220179206 D G Tharindu (HLTH300) Reflection.pdf
by Tharindu Dushyantha Dewalegama Gamacharige
Submission date: 09-Aug-2018 08:23PM (UTC+1000)Submission ID: 988688599File name:140127_Tharindu_Dushyantha_Dewalegama_Gamacharige_220179206_D_G_Tharindu__HLTH_300__Ref lection_1351868_1494197736.pdfWord count: 1811Character count: 10166
Good int ro
1
2
3
5
6
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 19
20
18%SIMILARITY INDEX
13%INTERNET SOURCES
6%PUBLICATIONS
17%STUDENT PAPERS
1 3%
2 3%
3 2%
4 2%
5 2%
6 2%
7 1%
8 1%
9 1%
10 1%
220179206 D G Tharindu (HLTH 300) Reflection.pdfORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
onlinelibrary.wiley.comInternet Source
Submitted to Nelson Marlborough Institute ofTechnologyStudent Paper
Submitted to University of New EnglandStudent Paper
Julie Aultman, Kristin R Baughman, RuthLudwick. "A broader understanding of caremanagers’ attitudes of advance care planning:A concurrent nested design", Journal of ClinicalNursing, 2018Publicat ion
www.healio.comInternet Source
Submitted to University Of TasmaniaStudent Paper
Submitted to McMaster UniversityStudent Paper
Submitted to EDMCStudent Paper
Submitted to University of HertfordshireStudent Paper
Submitted to Whitireia Community PolytechnicStudent Paper
Exclude quotes Of f
Exclude bibliography Of f
Exclude matches Of f
QM
FINAL GRADE
17/30
220179206 D G Tharindu (HLTH 300) Reflection.pdfGRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
InstructorHi Tharindu, thank you f or your assignment.Your introduction is good and you have used theGibbs model appropriately, well done. Your description is on the right track, although itwould be good f or you to be more specif ic in termsof describing an example of communication (f orinstance pick one of the patients you interviewedand ref lect on this, or the debrief with yoursupervisor). It seems you are f ocusing on yourstudent nursing practice rather than acommunication event. Whilst your f eelings section is of f topic too, youhave provided a really good ref lection on yourf eelings relating to your practice. It would be betterto have f ocused your discussion on a specif icepisode of communication. Unf ortunately, because you are of f topic with yourf ocus, the discussion in your evaluation section hasmissed the mark. Here you needed to talk about thegood and bad of the situation, specif ically relating tocommunication and ref lect on what might havecontributed to the outcome (communication style,environment, language etc). This then f lows into theanalysis section where you needed to explore whathelped and what hindered communication in theevent, were there contributing f actors thatinf luenced the outcome and how is this ref lected inthe literature on communication. You also couldtouch on specif ic communication models, againsupporting the discussion with literature. You have identif ied some good learnings in yourconclusion and you have some good points in youraction plan, although the action plan should bef ocused on making some specif ic recommendationsf or next t ime and using literature to support these. Ref erencing is good and a good range. Nadine
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
Good introGood introduction
Comment 1I would add the ref erence in f or this here.
Comment 2debrief ed?
Comment 3realised
PAGE 3
Strikethrough.
PAGE 4
Comment 5'the' missing
Comment 6A good point and good use of ref erence
Strikethrough.
Comment 8why?
Strikethrough.
PAGE 5
Strikethrough.
Comment 11recognising
Comment 12I'm unclear what you mean here?
Comment 13prof essionals
Comment 14You need to re- list the ref erence at the end of the paragraph it relates to (Newell & Jordan2015).
Comment 15such as?
PAGE 6
Comment 16can you give some examples?
Comment 17emphasise
Comment 18realise
Comment 19A f ew good learnings
PAGE 7
Comment 20How will you learn this?
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
RUBRIC: HLTH300_T22018_REFLECTION
CRITERIA 1 (5%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 2 (5%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
57 / 100
55 / 100
The ref lection is about a topic related to health prof essional communication.
A comprehensive, concise and detailed ref lection on a relevant / appropriate topic isevident.
A comprehensive, concise and detailed ref lection on a relevant / appropriate topic isevident.
A comprehensive, concise and detailed ref lection on a relevant / appropriate topic isevident.
A detailed ref lection on a relevant is evident.
A detailed ref lection on a relevant is evident.
A ref lection is evident, however it is brief and lacks clarity, but is still linked to arelevant topics.
A ref lection is evident, however it is brief and lacks clarity, but is still linked to arelevant topics.
A partially inappropriate or partially relevant ref lection is evident.
A partially inappropriate or partially relevant ref lection is evident.
A partially inappropriate or partially relevant ref lection is evident.
No ref lection is of f ered or a completely inappropriate and irrelevant ref lection isevident.
No ref lection is of f ered or a completely inappropriate and irrelevant ref lection isevident.
No ref lection is of f ered or a completely inappropriate and irrelevant ref lection isevident.
60 / 100
An appropriate model of ref lection is used in support of this aspect of the assignment Gibbs (1988) isrecommended, but others can be used if justif ied.
An appropriate model of ref lection is evident and all parts of it are used correctly.
An appropriate model of ref lection is evident and all parts of it are used correctly.
An appropriate model of ref lection is evident and all parts of it are used correctly.
An appropriate model of ref lection is evident, with all parts used well.
An appropriate model of ref lection is evident, with all parts used well.
A model of ref lection is evident. Some parts are not elaborated upon well or lackdetail.
A model of ref lection is evident. Some parts are not elaborated upon well or lackdetail.
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 3 (5%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 4 (20%)
HD(100)
Unclear if a model of ref lection is being used or a model is evident but not usedcorrectly.
Unclear if a model of ref lection is being used or a model is evident but not usedcorrectly.
Unclear if a model of ref lection is being used or a model is evident but not usedcorrectly.
No model of ref lection is of f ered and Gibbs (1988) is not used or no justif ication isof f ered f or another ref lection model’s use.
No model of ref lection is of f ered and Gibbs (1988) is not used or no justif ication isof f ered f or another ref lection model’s use.
No model of ref lection is of f ered and Gibbs (1988) is not used or no justif ication isof f ered f or another ref lection model’s use.
55 / 100
All parts of the model of ref lection are used appropriately.
All parts of the ref lective cycle are used. Each part is used appropriately and clearly.
All parts of the ref lective cycle are used. Each part is used appropriately and clearly.
All parts of the ref lective cycle are used. Each part is used appropriately and clearly.
All parts of the ref lective cycle are used. Each part is used well, but greater detailcould be of f ered in key sections.
All parts of the ref lective cycle are used. Each part is used well, but greater detailcould be of f ered in key sections.
Most parts of the ref lective cycle are used. Each part of f ered is used, but greaterdetail could be of f ered in most sections.
Most parts of the ref lective cycle are used. Each part of f ered is used, but greaterdetail could be of f ered in most sections.
Key parts of the ref lective cycle are used, but some sections lack appropriate use.Each part of f ered lacks detail.
Key parts of the ref lective cycle are used, but some sections lack appropriate use.Each part of f ered lacks detail.
Key parts of the ref lective cycle are used, but some sections lack appropriate use.Each part of f ered lacks detail.
No model of ref lection is used. Substantial parts of the ref lection cycle are missing ornot used correctly at all.
No model of ref lection is used. Substantial parts of the ref lection cycle are missing ornot used correctly at all.
No model of ref lection is used. Substantial parts of the ref lection cycle are missing ornot used correctly at all.
50 / 100
Crit ical analysis is evident throughout the ref lection.
Crit ical analysis is evident throughout the ref lection with a detailed analysis of thewriter’s reaction to the topic under consideration. Clearly demonstrates crit icalthinking processes and includes evidence of intellectual engagement with the keytheme(s) of the ref lection.
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 5 (10%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
Critical analysis is evident throughout the ref lection with a detailed analysis of thewriter’s reaction to the topic under consideration. Clearly demonstrates crit icalthinking processes and includes evidence of intellectual engagement with the keytheme(s) of the ref lection.
Crit ical analysis is evident throughout the ref lection with a detailed analysis of thewriter’s reaction to the topic under consideration. Clearly demonstrates crit icalthinking processes and includes evidence of intellectual engagement with the keytheme(s) of the ref lection.
Crit ical analysis is of f ered in the key parts of the ref lection that addresses thewriter’s reaction to the topic. Demonstrates some crit ical thinking and includesevidence of intellectual engagement with the key aspects of the ref lection.
Crit ical analysis is of f ered in the key parts of the ref lection that addresses thewriter’s reaction to the topic. Demonstrates some crit ical thinking and includesevidence of intellectual engagement with the key aspects of the ref lection.
A brief degree of crit ical analysis is of f ered of the writer’s reaction to the topic.Of f ers minimal crit ical thinking and evidence of intellectual engagement within theref lection.
A brief degree of crit ical analysis is of f ered of the writer’s reaction to the topic.Of f ers minimal crit ical thinking and evidence of intellectual engagement within theref lection.
Scant analysis is of f ered of the writer’s reaction to the topic. Of f ers scant crit icalthinking or evidence of intellectual engagement within the ref lection.
Scant analysis is of f ered of the writer’s reaction to the topic. Of f ers scant crit icalthinking or evidence of intellectual engagement within the ref lection.
Scant analysis is of f ered of the writer’s reaction to the topic. Of f ers scant crit icalthinking or evidence of intellectual engagement within the ref lection.
No crit ical thinking or analysis is of f ered. Limited or no engagement with the topic.
No crit ical thinking or analysis is of f ered. Limited or no engagement with the topic.
No crit ical thinking or analysis is of f ered. Limited or no engagement with the topic.
55 / 100
Description of the event or issue is of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriate manner.
The ref lection of f ers a prof essional clear, brief , detailed, unambiguous descriptionof the writer’s reaction to the topic and outline of the topic.
The ref lection of f ers a prof essional clear, brief , detailed, unambiguous descriptionof the writer’s reaction to the topic and outline of the topic.
The ref lection of f ers a prof essional clear, brief , detailed, unambiguous descriptionof the writer’s reaction to the topic and outline of the topic.
The ref lection of f ers a clear, brief , description of the writer’s reaction to the topicand an outline of the topic.
The ref lection of f ers a clear, brief , description of the writer’s reaction to the topicand an outline of the topic.
The ref lection of f ers a description of the writer’s reaction to the topic, but it lacksclarity or may be too long.
The ref lection of f ers a description of the writer’s reaction to the topic, but it lacks
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 6 (10%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 7 (10%)
HD
clarity or may be too long.
A scant or too long a description of the writer’s reaction to the topic is of f ered with aminimal description of the issue addressed.
A scant or too long a description of the writer’s reaction to the topic is of f ered with aminimal description of the issue addressed.
A scant or too long a description of the writer’s reaction to the topic is of f ered with aminimal description of the issue addressed.
No description is of f ered.
No description is of f ered.
No description is of f ered.
65 / 100
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriate manner.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in prof essional language are clearand detailed and of f ered in an appropriate manner.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in prof essional language are clearand detailed and of f ered in an appropriate manner.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in prof essional language are clearand detailed and of f ered in an appropriate manner.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in prof essional language and in anappropriate manner.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in prof essional language and in anappropriate manner.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered with prof essional language and in arelevant way.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered with prof essional language and in arelevant way.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in clear language and in anappropriate manner. Although, the sections may be too brief or too long.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in clear language and in anappropriate manner. Although, the sections may be too brief or too long.
The f eelings and evaluation sections are of f ered in clear language and in anappropriate manner. Although, the sections may be too brief or too long.
No evaluation or f eelings sections are of f ered.
No evaluation or f eelings sections are of f ered.
No evaluation or f eelings sections are of f ered.
55 / 100
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriatemanner.
The action plan and conclusion sections are detailed and clearly of f ered in
(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 8 (15%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
prof essional language and in an appropriate manner.
The action plan and conclusion sections are detailed and clearly of f ered inprof essional language and in an appropriate manner.
The action plan and conclusion sections are detailed and clearly of f ered inprof essional language and in an appropriate manner.
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and ina reasonable way.
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and ina reasonable way.
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and inan appropriate manner, but may lack clarity or attention to f uture plans or a clearconclusion.
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and inan appropriate manner, but may lack clarity or attention to f uture plans or a clearconclusion.
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and inan appropriate manner, but may lack clarity or attention to f uture plans or a clearconclusion.
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and inan appropriate manner, but may lack clarity or attention to f uture plans or a clearconclusion.
The action plan and conclusion sections are of f ered in prof essional language and inan appropriate manner, but may lack clarity or attention to f uture plans or a clearconclusion.
No action plans or conclusions are of f ered.
No action plans or conclusions are of f ered.
No action plans or conclusions are of f ered.
50 / 100
The analysis section is of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriate manner, with relevantsupporting ref erences.
The analysis section is of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriatemanner, with relevant supporting ref erences.
The analysis section is of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriatemanner, with relevant supporting ref erences.
The analysis section is of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriatemanner, with relevant supporting ref erences.
The analysis section is of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriatemanner, with key relevant supporting ref erences.
The analysis section is of f ered in prof essional language and in an appropriatemanner, with key relevant supporting ref erences.
The analysis section is of f ered in clear language and in an appropriate manner, withsome relevant supporting ref erences.
The analysis section is of f ered in clear language and in an appropriate manner, withsome relevant supporting ref erences.
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 9 (10%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N
The analysis section is of f ered but the language is not constantly clear language andappropriate. Ref erences are scant or inappropriate.
The analysis section is of f ered but the language is not constantly clear language andappropriate. Ref erences are scant or inappropriate.
The analysis section is of f ered but the language is not constantly clear language andappropriate. Ref erences are scant or inappropriate.
The analysis section is of f ered but lacks appropriate language and is constantly poorand inappropriate. Ref erences are missing.
The analysis section is of f ered but lacks appropriate language and is constantly poorand inappropriate. Ref erences are missing.
The analysis section is of f ered but lacks appropriate language and is constantly poorand inappropriate. Ref erences are missing.
60 / 100
Structure, presentation\ngrammar and spelling.
Accurately and consistently adheres to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br/>Adhered to grammatical conventions with no errors<br /> <br />Logically / well andsuccinctly structured writ ing
Accurately and consistently adheres to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br/>Adhered to grammatical conventions with no errors<br /> <br />Logically / well andsuccinctly structured writ ing
Accurately and consistently adheres to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br/>Adhered to grammatical conventions with no errors<br /> <br />Logically / well andsuccinctly structured writ ing
Mostly accurate and consistent adherence to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /><br />Adhered to grammatical conventions with f ew errors<br /> <br />Logically andwell-structured writ ing
Mostly accurate and consistent adherence to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /><br />Adhered to grammatical conventions with f ew errors<br /> <br />Logically andwell-structured writ ing
Partial but close adherence to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Adhered togrammatical conventions, but with f requent errors <br /> <br />Mainly well- structuredwrit ing, lacking cohesion in places
Partial but close adherence to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Adhered togrammatical conventions, but with f requent errors <br /> <br />Mainly well- structuredwrit ing, lacking cohesion in places
Minimal adherence to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Minimal adherenceto grammatical conventions with multiple errors<br /> <br /> Weakly structured writ ing,f requently lacking cohesion
Minimal adherence to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Minimal adherenceto grammatical conventions with multiple errors<br /> <br /> Weakly structured writ ing,f requently lacking cohesion
Minimal adherence to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Minimal adherenceto grammatical conventions with multiple errors<br /> <br /> Weakly structured writ ing,f requently lacking cohesion
Litt le or no attempt to adhere to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Multiplegrammatical errors with minimal attention to writ ing / spelling conventions thatsignif icantly distract the reader f rom the content<br /> <br />Poorly structured writ ing,lacking cohesion and f rustrating to read
Litt le or no attempt to adhere to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Multiple
(40)
N(35)
CRITERIA 10 (10%)
HD(100)
HD(95)
HD(85)
D(80)
D(75)
C(70)
C(65)
P(60)
P(55)
P(50)
N(45)
N
grammatical errors with minimal attention to writ ing / spelling conventions thatsignif icantly distract the reader f rom the content<br /> <br />Poorly structured writ ing,lacking cohesion and f rustrating to read
Litt le or no attempt to adhere to post f ormat writ ing conventions<br /> <br />Multiplegrammatical errors with minimal attention to writ ing / spelling conventions thatsignif icantly distract the reader f rom the content<br /> <br />Poorly structured writ ing,lacking cohesion and f rustrating to read
75 / 100
APA (6th Edition) and the application of evidence
Accurately and consistently adheres to APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions f orthe in text area<br /> <br />Accurately and consistently adheres to APA ref erencingconventions f or the end text area<br /> <br />Explicit ly acknowledges all sourcesused throughout the assignment
Accurately and consistently adheres to APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions f orthe in text area<br /> <br />Accurately and consistently adheres to APA ref erencingconventions f or the end text area<br /> <br />Explicit ly acknowledges all sourcesused throughout the assignment
Accurately and consistently adheres to APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions f orthe in text area<br /> <br />Accurately and consistently adheres to APA ref erencingconventions f or the end text area<br /> <br />Explicit ly acknowledges all sourcesused throughout the assignment
Mostly of f ers accurate and consistent APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions f orthe in text area<br /> <br />Mostly of f ers accurate and consistent APA ref erencingconventions f or the end text area<br /> <br />Principally acknowledges sources usedthroughout the assignment
Mostly of f ers accurate and consistent APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions f orthe in text area<br /> <br />Mostly of f ers accurate and consistent APA ref erencingconventions f or the end text area<br /> <br />Principally acknowledges sources usedthroughout the assignment
A number of inaccurate and inconsistent APA (6th Edition) ref erences in the in textarea<br /> <br />A number of inaccurate and inconsistent APA ref erences in the endtext area<br /> <br />Mostly acknowledges sources used throughout the assignment
A number of inaccurate and inconsistent APA (6th Edition) ref erences in the in textarea<br /> <br />A number of inaccurate and inconsistent APA ref erences in the endtext area<br /> <br />Mostly acknowledges sources used throughout the assignment
Multiple inaccurate and inconsistent APA (6th Edition) ref erences in the in textarea<br /> <br />Multiple inaccurate and inconsistent APA ref erences in the end textarea<br /> <br />Minimal acknowledgment of sources used throughout theassignment
Multiple inaccurate and inconsistent APA (6th Edition) ref erences in the in textarea<br /> <br />Multiple inaccurate and inconsistent APA ref erences in the end textarea<br /> <br />Minimal acknowledgment of sources used throughout theassignment
Multiple inaccurate and inconsistent APA (6th Edition) ref erences in the in textarea<br /> <br />Multiple inaccurate and inconsistent APA ref erences in the end textarea<br /> <br />Minimal acknowledgment of sources used throughout theassignment
Did not adhere to the APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions or use APAref erencing style<br /> <br />Or<br /> <br />Made catastrophic, multiple andconsistent APA errors throughout<br /> <br />Litt le or no acknowledgment of sourcesused throughout the assignment
Did not adhere to the APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions or use APA
(40)
N(35)
ref erencing style<br /> <br />Or<br /> <br />Made catastrophic, multiple andconsistent APA errors throughout<br /> <br />Litt le or no acknowledgment of sourcesused throughout the assignment
Did not adhere to the APA (6th Edition) ref erencing conventions or use APAref erencing style<br /> <br />Or<br /> <br />Made catastrophic, multiple andconsistent APA errors throughout<br /> <br />Litt le or no acknowledgment of sourcesused throughout the assignment
