Midwestern State Personal Philosophy of Interprofessional Collaboration Essay
Description
ASSIGNMENT (200 points):
Personal Philosophy of Interprofessional Collaboration
The formation and declaration of a personal philosophy of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) creates the underpinnings of professional character. In moments when stress is high or tensions between team members are palpable, having an expressed philosophy can serve as a guidepost to you and even to others. In the last few weeks of the course, take time to compile and synthesize your work from previous projects in this class in order to create a professional, cohesive personal philosophy statement. This will go into your professional portfolio.
TONE:
Professional/Scholarly.
Person Pronouns (I, me) are permitted as this is a personal philosophy.
REFERENCES:
Required
ORGANIZATION:
Please follow the below outline to help structure your writing.
I. Title page: Personal Philosophy of Interprofessional Collaboration
II. Introduction: no heading needed
III. Test Results: first level heading
A. Enneagram (second level heading)
B. Myers-Briggs (second level heading)
C. Emotional Intelligence (second level heading)
D. Implicit Bias (second level heading) (Hint: From Diversity and Bias Module)
E. Leadership overview (second level heading)
IV. Summary (first level heading- summarize your personal results and how they may influence interprofessional collaboration)
V. References
VI. Appendix with SEM model with short written key (Hint: from Group Theory Module)
ASSIGNMENT TYPE:
Individual (no peer reviews)
DELIVERABLE:
6-8 page paper including title and references following APA 7th edition guidelines and the above organizational outline.
RUBRIC:
See attached
Rubric
Writing Assignment_BTreado
Writing Assignment_BTreado
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDevelopment
60.0 pts
Full Marks
Thesis statement/research question/topic is thoroughly supported by evidence, observations, and examples. Demonstrates engagement with scholarly content and defense of claims.
36.0 pts
Half Marks
Thesis statement/research question/topic is supported by some evidence, observations, and examples. Attempt at claim defense(s) is evident. Poor engagement with scholarly content.
0.0 pts
No Marks
Thesis statement/research question/topic is absent, or illogical, or it is not supported by evidence, observations, and examples. No engagement with scholarly content.
60.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical Thinking
60.0 pts
Full Marks
Integrates ample scholarly evidence. Includes evidence of reflection. Develops scholarly, evidence-based conclusions. Includes multiple perspectives when appropriate. Identifies ambiguities in data if present.
36.0 pts
Half Marks
Brief inclusion of scholarly evidence. Conclusion(s) is weak, overstated, or drawn from little evidence. Does not consider multiple perspectives when appropriate. Does not address ambiguities if present.
0.0 pts
No Marks
Does not include scholarly evidence. Fails to develop a conclusion or conclusion is subjective, too simple, or too absolute.
60.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization
40.0 pts
Full Marks
Document design facilitates reader comprehension. Transitions are clear rhetorically with respect to sections and subsections.
24.0 pts
Half Marks
Document design shows attempt at organization but sometimes difficult to follow. Facilitates reader comprehension but has some lapses.
0.0 pts
No Marks
Document design is difficult to follow. Little effort to guide reader rhetorically.
40.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar and Style
20.0 pts
Full Marks
Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct. Syntax varies. Tone is scholarly. Vocabulary is fluent and advanced.
12.0 pts
Half Marks
Some grammar, spelling, punctuation errors throughout. Incorrect syntax or word choice distracts from rhetoric or organization. Lapse in voice or tone. Vocabulary is standard and/or lacks complete fluency.
0.0 pts
No Marks
Prominent grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. Syntax or word choice often distracts from rhetoric or organization. Repeated fluctuation in voice or tone. Vocabulary is poor, non-fluent. Any unprofessional or derogatory components.
20.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA
20.0 pts
Full Marks
Follows APA Guidelines carefully. Meets length requirements. Does not exceed length requirements.
12.0 pts
Half Marks
Follows most APA guidelines. Meets length requirements. Does not exceed length requirements.
0.0 pts
No Marks
Little or no attempt to follow APA guidelines. Does not meet length requirements OR EXCEEDS LENGTH REQUIREMENTS
20.0 pts
Total Points: 200.0
PreviousNext
Place your order now for a similar assignment, and have writers from our team of experts write it for you, guaranteeing you an A+