Interview a fellow peer in your class who works in a different health discipline than you. Begin your interview with the following questions:What is your role as a health care team member?How do you define professionalism and how does professional responsibility influence your work?Do you consider leaders in your organization stewards of health care? Why or Why not?Is it important to you that leaders exercise professional advocacy and authenticity as well as power and influence when working with colleagues? Why or why not?In 500-750 words, summarize your interview and share your impressions of your peer’s responses.Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.This assignment uses a grading rubric. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment.You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.
peer1rubric.xlsx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Course Code
AMP-450V
Class Code
AMP-450V-O500
Criteria
Content
Percentage
80.0%
Detailed Summary of Peer Interview
80.0%
Organization and Effectiveness
15.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose
5.0%
Paragraph Development and Transitions
5.0%
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling,
punctuation, grammar, language use)
5.0%
Format
5.0%
Paper Format (Use of appropriate style for the
major and assignment)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
Professional Identity and Stewardship – Part I: Peer Interview
Unsatisfactory
0-71% (0.00%)
Summary of peer interview is not provided or is incomplete.
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing
claim.
Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and
coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs
are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and
scope. Organization is disjointed.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice
and/or sentence construction are used.
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format
is rarely followed correctly.
Total Points
50.0
Less Than Satisfactory
72-75% (75.00%)
Summary of peer review is unclear or inconsistent with
professionalism and the role of stewardship.
Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or
vague; purpose is not clear.
Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression
of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some
degree of organization is evident.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the
reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence
structure, and/or word choice are present.
Template is used, but some elements are missing or
mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent.
Satisfactory
76-79% (79.00%)
Summary of peer review is clear, but one of the four
components of the interview is lacking.
Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to
purpose.
Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show
some inconsistency in organization and/or in their
relationships to each other.
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not
overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure
and audience-appropriate language are used.
Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some
minor errors may be present.
Good
80-89% (89.00%)
Summary of peer review is provided with detailed
explanation of each component of professionalism,
stewardship, advocacy, and authenticity.
Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the
development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of
the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.
A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is
apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and
cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are
appropriate to purpose.
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may
be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective
figures of speech are used.
Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in
formatting style.
Excellent
90-100% (100.00%)
Comprehensive summary of peer review is provided with
detailed explanations of each component of professional
identity and a thoughtful discussion of the interviewer’s
perceptions of the interview experience.
Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive; contained
within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and
transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other.
Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader.
Paragraph structure is seamless.
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic
English.
All format elements are correct.
Comments
Points Earned

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Are you having trouble with the above assignment or one similar?

To date, 239 students have ordered this same assignment from us and received 100% original work. We can do the same for you!

We offers 100% original papers that are written from scratch.We also have a team of editors who check each paper for plagiarism before it is sent to you.

Click this “order now” button to see free Cost Breakdown!