A brief explanation of your personal motivations and goals in pursuing the DNP degree
TOPIC: THE DNP-PREPARED NURSE’S ROLE
The role of a nurse with a practice doctorate is multifaceted and significantly different from that of a nurse with a research doctorate. As a DNP-prepared nurse, you may serve as a clinical nurse educator, a policy and legislation advocate, an organization leader, or an advanced practice nurse responsible for tracking, installing, and monitoring initiatives aimed at improving nursing and healthcare delivery.
Which role(s) are you most excited about? What do you hope to accomplish as a DNP-prepared nurse? Regardless of what the future holds for you, your Walden DNP program will help you develop the knowledge and skills necessary to enact these roles.
RESOURCES
TO PREPARE:
• Review this Week’s Learning Resources, paying special attention to the degree requirements for completing the Walden DNP and AACN’s The Essentials.
• Reflect on your personal motivations and goals in pursuing the DNP degree.
• Consider the expectations and role of a nurse with a practice doctorate and how they may differ from that of a nurse with a research doctorate.
• Reflect on any previous experiences you have had in addressing a gap in practice or a practice change within an organization.
• Consider what it means, as a DNP-prepared nurse, to address an organization’s quality improvement needs by attending to a gap in practice or implementing a practice change.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4
Post the following:
• A brief explanation of your personal motivations and goals in pursuing the DNP degree.
• A description of the expectations and role of a nurse with a practice doctorate and how they may differ from those of a nurse with a research doctorate.
• A description of how, as a DNP-prepared nurse, you hope to address an organization’s quality improvement needs by attending to a gap in practice or implementing a practice change. Include any previous experiences you have had in addressing a gap in practice or a practice change within an organization.
Note: Your posts should be a substantial (500 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful post but cannot stand alone as the entire post.
RESOURCES
• American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2021). The essentials: Core competencies for professional nursing educationLinks to an external site.. AACN. https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Publications/Essentials-2021.pdf
• Beeber, A. S., Palmer, C., Waldrop, J., Lynn, M. R., & Jones, C. B. (2019). The role of doctor of nursing practice-prepared nurses in practice settingsLinks to an external site.. Nursing Outlook, 67(4), 354–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.02.006
• Falkenberg-Olson, A. C. (2019). Research translation and the evolving PhD and DNP practice roles: A collaborative call for nurse practitionersLinks to an external site.. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 31(8), 447-453. https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000266
• Giardino, E. R., & Hickey, J. V. (2020). Doctor of nursing practice students’ perceptions of professional change through the DNP programLinks to an external site.. Journal of Professional Nursing, 36(6), 595–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2020.08.012
• Hartjes, T. M., Lester, D., Arasi-Ruddock, L., McFadden Bradley, S., Munro, S., & Cowan, L. (2019). Answering the question: Is the doctor of philosophy or doctor of nursing practice right for me?Links to an external site. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 31(8), 439–442. https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000000273
• Kesten, K., Beebe, S., Conrad, D., Corrigan, C., Manderscheid, A., Moran, K., & Niederer, M. (2023). Alignment of DNP degree competencies with employer perspectives: The value of academic practice partnershipsLinks to an external site.. Journal of Professional Nursing, 48, 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.07.003
• Walden University. (n.d.). Doctor of nursing practiceLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/catalog/doctor-nursing-practice
NURS_8002_Week4_Discussion_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) 14 to >13.0 pts
Excellent
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts. 13 to >12.0 pts
Good
• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts. 12 to >9.0 pts
Fair
• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part. 9 to >0 pts
Poor
• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.
14 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post 21 to >20.0 pts
Excellent
Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. 20 to >16.0 pts
Good
Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. 16 to >12.0 pts
Fair
Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. 12 to >0 pts
Poor
Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.
21 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response 14 to >13.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. 13 to >12.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. 12 to >9.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty. 9 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
14 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response 14 to >13.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. 13 to >12.0 pts
Good
Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. 12 to >9.0 pts
Fair
Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty. 9 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
14 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING 7 to >6.0 pts
Excellent
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 6 to >4.0 pts
Good
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 4 to >2.0 pts
Fair
Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 2 to >0 pts
Poor
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
7 pts
Total Points: 70
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
