GA2 Innovators; GA4 Communicators; GA5 Leaders
Marking Rubric
The minimum possible score for this rubric is 0 points and the maximum score is 85 points (Content 55, Readability 15, Referencing 10, and Academic Requirements 5) which will be converted to a mark out of 25 to represent the 25% weighting applied to the task. Intermediate scores will be converted respectively and rounded to the nearest available grade. Late submission penalties apply as per the Course Descriptor.
| 0 points | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | 5 points | |
| CONTENT Introduction | Background information about the transitional | Background information about the transitional | Background information about the transitional factor | Background information about the transitional factor | Background information about the transitional factor | Background information about the transitional factor |
| factor selected is | factor selected is not | selected is at times | selected lacks clear | selected is engaging | selected is engaging | |
| not articulated. | clearly articulated. | unclear. Relevance to | linkage to topic. | and leads to an | and leads to a clear | |
| Relevance to | Relevance to | graduate nursing is | Relevance to | underdeveloped | purpose statement. | |
| graduate nursing is | graduate nursing is | weakly articulated. | graduate nursing | purpose statement. | Relevance to graduate | |
| omitted. | unclear. | Purpose statement | could be more clearly | Relevance to graduate | nursing is articulated | |
| Purpose statement | Purpose statement is | could be stated more | articulated. Purpose | nursing is articulated | and purpose statement | |
| is not included. | unidentifiable. Main | clearly and concisely. | statement could be | and purpose | is clear and concise. | |
| Main discussion | discussion themes | Main discussion | stronger. Main | statement is clear. | Main discussion themes | |
| themes are not | are poorly identified | themes are unclear. | discussion themes | Main discussion | clearly identified. | |
| identified in the | in the purpose | lack clarity. | themes identified. | |||
| purpose statement. | statement. | |||||
| ANALYSIS: THEME 1 Critical Analysis Review – Comparison | No comparison or contrast of findings. | Poor or little comparison and/or contrast of findings. | Minimal comparison and contrast of findings. | Moderate comparison and contrast of findings. | Substantial comparison and contrast of findings. | Comprehensive comparison and contrast of findings. |
| ANALYSIS: THEME 1 Critical Analysis Review – Limitations & Gaps | Limitations are omitted. Gaps and controversies that exist in the literature are not stated or discussed. | Limitations are poorly expressed. Gaps and controversies that exist in the literature are not clearly stated. | Limitations are only stated and not explored in any detail. Gaps and controversies in the literature are stated, but with minimal depth. | Limitations are discussed, but connections to differences in findings are not clearly identified. Gaps and controversies are discussed, but need clarity. | Limitations are discussed, but require stronger connections to differences in findings. Gaps and controversies in the literature are explored with depth. | Limitations that might have led to different findings are discussed. Gaps and controversies that exist in the literature are clearly discussed. |
| ANALYSIS: THEME 2 Critical Analysis Review – Comparison | No comparison or contrast of findings. | Poor or little comparison and/or contrast of findings. | Minimal comparison and contrast of findings. | Moderate comparison and contrast of findings. | Substantial comparison and contrast of findings. | Comprehensive comparison and contrast of findings. |
| ANALYSIS: THEME 2 Critical Analysis Review – Limitations & Gaps | Limitations are omitted. Gaps and controversies that exist in the literature are not stated or discussed. | Limitations are poorly expressed. Gaps and controversies that exist in the literature are not clearly stated. | Limitations are only stated and not explored in any detail. Gaps and controversies in the literature are stated, but with minimal depth. | Limitations are discussed, but connections to differences in findings are not clearly identified. Gaps and controversies are discussed, but need clarity. | Limitations are discussed, but require stronger connections to differences in findings. Gaps and controversies in the literature are explored with depth. | Limitations that might have led to different findings are discussed. Gaps and controversies that exist in the literature are clearly discussed. |
| RECOMMEND- ATION 1 | Nil recommendation made. | Poor recommendation that takes does not | Limited recommendation that does not fully take | Moderate recommendation that takes into | Substantial recommendation that takes into | Excellent realistic recommendation that takes into consideration |
| take into | into consideration the | consideration the | consideration the | the professional issues | ||
| consideration | professional issues or | professional issues or | professional issues | and needs along with | ||
| professional issues | needs and/or does | needs and/or | and needs along with | organisational factors. | ||
| or needs and/or | not consider | considers | organisational factors. | |||
| does not consider | organisational | organisational | ||||
| organisational | factors. | factors. | ||||
| factors. | ||||||
| RECOMMEND- ATION 1 Evidence | No evidence provided to support recommendation. | Recommendation requires substantially more support from the use of evidence from the literature. | Recommendation requires further support from the use of evidence from the literature. | Recommendation is moderately supported with the use of some evidence from the literature. | Recommendation is supported well with the use of evidence from the literature. | Recommendation is supported strongly with the use of extensive evidence from the literature. |
| RECOMMEND- ATION 2 | Nil recommendation made. | Poor recommendation that takes does not take into consideration professional issues or needs and/or does not consider organisational factors. | Limited recommendation that does not fully take into consideration the professional issues or needs and/or does not consider organisational factors. | Moderate recommendation that takes into consideration the professional issues or needs and/or considers organisational factors. | Substantial recommendation that takes into consideration the professional issues and needs along with organisational factors. | Excellent realistic recommendation that takes into consideration the professional issues and needs along with organisational factors. |
| RECOMMEND- ATION 2 | No evidence provided to support recommendation. | Recommendation requires substantially more | Recommendation requires further support from the use | Recommendation is moderately supported with the | Recommendation is supported well with the use of evidence | Recommendation is supported strongly with the use of extensive |
| Evidence | support from the use | of evidence from the | use of some evidence | from the literature. | evidence from the | |
| of evidence from the | literature. | from the literature. | literature. | |||
| literature. |
| 0 points | 1 point | 2 points | 3 points | 4 points | 5 points | |
| CONTENT Overall Argument and Evidence | Lacks clear thought/analysis/ reference to theory. | Lacks clear critical thought/analysis/ reference to theory. | Minimal demonstration of the application of theory through analysis of | Demonstrates beginning of application of theory through analysis and | Clearly demonstrates application of critical analysis integrated throughout most | Consistently demonstrates application of critical analysis well integrated |
| the topic area. | thought in some parts | parts of the paper. | throughout the paper. | |||
| of the paper | ||||||
| CONTENT Conclusion | A summary of the main points is not presented. | A summary of the main points is not clearly presented. | A summary of the main points is simply presented and | A summary of the main points is presented, with some | A summary of the main points is presented and | A summary of the main points is clearly articulated and |
| Implications for | Implications for | implications for | discussion. | implications for | implications for nursing | |
| nursing practice are | nursing practice are, | nursing practice are | Implications for | nursing practice are | practice are logical, | |
| absent, and/or new | illogical, irrelevant or | included but lack | nursing practice are | provided with some | relevant and clear | |
| information has | unclear, and/or new | demonstration of | included but with | demonstration of | ||
| been included. | information has | logic, relevance or | minimal logic, | logic, relevance and | ||
| been included. | clarity. | relevance or clarity. | clarity. | |||
| READABILITY Structural Elements | Structure displays no planning or structure, jumping | Structure lacks evidence of a sequenced plan. | Structure lacks evidence of a sequenced plan. | Structure requires a more structured and sequenced plan, | Moderate structure that includes all elements and mostly | Excellent structure that includes all elements and follows a logical |
| from one topic to | Minimal linking | More attention | and/or has some | follows a logical | sequence with linking | |
| the next with no | dialogue between | required to link topics | elements missing. | sequence and linking | dialogue. | |
| linking dialogue. | topics of discussion. | of discussion. | dialogue. | |||
| READABILITY Professional Prose | Inconsistent levels of articulation and expression, | Poor level of articulation and expression, with | Minimal level of articulation and expression, with | Moderate level of articulation and expression, requiring | Substantial level of articulation and expression, with clear | Excellent level of articulation and expression, with clear |
| numerous spelling | considerable | some sentence or | sentence and | and concise sentence | and concise sentence | |
| and grammatical | sentence or | paragraph structure | paragraph structure | and paragraph | and paragraph | |
| errors and/or lack of | paragraph structure | unclear, and/or a | to be more concise, | structure, and | structure, and no | |
| sentence or | unclear, and/or | number of spelling or | and/or a number of | minimal spelling or | spelling or grammatical | |
| paragraph structure | numerous spelling or | grammatical errors. | spelling or | grammatical errors. | errors. | |
| grammatical errors. | grammatical errors. | |||||
| READABILITY Fluency | The arrangement of content is illogical. | Sentence and/or paragraph structure is often undefined, | Sentence and/or paragraph structure is sometimes undefined | Moderate sentence and paragraph structure requiring | Sentence and paragraph structure is mostly well-defined | Sentence and paragraph structure is well-defined and clear |
| lack structure, or are | or lacks clarity | more clarity with | and clear with | with introductory and | ||
| too long or too | through not providing | introductory and | introductory and | linking dialogue. Key | ||
| short. The | introductory or | linking sentences. | linking sentences. | definitions are | ||
| arrangement of | linking sentences. | Some paragraphs are | addressed. | |||
| content is haphazard | Some paragraphs are | too long/short. | ||||
| and difficult to | too long/short. | |||||
| follow. | ||||||
| REFERENCES Minimum Number | No references provided. | Less than minimum academic references used to support | Minimum of eight (8) academic references used to support | More than ten (10) academic references used to support | ||
| presentation | presentation material | presentation material | ||||
| material or offer | or offer direction for | and offer direction | ||||
| direction for further | further information. | for further | ||||
| information. | information. | |||||
| REFERENCES Selection and Credibility | No references reputable, current, extensive or credible, and/or the | Many references are NOT reputable, current, extensive or relevant, and/or the | Some references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant, and/or the | Most references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant, and/or the | All references are reputable, current, extensive and relevant. All articles | |
| connection between | connection between | connection between | connection between | are relevant to the | ||
| the articles and the | the articles and the | some of the articles | some of the articles | purpose. | ||
| purpose is missing. | purpose is poorly | and the purpose is | and the purpose is | |||
| demonstrated. | unclear. | developing. | ||||
| REFERENCES APA Style | Incorrect APA referencing style for in-text citations | Numerous errors noted in APA referencing of in- | A couple of errors noted in APA referencing of in-text | All in-text citations, quotes and references are in APA | ||
| quotes and/or | text citations, quotes | citations, quotes or | style. | |||
| references. | or references. | references. | ||||
| ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS | Nil submission. | Paper does not conform to any presentation | Significant numbers of areas of paper do not conform to | A number of areas of paper do not conform to requirements as | Paper mostly conforms to presentation | Paper conforms to all presentation requirements as set out |
| requirements as set | requirements as set | set out in Course | requirements as set | in Course Descriptor. | ||
| out in Course | out in Course | Descriptor. | out in Course | |||
| Descriptor. | Descriptor. | Descriptor. |
Get expert help for Analytical Review of a Contemporary Transitional Factor and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
