Placeholder

DNP 820 Week 6 Benchmark Drafting a Literature Review GCU

$22.00

Quantity:

Description

DNP 820 Week 6 Benchmark Drafting a Literature Review GCU

Details:

In this assignment, you will draft the body of a literature review. You will continue to add and revise this draft literature review (Chapter 2 of your DPI Project) as you progress through the program. You may be able to use the feedback and suggestions from your instructor (on the Introduction to the Literature Review assignment in Topic 4) to expand the literature review for this assignment.

General Requirements:

Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:

  • Use the “Empirical Research Checklist” worksheet to ensure that each article you select meets all of the established criteria.
  • Use the “Research Article Chart” to provide a summary review of each component of your assignment.
  • Submit the completed Research Article Chart to your instructor.
  • Refer to the most recent prospectus template found in the DC Network (dc.gcu.edu) for details and criteria for the Literature Review (Chapter 2).
  • Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
  • This assignment uses a rubric. Please Review the rubric prior to the beginning to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
  • You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.

Directions:

Part 1: Selection of 15 Articles  

Select 15 empirical articles related to your PICOT question. Use the “Empirical Research Checklist” worksheet to ensure that each article you select meets all of the established criteria. At least one article must demonstrate a quantitative methodology.

Part 2: Research Article Chart 

Using the articles acquired in Part 1, provide a summary review of each component using the “Research Article Chart” template.

Part 3: Literature Review 

Prepare a Literature Review (Chapter 2) of 2,000-3,000 words for your scholarly project.

Utilizing the major concepts identified in the Topic 4 assignment, further develop each major concept and subtheme by locating 15 more empirical articles related to your project topic (30 articles total: 15 from Topic 4 assignment and 15 from Topic 6 assignment).

Use the “Research Article Chart” as a guide to analyze and synthesize (summarize) the literature into the paper you began in the Topic 4 assignment.

Based upon your review of the 15 additional research articles, expand on your summary of each major concept and your synthesis of the three identified subthemes that support each concept. At the end of each major concept, include a summary statement.

Portfolio Practice Hours:

Practice immersion assignments are based on your current course objectives, and are intended to be application-based learning using your real-world practice setting. These assignments earn practice immersion hours, and are indicated in the assignment by a Portfolio Practice Hours statement which reminds you, the learner, to enter in a corresponding case log in Typhon. Actual clock hours are entered, but the average hours associated with each practice immersion assignment is 10.

You are required to complete your assignment using real-world application. Real-world application requires the use of evidence-based data, contemporary theories, and concepts presented in the course. The culmination of your assignment must present a viable application in a current practice setting. For more information on parameters for practice immersion hours, please refer to DNP resources in the DC Network.

To earn portfolio practice hours, enter the following after the references section of your paper:

Practice Hours Completion Statement DNP-820

I, (INSERT NAME), verify that I have completed (NUMBER OF) clock hours in association with the goals and objectives for this assignment. I have also tracked said practice hours in the Typhon Student Tracking System for verification purposes and will be sure that all approvals are in place from my faculty and practice mentor.

DNP-820-RS-ResearchArticleChart.docx DNP-820-RS-EmpiricalResearchChecklist-Student.docx

Benchmark – Drafting a Literature Review  

  1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
2
Less Than Satisfactory
74.00%
3
Satisfactory
79.00%
4
Good
87.00%
5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content  
20.0 %Identification of Major Concept and Related Scholarly Sources (C.5.1)  The identification of major concept and related scholarly sources is either missing or incomplete. Major concept to be included in the literature review are present, but the sources cited do not relate to the concept or are not from scholarly sources. Major concept to be included in the literature review are present, and the sources cited distantly relate to the concept. Sources cited are from both scholarly and nonscholarly sources. Major concept to be included in the literature review are present, and the sources cited relate to the concept. Sources cited are from scholarly sources though some sources may be outdated. Major concept to be included in the literature review are present, and the sources cited directly and clearly relate to the concept. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources.
30.0 %Identification of Subtopic, Related Scholarly Sources, and Quantitative Research Elements (C.5.1) The identification of subthemes, related scholarly sources, and quantitative research elements is either missing or incomplete. Subthemes to be included in the literature review are present, but the sources cited do not relate to the themes or are not from scholarly sources. The quantitative research elements are incorrectly identified. Subthemes to be included in the literature review are present, and the sources cited distantly relate to the themes. Sources cited are from both scholarly and nonscholarly sources. The quantitative research elements are correctly identified. Subthemes to be included in the literature review are present, and the sources cited relate to the themes. Sources cited are from scholarly sources though some sources may be outdated. The quantitative research elements are correctly identified. Subthemes to be included in the literature review are present, and the sources cited directly and clearly relate to the themes. Sources cited are from current scholarly sources. The quantitative research elements are correctly identified.
20.0 %Synthesis of the Research in Each Subtheme (C.5.1)  The synthesis of the research in each subtheme is either missing or does not address all of the required components. The synthesis of the research in each subtheme incompletely or inaccurately conveys to the reader what is known and what is not known. It does not demonstrate that the learner has a solid grasp of existing literature on the topic. The synthesis of the research in each subtheme provides a cursory review that conveys to the reader what is known and what is not known. It demonstrates a superficial understanding of existing literature on the topic. The synthesis of the research in each subtheme provides a solid review that conveys to the reader what is known and what is not known. It demonstrates a moderate understanding of existing literature on the topic. The synthesis of the research in each subtheme provides a thorough review that conveys to the reader what is known and what is not known. It demonstrates a thorough grasp of existing literature on the topic.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness  
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
10.0 %Format  
5.0 %Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage

Tutorialsexperts helps in providing the best essay writing service. If you need 100% original papers for DNP 820 Week 6 Benchmark Drafting a Literature Review GCU, then contact us through call or live chat.

DNP 820 Week 6 Benchmark Drafting a Literature Review GCU

Perfect DNP 820 Week 6 Benchmark Drafting a Literature Review GCU

DNP 820 Week 6 Benchmark Drafting a Literature Review GCU

 

There are no reviews yet.

Add your review