You are on page 1of 20

Running head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

Self-Assessment of Reasoning Tamara Putney Ferris State University

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Abstract The purpose of this self-assessment of reasoning is to show the progression of my learning,

reasoning and critical thinking skills throughout the semester. Strengths and weaknesses will be presented and explored. I will also propose a grade that should be awarded to me based on my work up to this point. The grade will be justified and substantiated by discussion and comparison of actual completed assignments from the class, which are included as appendices.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Declaration of Self-Assessment I, Tamara Putney, understand that the purpose of this assignment is to assess my own performance of my thinking across the semester in NURS 324. If successful, this report will make it possible for those who read it to grasp explicitly what I have and have not learned this semester in the way of thinking skills and abilities. It will itself display critical thinking about my thinking. After a brief introduction, I will state the grade, which I believe I have the evidence to support. I will build a case for my grade using the criteria below and excerpts from my own work as substantiation. My Thoughts on Reasoning

It has been a long time since participation in formal college, but without even considering it I have been utilizing extensive reasoning and critical thinking skills everyday in my work as an intensive care nurse. I solve problems, anticipate needs and reactions of the human body and mind every minute of my shift. It was not only until I attended this class that I actually thought about and analyzed my thinking process; to think about thinking is very difficult. Thinking about the way one thinks takes immense skill and patience. Critical thinking is not automatic, although I think the ability is inborn, honing the skill takes experience, and diligence. I have worked very hard, not only with the assignments in this class, but in my practice as a nurse, to consider my thinking and calculate the choices I make. I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to analyze myself, and my mind to become a better thinker. I can save a persons life. But, I cannot do it without thinking. The mere fact that I have become a better thinker and developed a more accurate and precise way of reasoning has made me a better nurse. Because of the Elements of Reasoning (Paul & Elder, 2002), and the instruction in this class, I now have the ability to know exactly how to identify and analyze what

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

it is that I need to accomplish. I find it easier to identify the problem at hand. Once my problem is identified, I have the ability to think of possible solutions through brainstorming and anticipatory options based on my experiences. I have improved my ability to see multiple points of view and I have learned it is detrimental not to accept all forms of constructive criticism. Criticism makes us grow. If we cannot grow both spiritually and intellectually, then we cannot become better thinkers, and that will make us stagnant members of society. I want to make a difference and influence others, not just exist for the mere sake of existing. Another important factor in my evolution of thinking is communication. I can think all day long, but if I cannot communicate my thoughts, problems and possible solutions to others, then I am not an effective communicator, therefore, not the best nurse or human being that I can be. Effectively thinking, listening, reasoning, communicating and talking are imperative to being a great critical thinker, refinement of this art takes a lifetime. We must remember, there is always a better, more efficient, more lean and effective way to do things. Daily problems, although they may seem the same, are never equal and will require unique critical thinking skills, but it is imperative to remember that our thinking must evolve as the world and the people around us evolve. The Grade I believe the work I have accomplished with the metacognitive journals in this class deserves a B, as it stands. My progression and development of my critical thinking skills has come along way, but I can do better. I do not believe there is or never will be an end to developing critical thinking and reasoning skills. Had I known then (before the journal assignments were due), what I know now, only a few weeks after the assignment, I might have

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

considered a higher grade. If I am grading my performance and learning in the entire class, I feel I have exceeded the requirements, thus exceeded a B. Aside from my work as a nurse, because of this class, I have gained an ability to more completely understand and use the Elements of Reasoning and other critical thinking tools (Paul & Elder, 2002). I had an extraordinary amount of difficulty with the first metacognitive journal and the interpretation and application of reasoning. I felt confused and lost, and found little value in the peer review process of the class. My peers seem to be timid or lack the ability to criticize. I had no choice but to resort to outside evaluation by other colleagues and utilize other resources about critically thinking. The art of making ones self better is the ability to use criticism to strengthen and not take it as a personal assault. I posted the 98.6 degree Fahrenheit metacognitive journal (Appendix A) on the discussion board, received little to no constructive feedback, so I studied the elements of reasoning provided in the syllabus and analyzed my own thinking. It was very difficult. I relied on my instructor and other message board response styles to guide my journal writing for the next assignment. This is where I can show growth in my thinking. My best example to this point is the second metacognitive journal about the question of whether or not family should be allowed at the bedside during resuscitation. Comparing Appendix B, the metacognitive journal for the discussion board and Appendix C, the ensuing evidenced based practice proposal, will allow the reader to see the progression of my thinking and the evolution of my reasoning. My Areas of Strength I have several areas of strength, which I will outline below and provide supporting evidence within the attached journals. I am confident in my ability to understand and identify the problem at hand. Most times it is simple for me to isolate a problem to solve. In the case of

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Appendix A, the problem at hand was the question of, why do we consider the number 98.6 a normal temperature and why do people accept that. I then go on to explain why it is a problem

or why it should be questioned. Taking a look at the second metacognitive journal (Appendix B) and my evidenced based practice proposal, based on that metacognitive journal (Appendix C), I can show my ability to isolate the problem or question at hand to the fact that families are not generally allowed at the bedside during resuscitation of a patient, so the problem presented would be to understand the concerns with the family at the bedside and figure out what would need to change in order to have all parties involved okay with the family there. Another area of strength is my ability to understand and state assumptions and pull in many points of view. Dealing with many cultures and personalities over the last nine years of nursing, I have learned that everyone sees things in a different light. Everyone will interpret things differently, so the only way to make a statement make sense to everyone is to meld it to speak to everyone who may read it. Looking at metacognitive journal 98.6 or Appendix A, since I know what I would automatically assume, and some of the opinions of others, assumptions here seem simple. In this specific journal, experience of the writer will prevail with point of view and assumptions. I have the ability to formulate my own point of view because of my experience as a nurse and things I hear from patients. I used other experienced nurses points of view from discussions and was able to expand on the effects of temperature on the body. Taking a look at the second metacognitive journal from week 8 on resuscitation at the bedside (Appendix B), I can demonstrate growth in this area from my classmates and my further understanding of the use of the elements of reasoning. I was able to more precisely expand on the assumptions, making it clearer, as seen in Appendix C that although all the health care team members may not agree on the family being at the bedside the reason may be due to the fear of staff performance, which, did

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING not occur to me initially, because I have grown accustomed to family around while carrying out tasks. I feel my performance is not hindered with family at the bedside, but I can see now, how less confident staff may feel that way, or have a fear of being misinterpreted at the bedside. Interestingly, although this could be construed initially as a weakness, I feel it demonstrates strength due to my ability to immediately utilized and apply the information I received from the readers. My Areas of Weakness Examining the metacognitive journals on resuscitation at the bedside, both Appendix B and C are similar in the implications and consequences section. While I find it rather simple to come up with assumptions and points of view, consequences are a bit more difficult for me. With this, and the requirement of the assignment having limitations on the number of sentences, I was very hard pressed to come up with a better consequence, hence both submissions are the

same. I know there are other consequences, but these seemed like the best at the time. Although having no equal comparison, the consequences for the 98.6 degrees journal or, Appendix A, was also very difficult for me come up with. I have work to do in my thinking process with understanding where my reasoning is taking me when I am dealing with specific topics. I can come up with undesirable consequences, but it is more difficult to understand that the consequences one is speaking about need to be directly related to the reasoning being presented. I have a lot of reading and studying to do concerning circular reasoning. The biggest weakness I feel I need to improve on is the conclusion. Its not that I cant come to conclusions or see inference; it is difficult to be sure it is the correct or the best conclusion. It is difficult to convey the difference between what I want to imply rather than infer. If I imply something to my reader I am suggesting or indicating something, but if I infer

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING something to my reader, I see it as actually drawing a concrete conclusion, which seems dangerous if not conveyed precisely, it seems very concrete in my mind. Therefore, I want to be sure I am correct; otherwise I will need to leave the issue open ended for the reader to draw his or her own conclusion. Overall, I know I have weaknesses, we all do. My weakness in the reasoning process is evident to me but I can also show growth. The growth is seen in the quality of work over the three assignments. I have worked very hard, but I know a lot of my weakness comes from lack

of formal education and being forced to, not only think, but also think about how to think, how to reason, and how to come to conclusions when conclusions seem difficult. As I take more classes, understand more nursing theory, and not only learn more about thinking, but understanding how to improve my understanding, I will get stronger, and quicker at seeing the issues, and being able to sort out all the critical elements to examine and offer resolution. Summary In summary, I feel that my grade for the metacognitive journals in this class deserves a B. I learned a lot since the beginning of the semester, doing a metacognitive journal for a final in this class would most likely result in me asking for a higher grade. Though it still takes me a great amount of time, my understanding and appreciation of the skills required to critically think, reason and analyze problems, issues, and questions at hand has so incredibly increased, that I have found an excitement within myself, and a new outlook on my future as a student and human being. I have proven to myself over and over again during the last nine years, that if something I am doing seems difficult, then its worth it and there is something very valuable to learn. I want to be a prime mover and shaker in this world. I want to make difference and I am convinced that

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

the way I think, perceive and communicate will accomplish that goal. I will continue to improve and use all the resources available to me to hone my skills.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING References

10

Paul, R & Elder, L. (2002). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your professional and personal life. New Jersey: FT Press.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Appendix A Metacognitive Journal 1- no revision for comparison 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit Purpose The purpose is to explore 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and address the question whether it is a normal temperature, what does normal mean, and why is it normal. Merriam Webster Online dictionary defines normal as occurring natural, or conforming to a standard.

11

Question at issue or central problem Why do we accept this precise number as a normal temperature when it obviously is not normal in most people (Mackowiak, 2000)? According to Dr. Pauls discussion of precision and accuracy, 98.6 is considered a precise number, but its obviously not accurate, especially because we do not take into consideration the time of day, route taken, and fluctuation of hormone cycles (2008). Point of view 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit means a different thing to me than it does to someone who is not a nurse. Therefore, I can say my point of view is biased or skewed because of my knowledge and culture. I do not consider 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit normal because I know what things affect temperature; the persons condition establishes the normal. Information The 1868 Wunderlich study measured axillary temperatures in a set number of people and established a normal temperature, but recent studies show evidence of variations in normal temperature (Mackowiak, 2000). A larger study should be done to compare all routes of temperature measurement, oral, axillary, rectal, and core, to establish a true normal, which should be a range, to be more accurate. Personal experience as a nurse tells me, normal temperature for a person is whatever is normal to them, not what is normal as stated in a textbook. Concepts and ideas Measuring temperature axillary, oral, rectal or core will produce different numbers. Measuring enough people, in different ways may result in a different normal. The Mackowiak study is very old; the idea that we still accept a normal temperature from 1868 is intriguing, and begs the question of why do we still accept it (2000)? Assumptions One cannot assume if an adults temperature is not 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit that it is abnormal. It could be normal for them, for many reasons. Normothermia is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and it simply means an adult is not too cold or too hot also, also, we cannot assume that it means the temperature is taken orally.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

12

Implications and consequences The consequences for not understanding 98.6 degrees as a normal baseline and not an actual normal temperature could falsely lead people to believe that they are sick or abnormal. Medical doctors accept a certain degree of fever as normal body response to sickness. If we were to define another normal or baseline temperature, it could change the way patients are treated.

Inference and interpretation The conclusion is that different studies can produce different results depending on how conducted. There are many ways to establish a normal temperature. 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit may be a normal temperature for some people, but not for others.

References Mackowiak PA: Temperature regulation and the pathogenesis of fever. In Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R (eds): Principals and practice of infectious disease ed 5. Philadelphia, Churchill Livingstone, 2000, pp 604-622. Normal. (2011). In MerriamWebster online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/normal Paul, R. (2008, April 18). Standards of thought- Part 1 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNCOOUK-bMQ&feature=related

Running head: SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Appendix B Metacognitive Journal 2 Precursor to Appendix C EBPP Purpose The purpose is to explore the question of whether or not family should be permitted at the bedside during inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and the implications if the family is allowed in the room. Question at issue or central problem Families are not generally allowed in the room during CPR, this has led to conflicts and frustration in our critical care unit involving staff and family members. The question is, should family presence be accepted at the bedside during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and if so, what factors should be considered prior to and after implementation? Point of view Providers, nurses, patients and family members all have different opinions on this topic. Providers could be worried about lawsuits, while nurses are worried about family feelings and last impressions. I think it is a great idea to allow the family to witness CPR; I feel it can promote closure and resolution to a difficult situation. Information Studies have shown both negative and positive results on staff and family as a result of watching bedside resuscitation (Walker, 2007). Studies also show the outcome of the resuscitation can have a big impact on the grieving process, because family members are able to see that staff really did all they could do to save the life of their loved one (Doyle et al., 1987). Concepts and ideas Before deciding to implement, a multidisciplinary team must study the potential effects on staff and family members, and set guidelines for presence, as well as a way to measure outcomes post resuscitation. Not all family members will be appropriate to place at the bedside, and not all situations will be appropriate to be witnessed. A facilitator will need to evaluate the situation and decide, according to preset guidelines, if it is appropriate to have family present. Assumptions One cannot assume that family members will be impacted in a negative way by watching bedside resuscitation. It also cannot be assumed that all health care team members will agree with family presence at the bedside, even if the hospital deems it policy. Implications and consequences A consequence of having family members at the bedside is the inadvertent induction of psychological harm due to a grim outcome. Alternatively, if the family is excluded from the bedside and their loved one dies, they may be left with inadequate closure of the situation, or a feeling that they made a wrong choice for their loved one; this in turn could adversely affect or prolong the grieving process.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

14

Inference and interpretation In conclusion, there are many things to consider when deciding if family presence at the bedside, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, is appropriate. Providers, nurses, family members and patients must be taken into consideration. All options must be weighed, studies must be reviewed, and guidelines must be strict.

References Doyle, C. J., Post, H., Burney, R. E., Maino, J., Keefe, M., & Rhee, K. (1987). Family participation during resuscitation: an option. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 16, 673675. Walker, W. (2008). Accident and emergency staff opinion on the effects of family presence during adult resuscitation: critical review literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61, 348-362.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Appendix C Evidence Based Project Proposal Based on Metacognitive Journal 2 Article Annotation 1 Walker, W. (2008). Accident and emergency staff opinion on the effects of family presence during adult resuscitation: critical review literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61, 348-362.

15

Wendy Walker is a lecturer at the School of Health Sciences at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. This critical literature review analyzed staff opinions on the positive and negative effects of family presence during adult resuscitation. No less than 18 studies were reviewed and it was found that there was little ill effect on staff performance or increase in staff stress. Opposition in the form of legal concerns were voiced by physicians more than the nursing staff, this in fact, is an overwhelming concern and is noted to be one of the main reasons why nationwide family at the bedside protocols have not been implemented. Review of family effects reveals staff overwhelmingly believes that family presence would result in a traumatic impact to the family member, but family surveys report the opposite. Family members report that witnessing the event made the loss and grieving process easier to cope with.

Article Annotation 2 Twedell, D. (2008). Family presence during resuscitation. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 39, 530-531. Diane Twedell is a nurse administrator for education and professional development at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. This continuing education journal article discusses the positive impacts family can have on patients and staff while being at the bedside for resuscitation. No performance anxiety was noted by staff as previously feared, the families awareness about the job of healthcare workers was increased and overall, staff felt like having family members at the bedside made the patient seem more human and increased job performance. This article also discusses the importance of strict, clear guidelines for implementation and evaluation, and the barriers that can make the plan difficult. The bottom line is that implementing a plan to have family at the bedside will take careful planning, established guidelines, ongoing assessments and evaluations of all parties involved. It must be noted that communication is the key to overcoming barriers to implementation.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Article Annotation 3

16

Carter, A. & Lester, K. (2008). Family presence at the bedside. American Association of Critical Care Nurses, 28, (5), 96-97. Amy Carter and Kim Lester are staff nurses in the intensive care unit at Southern Ohio Medical Center in Portsmouth, Ohio. This article discusses the implementation, evaluation and outcomes of establishing a protocol to allow family presence at the bedside in the ICU for resuscitation. The project implementation was in phases and proved that planning; education, staff input, and a formal protocol are the keys to success. The protocol outlined the imperative need for a welltrained family facilitator, as all family members will not be appropriate to be at the bedside. The role of the facilitator is to evaluate the situation and decide if family presence is appropriate. Follow up and evaluation of outcomes and staff reactions to the program was consistent. Reasons for initial staff opposition were not discussed, but all disappeared after about one year post implementation. The one-year survey revealed staff is now 100% in agreement that family should be allowed at the bedside for resuscitation.

Purpose The purpose is to explore the question of whether or not family should be permitted at the bedside during inpatient cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and the implications if the family is allowed in the room. Question at Issue or Central Problem Families are not generally allowed in the room during CPR, this has led to conflicts and frustration in our critical care unit involving staff and family members. The question is, should family presence be accepted at the bedside during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and if so, what factors should be considered prior to and after implementation? Point of View Providers, nurses, patients and family members all have different opinions on this topic. Providers are worried about lawsuits; nurses are worried about family feelings and last impressions, whereas family members want to be included. I think it is a great idea to allow the family to witness resuscitation; I feel it can promote closure and resolution to a difficult situation; this can be substantiated by the research. Information Studies have shown the biggest reason that development of family at the bedside during resuscitation protocols have not succeeded is due to overwhelming concerns by providers of legal action against them if outcomes are poor (Walker, 2008). Studies also revealed, for success with overcoming barriers and getting staff buy in, there must be set guidelines for implementation, role delineations, and a clear process for evaluation and follow-up (Twedell, 2008). Overall, positive outcomes and benefits for staff and family are proven if the education and outcome evaluations are thorough (Carter & Lester, 2008).

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

17

Concepts and Ideas Before deciding to implement, a multidisciplinary team must study the potential effects on staff and family members, and set guidelines for presence, as well as a way to measure outcomes post resuscitation. Not all family members will be appropriate to place at the bedside, and not all situations will be appropriate to be witnessed. A facilitator will need to evaluate the situation and decide, according to preset guidelines, if it is appropriate to have family present. Assumptions One cannot assume that family members will be impacted in a negative way by watching bedside resuscitation. It also cannot be assumed that all health care team members will agree with family presence at the bedside, even if the hospital deems it policy. Last, it cannot be assumed that family presence will hinder staff performance. Implications and Consequences A consequence of having family members at the bedside is the inadvertent induction of psychological harm due to a grim outcome. Alternatively, if the family is excluded from the bedside and their loved one dies, they may be left with inadequate closure of the situation, or a feeling that they made a wrong choice for their loved one; this in turn could adversely affect or prolong the grieving process. Inference and Interpretation In conclusion, there are many things to consider when deciding if family presence at the bedside, during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is appropriate. If a policy is implemented correctly, guidelines are strict, an extremely well trained family facilitator is involved, and outcomes are evaluated, it is feasible to have family at the bedside without repercussion or negative impact to family or staff.

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING Appendix D


CHECKLIST FOR SUBMITTING PAPERS CHECK DATE, TIME, & INITIAL

18

PROOFREAD FOR: APA ISSUES 1. Page Numbers: Did you number your pages using the automatic functions of your Word program? [p. 230 and example on p. 40)] 2. Running head: Does the Running head: have a small h? Is it on every page? Is it less than 50 spaces total? Is the title of the Running head in all caps? Is it 1/2 from the top of your title page? (Should be a few words from the title of your paper). [p. 229 and example on p. 40] 3. Abstract: Make sure your abstract begins on a new page. Is there a label of Abstract and it is centered at the top of the page? Is it a single paragraph? Is the paragraph flush with the margin without an indentation? Is your abstract a summary of your entire paper? Remember it is not an introduction to your paper. Someone should be able to read the abstract and know what to find in your paper. [p. 25 and example on p. 41] 4. Introduction: Did you repeat the title of your paper on your first page of content? Do not use Introduction as a heading following the title. The first paragraph clearly implies the introduction and no heading is needed. [p. 27 and example on p. 42] 5. Margins: Did you leave 1 on all sides? [p. 229] 6. Double-spacing: Did you double-space throughout? No triple or extra spaces between sections or paragraphs except in special circumstances. This includes the reference page. [p. 229 and example on p. 40-59] 7. Line Length and Alignment: Did you use the flush-left style, and leave the right margin uneven, or ragged? [p. 229] 8. Paragraphs and Indentation: Did you indent the first line of every paragraph? See P. 229 for exceptions. 9. Spacing After Punctuation Marks: Did you space once at the end of separate parts of a reference and initials in a persons name? Do not space after periods in abbreviations. Space twice after punctuation marks at the end of a sentence. [p. 87-88] 10. Typeface: Did you use Times Roman 12-point font? [p. 228] 11. Abbreviation: Did you explain each abbreviation the first time you used it? [p. 106111] 12. Plagiarism: Cite all sources! If you say something that is not your original idea, it must be cited. You may be citing many timesthis is what you are supposed to be doing! [p. 170] 13. Direct Quote: A direct quote is exact words taken from another. An example with citation would look like this: The variables that impact the etiology and the human response to various disease states will be explored (Bell-Scriber, 2007, p. 1). Please note where the quotation marks are placed, where the final period is placed, no first name of author, and inclusion of page number, etc. Do all direct quotes look like this? [p. 170-172] 14. Quotes Over 40 Words: Did you make block quotes out of any direct quotes that are 40 words or longer? [p. 170-172] 15. Paraphrase: A paraphrase citation would look like this: Patients respond to illnesses in various ways depending on a number of factors that will be

TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11

TP 4-25-11

TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11

TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

19

TP 4-25-11 X X X TP 4-25-11

explored (Bell-Scriber, 2007). It may also look like this: Bell-Scriber (2007) found that [p. 171 and multiple examples in text on p. 40-59] For multiple references within the same paragraph see page 174. 16. Headings: Did you check your headings for proper levels? [p. 62-63]. 17. General Guidelines for References: A. Did you start the References on a new page? [p. 37] B. Did you cut and paste references on your reference page? If so, check to make sure they are in correct APA format. Often they are not and must be adapted. Make sure all fonts are the same. C. Is your reference list double spaced with hanging indents? [p. 37] PROOFREAD FOR GRAMMAR, SPELLING, PUNCTUATION, & STRUCTURE 18. Did you follow the assignment rubric? Did you make headings that address each major section? (Required to point out where you addressed each section.) 19. Watch for run-on or long, cumbersome sentences. Read it out loud without pausing unless punctuation is present. If you become breathless or it doesnt make sense, you need to rephrase or break the sentence into 2 or more smaller sentences. Did you do this? 20. Wordiness: check for the words that, and the. If not necessary, did you omit? 21. Conversational tone: Dont write as if you are talking to someone in a casual way. For example, Well so I couldnt believe nurses did such things! or I was in total shock over that. Did you stay in a formal/professional tone? 22. Avoid contractions. i.e. dont, cant, wont, etc. Did you spell these out? 23. Did you check to make sure there are no hyphens and broken words in the right margin? 24. Do not use etc. or "i.e." in formal writing unless in parenthesis. Did you check for improper use of etc. & i.e.? 25. Stay in subject agreement. When referring to 1 nurse, dont refer to the nurse as they or them. Also, in referring to a human, dont refer to the person as that, but rather who. For example: The nurse that gave the injection. Should be The nurse who gave the injection Did you check for subject agreement? 26. Dont refer to us, we, our, within the paperthis is not about you and me. Be clear in identifying. For example dont say Our profession uses empirical data to support . . Instead say The nursing profession uses empirical data.. 27. Did you check your sentences to make sure you did not end them with a preposition? For example, I witnessed activities that I was not happy with. Instead, I witnessed activities with which I was not happy. 28. Did you run a Spellcheck? Did you proofread in addition to running the Spellcheck? 29. Did you have other people read your paper? Did they find any areas confusing? 30. Did you include a summary or conclusion heading and section to wrap up your paper? 31. Does your paper have sentence fragments? Do you have complete sentences? 32. Did you check apostrophes for correct possessive use. Dont use apostrophes unless it is showing possession and then be sure it is in the correct location. The exception is with the word it. Its = it is. Its is possessive.

TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11

TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11 x x TP 4-25-11 TP 4-25-11

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF REASONING

20

ASSESSMENT OF REASONING (SAR) ASSESSMENT CRITERIA


Introduction statement includes grade for Reasoning Performance this semester STUDENT declaration of SELF-ASSESSMENT is attached Identifies Specific Areas of Strength Supports Strengths with Samples of Writing Analyzes Areas of Strength Identifies Specific Areas of Weakness Supports Areas of Weakness with Samples of Writing Analyzes Areas of Weakness Demonstrates Attention to the Intellectual Standards as a mechanism to assess ones own thinking Demonstrates Personal Insight re: How to Improve Own Thinking Abilities (i.e. self-correcting) Presents ideas & Arguments Clearly & Precisely Supporting Evidence Presented is Accurate and Relevant Analyzes Work with Adequate Breadth & Depth Analysis Reflects Logical Development and Personal Significance APA: Title page, Running Head APA: Abstract, Margins APA: Headers with page numbers APA: Use of headings Sentence Structure & Paragraphing Grammatical: Spelling, Typing, Grammar, Neatness

POINTS POSSIBLE
4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

POINTS EARNED 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
100

TOTAL POINTS

100