Critique the theory of Self-Efficacy using the internal and external criticism evaluation process
Using the criteria presented in week 2, critique the theory of Self-Efficacy using the internal and external criticism evaluation process.
MSN-FNP
Discussion Rubric
|
Criteria |
Does Not Meet (0%) |
Approaches (60%) |
Meets 80% |
Exceeds (100%) |
Total |
|
Initial Post relevance to the topic of discussion, applicability, and insight. (20%) |
0 The student does not provide coverage of discussion topic (s); the student does not address the requirements of the weekly discussion. Provide redundant information. The posting does not apply to the course concepts or no example provided from the material explored during the weekly reading or from other relevant examples from the clinical practice. The student does not show applied knowledge and understanding of the discussion topic. The student's initial thread response does not reflect critical thinking. |
12 The student provides partial coverage of discussion topic (s), does not provide clarity on the key concepts; the student does not address all of the requirements of the weekly discussion. Provide redundant information. The posting does not apply to the course concepts or no example provided from the material explored during the weekly reading or from other relevant examples from the clinical practice. The student shows some applied knowledge and understanding of the discussion topic. The student's initial thread response does not reflect critical thinking. The discussion topic is vaguely covered and does not adequately demonstrate an accurate understanding of concepts. |
16 The student provides complete coverage of discussion topic (s), provide clarity on the key concepts, demonstrated in the information presented; the student addresses all of the requirements of the weekly discussion question with adequate attention to details with some redundancy. The posting applies course concepts without examples learned from the material provided during the weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice. The student is still showing applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also, the posting offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates an understanding of the concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic (no use of example). The student's initial thread response reflects critical thinking and contains thought, insight, and analysis. |
20 The student provides in-depth coverage of discussion topic (s), outstanding clarity, and explanation of concepts demonstrated in the information presented; approaches the weekly discussion with depth and breadth, without redundancy, using clear and focused details. The posting directly addresses key issues, questions, or problems related to the topic of discussion. The posting applies course concepts with examples learned from the material provided during the weekly reading or other relevant examples from the clinical practice; the student is showing applied knowledge and understanding of the topic. Also, the posting offers original and thoughtful insight, synthesis, or observation that demonstrates a strong understanding of the concepts and ideas pertaining to the discussion topic (use of examples). The student's initial thread response is rich in critical thinking and full of thought, insight, and analysis; the argument is clear and concise. |
|
|
Quality of Written Communication Appropriateness of audience and words choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied. Grammar, spelling, punctuation. (20%) |
0 The student uses a style and voice inappropriate or does not address the given audience, purpose, etc. Word choice is excessively redundant, clichéd, and unspecific. Inconsistent grammar, spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing (More than five grammatical errors). Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. |
12 The student uses a style and voice that is somewhat appropriate to given audience and purpose. Word choice is often unspecific, generic, redundant, and clichéd. Repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader (More than two grammatical errors). Inconsistencies in language, sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. |
16 The student uses a style and voice that are appropriate to the given audience and purpose. Word choice is specific and purposeful and somewhat varied throughout. Minimal mechanical or typographical errors are present but are not overly distracting to the reader (Less than two grammatical errors). Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. |
20 The student uses a style and voice that are not only appropriate to the given audience and purpose, but that also shows originality and creativity. Word choice is specific, purposeful, dynamic, and varied. Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures are used. The student is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
|
|
Inclusion of the student outcomes explored in the discussion as well as the role-specific competencies as applicable. (10%) |
0 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were explored or related to the weekly discussion topic. |
6 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were explored or related to the weekly discussion topic. The student only provides a list of the applicable Student Learning Outcome. |
8 The student does not explain how the Student Learning Outcomes were explored or related to the weekly discussion topic. |
10 The student provides an explanation of how the applicable Student Learning Outcomes were explored or related to the weekly discussion topic. |
|
|
Rigor, currency, and relevance of the scholarly references. (20%) |
0 The student does not provide any supporting scholarly references that are current or relevant to the weekly discussion topic. |
12 The student provides supporting scholarly references that are not current but relevant to the weekly discussion topic. The student provides only one scholarly reference. |
16 The student provides supporting scholarly references that are not current or but relevant to the weekly discussion topic. The student provides at least two scholarly references. |
20 The student provides robust support from credible, current (less than five years old), and relevant scholarly references (at least two). The supporting evidence meets or exceeds the minimum number of required scholarly references. |
|
|
Peer & Professor Responses. Number of responses, quality of response posts. (20%) |
0 The student did not make an effort to participate in the learning discussion board. The student did not meet the answer post requirements, and the posts, if submitted, are reflecting a lack of engagement or providing a vague answer to the weekly topic. The student does not answer the professor's feedback/question. |
12 The student does not provide substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic or provide vague responses. The answer provided by the student does not build on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citation/references. The student does not motivate and encourage the group. The student does not respond to two peers. The student does not answer the professor's feedback/question. |
16 The student provides substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic. The answer provided by the student builds on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citation/references. The student provides frequent attempts to motivate and encourage the group. The student responds to at least two peers. The student does not answer the professor's feedback/question. |
20 The student provides substantive interaction relevant to the weekly topic. The answer provided by the student builds on the discussion question and ideas of others, utilizing course content with appropriate citation/references. The student provides frequent attempts to motivate and encourage the group. The student responds to at least two peers and answers the professor's feedback/question. |
|
|
Timeliness of the initial post and the answers to the peers. (10%) |
0 The student was late for the initial post and the answer to peers, or absence of submissions. |
6 The student posted the initial tread on time by 11:59 PM on Wednesday, or the student submits the initial thread late and submits the answers to peers on time. |
8 The student posted the initial tread on time by 11:59 PM on Wednesday and one answer to a peer by Saturday 11:59 PM. |
10 The student posted the initial thread and both answers to peers on time (Initial post by Wednesday 1159 PM and two replies to peers by Saturday 11:59 PM). |
2
image1.jpg
,
Using the criteria presented in week 2, critique the theory of Self-Efficacy using the internal and external criticism evaluation process.
WEEK 2
Making judgement as to whether a theory could be adapted for use in research is very important. Describe the internal and external criticism that is used to evaluate middle range theories.
INCLUDE: INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION
REFERENCES: 3 APA, 7th ed. format
Word limit 600 words.
Reply to at least two other student posts with a reflection of their response. 200 words.
(1 APA, 7th ed. format)
Discussion Week 2
The internal and external criticism that is used to evaluate middle-range theories.
Before delving into evaluating middle-range theories, it's essential to grasp some fundamental concepts. Specifically, we must understand whether an idea is suitable for research and how to assess it using internal and external criticism.
Middle-Range Theories, as conceptualized by sociologist Robert K. Merton, operate on two levels: abstract and general and specific and empirical. They aim to explain particular social processes or situations and provide a concrete theoretical framework. Unlike grand theories, they are developed through qualitative research, with a limited scope focusing on a narrow area within a specific field. As a result, middle-range theories are more practical and applicable to empirical research, making it easier to generate concepts and hypotheses, thus contributing to the scientific development of the field. Within nursing, they deal with issues such as patient care and interventions.
Middle-range theories contribute to scientific knowledge by occupying the ground between abstract theoretical concepts and specific empirical research.
Internal Criticism is a critical component of theory evaluation. It assesses the coherence and logic of a theory, examines the relationship between concepts and propositions, and analyzes the theory's structure, observed facts, and potential explanations. In addition, internal criticism identifies potential flaws, providing a comprehensive analysis of the propositions and the theory's ability to explain and predict the phenomenon under study.
In contrast, External Criticism evaluates a theory's relevance and applicability in a specific field. It relies on empirical evidence and contributes to significant advances in knowledge and skills.
Both types of criticism are crucial to a comprehensive evaluation of middle-range theories. Internal criticism ensures logical coherence, while external criticism provides practical utility and relevance. This evaluation is essential in determining whether a middle-range theory is suitable for research and can yield new findings and advances in the field.
Who We Are
We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.
Do you handle any type of coursework?
Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.
Is it hard to Place an Order?
1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.
3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.
Need help with this assignment?
Order it here claim 25% discount
Discount Code: SAVE25