Advocacy Through Legislation Assignment

Advocacy Through Legislation Assignment
Advocacy Through Legislation Assignment
Question Description
Help me study for my Nursing class. I’m stuck and don’t understand.
Nurses often become motivated to change aspects within the larger health care system based on their real-world experience. As such, many nurses take on an advocacy role to influence a change in regulations, policies, and laws that govern the larger health care system.
For this assignment, identify a problem or concern in your state, community, or organization that has the capacity for advocacy through legislation. Research the issue and use the “Advocacy Through Legislation” template to complete this assignment.
You are required to cite to a minimum of three sources to complete this assignment. Sources must be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and relevant to nursing practice.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
advocacythroughl
You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.
Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.
Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.
The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS
Discussion Questions (DQ)
Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Weekly Participation
Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality
Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes
I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
Late Policy
The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication
Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.
Advocacy Through Legislation – Rubric
Criteria Description
Problem, Those Affected, Current Ramifications, and Consequences if Problem Continues
5. Excellent
23.25 points
A well-develop discussion of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. Strong and compelling rationale is provided. Insight into the problem and consequences is demonstrated.
4. Good
20.69 points
A discussion of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. Some rationale is needed.
3. Satisfactory
18.37 points
A summary of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. There are some omissions and inaccuracies. Rationale is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
17.44 points
A partial or vague discussion of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is presented. Why the problem would be best addressed through legislation is unclear.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A description of the problem, those affected, current ramifications, and consequences if the issue continues is omitted.
Criteria Description
Idea for Addressing Solution
5. Excellent
15.5 points
A logical and well-developed idea for addressing the issue is outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is thoroughly explained. Strong and compelling rationale is provided.
4. Good
13.8 points
Idea for addressing the issue is outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is generally explained. Some rationale is needed.
3. Satisfactory
12.25 points
Idea for addressing the issue is generally outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is summarized. There are some minor omissions. Rationale is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
11.63 points
Idea for addressing the issue is vague. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is unclear. There are major omissions.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Idea for addressing the issue and why legislation is the best course for advocacy is omitted.
Criteria Description
Research Supporting Solution for Problem
5. Excellent
23.25 points
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are presented and demonstrate strong and compiling support for the idea.
4. Good
20.69 points
Idea for addressing the issue is outlined. Why legislation is the best course for advocacy is generally explained. Some rationale is needed. Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are presented. There are minor inaccuracies. Some detail is needed.
3. Satisfactory
18.37 points
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are generally presented. More information is needed. There are some inaccuracies.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
17.44 points
Some support for the idea and its effectiveness in addressing the problem is presented. Findings presented are not substantiated, or do not provide evidence-based support for the idea.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are omitted.
Criteria Description
Stakeholder Support
5. Excellent
15.5 points
All significant stakeholders in support of the proposed idea are presented and a well-supported explanation of why they are in support of the idea are provided.
4. Good
13.8 points
Key stakeholders in support of the proposed idea are presented. It is generally clear why they are in support of the idea. Some detail or rationale is needed.
3. Satisfactory
12.25 points
Substantive evidence-based findings that support the idea for addressing the problem, including similar legislation in other states, are generally presented. More information is needed. There are some inaccuracies.General stakeholders in support of the proposed idea are presented. It is unclear why they are in support of the idea. More information is needed.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
11.63 points
At least one stakeholder in support of the proposed idea is presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Stakeholders in support the proposed idea are omitted.
Criteria Description
Stakeholder Opposition
5. Excellent
15.5 points
All significant stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are presented. A well-supported explanation for why they are opposed to the idea and strategies for debating or conversing with opposing stakeholders is presented.
4. Good
13.8 points
Key stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are presented. A general explanation for why they are opposed to the idea and strategies for debating or conversing with opposing stakeholders is presented.
3. Satisfactory
12.25 points
General stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are presented. Explanation for why they are opposed to the idea and strategies for debating or conversing with opposing stakeholders is vague.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
11.63 points
At least one stakeholder in support of the proposed idea is presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete.At least one stakeholder in opposition to the proposed idea is presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Stakeholders in opposition to the proposed idea are omitted.
Criteria Description
Financial Incentives and Costs
5. Excellent
15.5 points
The financial impact for the issue and idea is clearly summarized. Strong rationale and support for claims is provided.
4. Good
13.8 points
The financial impact for the issue and idea is summarized. Support for claims is generally supported.
3. Satisfactory
12.25 points
The financial impact for the issue and idea is outlined. More information or support is needed for claims.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
11.63 points
The financial impact for the issue and idea is only partially presented. The assignment criteria are largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The financial impact for the issue and idea is omitted.
Criteria Description
Legislature Process and Information for Proposal
5. Excellent
15.5 points
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are clearly and logically presented. The legislative process is clearly understood and insight into legislative advocacy is demonstrated.
4. Good
13.8 points
The financial impact for the issue and idea is summarized. Support for claims is generally supported.Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are presented. Information or detail is needed in some areas for accuracy or clarity.
3. Satisfactory
12.25 points
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are generally outlined.There are some inaccuracies or omissions.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
11.63 points
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are largely incomplete.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Legislative information needed and process to advocate for proposal are omitted.
Criteria Description
Christian Principles and Nursing Advocacy
5. Excellent
15.5 points
A well-developed discussion of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is presented. The discussion demonstrates an ability to act impartially and in the interest of promoting inclusive patient care without regard to gender, sexual orientation, culture, race, religion, or belief.
4. Good
13.8 points
A discussion of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is presented. The discussion generally demonstrates how the principles support positive patient outcomes and inclusiveness for all populations. Some detail or information is needed for clarity.
3. Satisfactory
12.25 points
A summary of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is presented. Some rationale or information is needed to demonstrate how the principles support positive patient outcomes and inclusiveness for all populations.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
11.63 points
A discussion of how Christian principles support unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is incomplete. It is unclear how the principles support positive patient outcomes and inclusiveness for all populations.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
A discussion of how Christian principles supporting unbiased advocacy for health care legislation is omitted.
Criteria Description
Research
5. Excellent
7.75 points
Research is supportive of the rationale presented. Sources are distinctive. Addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.
4. Good
6.9 points
Research is timely and relevant, and addresses all of the issues stated in the assignment criteria.
3. Satisfactory
6.12 points
Research is adequate. Sources are standard in relevance, quality of outside sources, and/or timeliness.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5.81 points
Few outside sources were used to support the assignment. Limited research is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No outside sources were used to support the assignment.
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
5. Excellent
3.1 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good
2.76 points
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.
3. Satisfactory
2.45 points
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.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
2.33 points
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.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent
4.65 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good
4.14 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory
3.67 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
3.49 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 155 points