Reflecting on your own experiences in health and social care and utilizing supporting literature write a essay to demonstrate knowledge of professional: Nursing Recognition of Prior Learning Essay, SHU, UK

University Sheffield Hallam University (SHU)
Subject Nursing Recognition of Prior Learning

Part 1 Reflection on theoretical learning

  • Reflecting on your own experiences in health and social care and utilizing supporting literature, write a 1200-word essay to demonstrate knowledge of professional, legal, and ethical requirements within nursing.
  • Define the concept of professionalism and how this is demonstrated within nursing
  • Discuss the role of the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the NMC Code, exploring how this relates to being professional
  • Demonstrate understanding of legal and ethical principles and their application in nursing practice, referencing relevant legislation
  • A Range of relevant literature sources is utilized and effectively applied using the Harvard referencing system

Assessment criteria

(b) Utilising supporting literature, write a 1200-word essay to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the factors that may impact an individual’s health and relate these to health promotion activities.

  • Define what is meant by health
  • Discuss the key factors that could impact a person’s health
  • Explore what health promotion strategies would be most effective to address identified factors
  • A range of relevant literature sources is utilized and effectively applied using the Harvard referencing system 4 ST/PH March 2020

Assessment criteria (Pass/Fail)

Part 2 Reflection on practice learning Writes a 1200-word reflective account of how you have provided evidence-based care related to an aspect of infection control using literature to support your work.

  • Define evidence
  • Identify the aspect of infection control • Identify the sources of evidence • Summarise the evidence
  • A range of relevant literature sources is utilized and effectively applied using the Harvard referencing system

Assessment criteria 

Assessment Marking Criteria: Level 6 Award Percentage Description Distinction/ 1 st class 90 – 100% An exceptional answer, which is excellent in every respect, showing deep knowledge and comprehensive understanding of the subject and related theories and concepts. An excellent ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate in the context of the question. Demonstrates insight, creativity, and independent critical thinking. Compelling arguments developed demonstrating the originality of thought. A very extensive range of relevant sources was used, accurately following the Harvard referencing system, and applied in an insightful way. Excellent presentation, articulate, and fluently written. 80 – 89% An outstanding answer, which is excellent in almost all respects and clearly focussed on the question. Demonstrates extensive knowledge and understanding of the subject, and related theories and concepts. Clear evidence of excellent analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, drawing together ideas and perspectives. Demonstrates insight, critical thinking, and some originality. Clear and thoughtful arguments developed. Evidence of extensive relevant reading and study beyond the course content and thorough discussion of sources, accurately following the Harvard referencing system. Very well written, logically structured, and excellently presented. 70 – 79% An excellent answer in most respects, showing evidence of extensive knowledge and understanding of the subject and related theories and concepts in the context of the question. Very good analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Demonstrates insight, critical thinking, and, possibly, originality. Well-structured arguments.

Evidence of substantial relevant reading and study beyond the course content accurately following the Harvard referencing system. Very well written, logically structured and well presented. 6 ST/PH March 2020 Award Percentage Description Merit/ 2 nd class 2:1 60 – 69% A very good answer showing evidence of wide knowledge and understanding of the subject and related theories and concepts in the context of the question. Clear evidence of relevant outside reading and study, correctly following the Harvard referencing system. Good evidence of critical analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Logical arguments developed with ability to draw a balanced judgement, but lacks some of the qualities required for a distinction. May show some insight but lack originality. Well written, logically structured and well presented for the most part. 2:2 50 – 59% A good answer showing sound knowledge and understanding of the subject and related theories and concepts in the context of the question. Based predominantly on the course content, but with clear evidence of relevant outside reading and study, appropriately following the Harvard referencing system. Sound evidence of developing critical analysis and evaluation, but may display weaknesses in ability to synthesise. Balanced arguments covering the majority of salient points, but not in sufficient depth. Mostly accurate, but may contain occasional errors.

Competently written, logically structured and wellpresented but may contain minor flaws. Pass/ 3 rd class 40 – 49% A satisfactory answer showing adequate knowledge and understanding of the subject and related theories and concepts. Meets the assessment outcomes at the threshold level. Evidence of some relevant outside reading, following the Harvard referencing system, but limited in criticality, with occasional tendency to be descriptive. Some errors and omissions may be evident. Basic structure and development evident, but may show weaknesses in clarity, fluency and organisation of material, but mainly focussed on the question. 7 ST/PH March 2020 Award Percentage Description Fail 30 – 39% A marginal fail showing some knowledge and understanding of the subject, but superficial in depth. Some or all assessment outcomes are not met. Likely to contain errors of understanding and fact. Limited reference to outside reading and lacking analysis and criticality. Unsubstantiated arguments descriptive in nature and some key issues missed.

Lacking focus on the question in places. May be poorly expressed, loosely structured, short or incomplete. Work may contain spelling and/or grammatical errors. Unlikely to comply with Harvard referencing. 20 – 29% A poor fail demonstrating little knowledge and understanding of the subject, which misinterprets the question. Assessment outcomes are not met. Little reference to outside reading and largely descriptive. Poorly constructed, flawed with errors and misunderstandings. Marginal relevance to the question. Key issues missed. Inadequate presentation and disjointed structure. Unlikely to comply with Harvard referencing. 1 – 19% An outright fail, which misinterprets the question or bears no relevance to the question. Assessment outcomes not met. Minimal knowledge displayed with fundamental errors and misunderstandings. Very poor standard of presentation with very poor, to no structure evident. Unlikely to comply with Harvard referencing. 0 A fail due to a breach in the academic protocol: Non-submission, including late submission without relevant permission; following academic malpractice; major breach of confidentiality; following evidence of unsafe/harmful or discriminatory practice.

Do You Need Assignment of This Question

Answer