Assignment: Disseminating Evidence-based Practice Projects

NOW F OR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Assignment: Disseminating Evidence-based Practice Projects

You will post a final draft of a PowerPoint presentation conveying the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of your Practicum Project. It is essential that you begin developing your presentation as soon as possible. This will also serve as your Portfolio Assignment for this course.

To prepare:

Review the Practicum Project Presentation Overview, provided in this week’s Learning Resources, for details about this assignment.

Preview the instructions in the Week 10 Discussion. Note that the draft of your PowerPoint presentation posted in the online forum should be complete and polished, i.e., it should be your final draft. While you will have an opportunity to make revisions based on your colleagues’ feedback, the document you share should reflect your best effort to create a thoughtful, clear, and engaging presentation.

Begin working on this assignment as soon as possible.

The development and completion of your Practicum Project is a significant milestone in your Master of Science in Nursing program of study. It is now time to share the results of your effort. As you know, there are many traditional formats you can use to share your results, such as presenting at a professional conference or publishing an article in a journal. As a leader with advanced practice knowledge, you may also have the opportunity to present your results virtually. Webinars and virtual workshops are additional methods professionals can use to share knowledge and evidence-based findings.

As you prepare to share your presentation virtually in this Discussion, think about what you would like to convey about your project to your colleagues in this course and to your practicum Faculty Member. What considerations should you take into account as you prepare to present your Practicum Project findings, conclusions, and recommendations online? What strategies can you use to ensure your presentation clearly articulates your results in the virtual environment? Keep these thoughts in mind as you prepare your final draft of your Practicum Project presentation.

To prepare:

Review the Practicum Project Presentation Overview document, included in the Week 9 Learning Resources, and preview the instructions in this week’s Assignment.

Review the information in the Learning Resources, including the suggestions for creating effective PowerPoint presentations.

Consider the distinctions between delivering a presentation in person, e.g., at a professional conference or at your practicum site, and presenting online. What considerations do you need to take into account as you prepare to share your presentation with your colleagues in this online forum? What steps do you need to take to ensure the information is conveyed clearly and effectively?

Using PowerPoint, complete the final draft of your Practicum Project presentation, (as indicated in the Practicum Project Presentation Overview document and this week’s Assignment). Note that the draft of your PowerPoint presentation posted in this online forum should be complete and polished. While you will have an opportunity to make revisions based on your colleagues’ feedback, the document you share should reflect your best effort to create a thoughtful, clear, and engaging presentation.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post the final draft of your Practicum Project presentation (by attaching your PowerPoint to your post). Explain the distinctions that you took into account as you prepared to share your presentation online.

Keep in mind that your presentation must demonstrate graduate-level writing and presentation standards. Your presentation will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

Inclusion of all required content, e.g., evidence of scholarly products developed for the Practicum Project

Effective communication and appropriate emphasis of content

Organization and clarity

Visual appeal

Required Readings

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Alspach, G. (2010). Converting presentations into journal articles: A guide for nurses. Critical Care Nurse, 30(2), 8–15.

Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

The authors recognize the value of disseminating evidence-based practice in promoting quality care. They address how this can be done using posters.

Forsyth, D. E., Wright, T. L., Scherb, C. A., & Gaspar, P. M. (2010). Disseminating evidence-based practice projects: Poster design and evaluation. Clinical Scholars Review, 3(1), 14–21.

The authors recognize the value of disseminating evidence-based practice in promoting quality care. They address how this can be done using posters.

Jeffress, L., & Lyle, S. D. (2012). Maximizing accessibility of academic publications: Applications of electronic publishing technology. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(4), 257–264.

Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

This article addresses the use of electronic publishing technology for broader dissemination of research.

Price, B. (2010). Disseminating best practice at conferences. Nursing Standard, 24(25), 35–41.

Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

In this article, the author provides suggestions for creating and delivering engaging conference presentations.

Roberts, D. (2011). ‘Pay it forward’ through publication. MEDSURG Nursing, 20(3), 112, 122.

Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

The author proposes creating a chain of lifelong learning through the publication of scholarly works. Among other matters, the article suggests the value of identifying a publication mentor.

Russell, C. L., & Ponferrada, L. (2012). How to develop an outstanding conference research abstract. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 39(4), 307–342.

Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

The authors propose recommendations for writing and submitting an abstract for a presentation at a conference.

Sawatzky, J. V. (2011). My abstract was accepted—now what? A guide to effective conference presentations. Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 21(2), 37–41.

Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

The article addresses fear of public speaking and provides recommendations for delivering successful presentations at conferences.

Walden University. (n.d.). Research Dissemination. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/researchcenter/orsp/dissemination

This Walden University resource examines how research is disseminated through presentations and publications.

Review the types of articles the following journals produce as well as submission requirements for publication:

BMJ Publishing Group. (2013). Evidence-Based Nursing. Retrieved from http://ebn.bmj.com/

Elsevier. (2013). Nurse Leader. Retrieved from http://www.nurseleader.com/

John Wiley & Sons. (2013). Journal of Nursing Scholarship. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291547-5069/homepage/ForAuthors.html

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (2013). CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/cinjournal/pages/default.aspx

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (2013). The Journal of Nursing Administration. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/jonajournal/pages/default.aspx

National League for Nursing. (2011). Publications. Retrieved from http://www.nln.org/nlnjournal/writingjournal.htm

Online Journal of Nursing Informatics. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.ojni.org/

Rural Nurse Organization. (2013). Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care. Retrieved from http://rnojournal.binghamton.edu/index.php/RNO

Wiley-Blackwell. (n.d.) Nurse Author & Editor. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://www.naepub.com/

Rogobete, C., Peters, G., & Seruga, J. (2012). Cross media and e-publishing. International Journal of U- & E-Service, Science & Technology, 5(2), 17–29.

Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Caug124. (2012). How to deliver an effective online presentation [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.dalecarnegie.com/events/how_to_present_online/

This resource examines four stages for creating digital presentations.

Crosby, T. (2013). How online presentations work. Retrieved from http://money.howstuffworks.com/business-communications/how-online-presentations-work.htm

This resource provides an overview of online presentations.

Jacobs, L. F., & Hyman, J. S. (2010, February 24). 15 strategies for giving oral presentations [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/professors-guide/2010/02/24/15-strategies-for-giving-oral-presentations

The authors provide practical suggestions for delivering effective oral presentations.

Krieger, S. (n.d.). 12 tips for creating better PowerPoint presentations. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://betterevaluation.org/resources/guides/12_tips_for_PP

This resource is focused specifically on how to create effective presentations using PowerPoint.

Niemantsverdriet, J. W. (n.d.). How to give a successful oral presentation. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://people.whitman.edu/~weilercs/TalkingTips/EFCATStalkingTips.pdf

This article advises how to avoid common pitfalls for giving oral presentations and provides suggestions for creating successful posters.

Purdue University, Purdue Online Writing Lab. (2013). Designing an effective PowerPoint presentation: Quick guide. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/686/01/

With concrete suggestions and design tips, this resource provides guidance for developing a PowerPoint presentation.

Zhang, L. (n.d.). Creating effective PowerPoint presentations [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved May 20, 2013, from http://library.rmc.edu/mis/images/pptpresentation.pdf

In this document, the author shares “do’s” and “don’t’s” to guide the development of PowerPoint presentations.

298 × 396

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion post minimum requirements: *The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA 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 online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION	8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%) Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.	7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%) Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.	0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING	6 (20%) – 6 (20%) Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%) Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.	4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%) Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.	0 (0%) – 3 (10%) Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA 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 online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)

Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)

Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

6 (20%) – 6 (20%)

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)

Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

0 (0%) – 3 (10%)

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30