Herzing University Online Evaluate Your Peer Summary

Purpose: The purpose of the Pretest evaluation plan is to develop a plan of success on the post-test. This plan should be a complete analysis of your personal performance on the pretest. Attached is the Pretext Exam summary used as a predictor for passing the FNP certificate

ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED SOLUTION PAPERS

Directions: Create an APA formatted paper For the Prettest Evaluation plan, please detail the following in an essay format and include all of the following:

Explain the experience of taking the assessment test; how long did it take, did you have enough time, what were the questions like.
What did you learn from the experience of taking the assessment?
Evaluation of lowest areas: which were the lowest areas on your assessment. Identify the areas below the 70% score. These are the areas that are priority study areas for you.
Next, look at the domains of the test, which is your lowest, why do you think you scored as you did? What do you need to do to raise your scores?
Evaluation of the highest areas: which were the highest areas on your assessment. Identify the areas above the 70% score. These are the areas that you are strongest in. Next, look at the domains of the test, which is your highest, why do you think you scored as you did?
Develop a plan of study, using course materials.for example Maria Leik FNP certification

Use this rubric as a guide

NU 627 Unit 6 APEA Evaluation and Study Plan Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent & Concepts

10.0 pts5

Ideas and concepts are consistently clear and always well explained. Relationships between concepts and ideas are always discussed fairly and always synthesized in a logical fashion with strong, well-founded supporting arguments. All discussion and arguments are thoroughly supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable.

9.0 pts4

Ideas and concepts are clear and well explained. Relationships between concepts and ideas are discussed fairly and synthesized in a logical fashion with well-founded supporting arguments. Discussion and arguments are supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable

8.0 pts3

Ideas and concepts are reasonably well explained. Discussion and arguments are, for the most part, supported with research and/or resource materials that are pertinent, valid, and reliable relationships between concepts, and ideas are discussed. These could be further strengthened with additional research or resource materials.

7.0 pts2

Basic ideas and concepts are presented; however, they are under-developed and poorly explained. There is minimal evidence of a relationship between ideas and concepts. Discussion and arguments are not supported with additional research or research that is pertinent and valid.

6.0 pts1

Some basic ideas and concepts are started, but not developed. There is no identifiable relationship between ideas and concepts. There is little or no discussion and/or argument with supporting research.

0.0 pts0

There are no developed ideas or concepts. There is no supporting research.

10.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis

5.0 pts5

Organizes and synthesizes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

4.5 pts4

Organizes and analyzes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

4.0 pts3

Organizes evidence to reveal important patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus.

3.5 pts2

Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing important patterns, differences, or similarities.

3.0 pts1

Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

0.0 pts0

Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/ or is unrelated to focus.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Conventions

5.0 pts5

The paper exhibits a superior command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling.

4.5 pts4

The paper exhibits a strong command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impair the flow of communication.

4.0 pts3

The paper exhibits command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication.

3.5 pts2

The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication.

3.0 pts1

The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning.

0.0 pts0

The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.

5.0 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA

5.0 pts5

The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references.

4.5 pts4

The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

4.0 pts3

The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

3.5 pts2

The required APA elements are not all included. AND/OR there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references.

3.0 pts1

Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references.

0.0 pts0

There is little to no evidence of APA formatting. AND/OR there are no in-text citations AND/OR references.

5.0 pts

Total Points: 25.0