Web Assignment Criteria

Assignments

Assignment 1 - Web Site Evaluations

For this assignment you need to demonstrate your familiarity with the key concepts and practices in evaluating the quality of websites. Write from the perspective of a health care provider who is considering the quality of information available to consumers.

In this assignment you are expected to:

Assume the role of a hypothetical health consumer and identify an area of health information that this consumer would be seeking from the Internet.
Develop and implement a search strategy on the topic(s) of interest.
Select five web sites of varying degrees of quality found in your search.
Evaluate the quality of these websites using any recognized health web site evaluation schema
From your evaluation develop a recommendation on which site would be most useful to the health consumer. Include rationale for your recommendation.
Include the evaluation criteria and your assessment of the individual web sites (3 to 5 web sites should be evaluated) as an appendix to your paper.
Format your assignment using style guidelines APA 6 and email it as a Word document prior to the assigned due date.
Page limit is 7-10 pages (excluding cover page, references, and appendix).

The assessment of your assignment will be focused on these four areas:

Degree of familiarity with the key concepts and practices of evaluating web sites.
Evidence of analysis and critical appraisal of selected web sites.
Clarity of presentation including the formatting of your paper and the attention given to spelling, grammar and writing style.
Thorough assessment using the web site evaluation criteria selected.
Scholarly presentation including adherence to APA 6 referencing guidelines and congruence between citations and references.

Critical Elements and Proposed Grading Schema	Marks
Introduction: Describes the perspective of a hypothetical health consumer and the chosen topic Describes the search process on the internet Indicates the need for health care providers to safeguard the interests of consumers in internet searching	/10
Description of Web Sites within the paper: Demonstrates thorough familiarity with the five chosen websites Includes discussion of key concepts concerning website searching and evaluating the websites: i.e. Validity, currency of information, appropriate levels of information etc.	/20
Analysis of Website: Compares and contrasts information between the five sites Chooses key criteria of website evaluation to comment on, e.g. references to HON code Identifies areas of concern to consumers, e.g. unqualified authors of websites, invalidated information, outdated information, emotional pleas, lack of substantive evidence for claims, commercialization of sites for sales purposes Supports opinions with valid rationale and documents source of information	/35
Use of Literature: Makes appropriate use of literature already provided in the course to inform their assignment Goes beyond the literature provided in the course and searches out other helpful resources to supplement their analysis	/15
Referencing of Literature: Adherence to APA manual guidelines for citations and referencing Congruence between citations and references is evident	/5
Presentation Style: Clear, well written style. Work is free of grammatical and typographical errors Content is presented in scholarly fashion	/5
Appendices: Five website evaluations completed in a thorough way and submitted as part of the appendices	/10

Assignment 2 - Collaborative Group Presentation

It will be necessary to begin the group formation and topic selection processes within the first three weeks of the course to allow for sufficient time for online collaborative group work. the instructor will provide details of group selection process within the first two weeks of the term. You are encouraged to self-select group members, allowing for a variety of geographical locations and for diversity in your professional backgrounds (e.g., professional discipline).

Topics for the group presentations flow from the course content. The following six topics lend themselves well to presentations by the collaborative working groups. Other topics of interest would be considered, so please submit your suggested topic for approval when requested, normally around the end of the third week of the term.

Topic suggestions for the Collaborative Working Group presentations:

Ethical considerations in granting remote access to the electronic health records of clients to healthcare workers (e.g., access from home, client location, or community agency external to the organization).
Privacy and confidentiality of patient information considerations in the use of wireless communication technologies.
Benefits and limitations to consumers of a defined Telehealth application (e.g., nurse call programs, telemedicine initiatives, etc.).
Policies and procedures to safeguard privacy and confidentiality of electronic patient data (e.g., in hospitals, across regional health authorities, in stand-alone clinics or physician offices).
Policies and procedures to govern the use of electronic health information of clients for research purposes.
Strategies to increase familiarization and acceptance of the electronic patient record among health professionals and consumers.

Feedback on your collaborative group work will be given based on Organization, Content, Collaboration, Discussion Management, Originality. A detailed marking grid will be distributed during the preparation of the Collaborative Working Group presentations.

Note: Each Collaborative Working Group will be awarded one overall grade. However, groups do have a choice as to how grades are allocated to individual members. For example, members of the group may decide that everyone made an equal contribution and so everyone receives the same grade. Or, a group may decide to divide the grade proportional to the effort expended by each member. For example, a group with 3 members and an overall grade of 83%, may decide to divide the total of 249 (83 X 3) into 80 points for member A, 83 points for member B and 86 points for member C.

Each Collaborative Working Group is to make its own decision on the allocation of grades and then inform me of their decision prior to the posting of the assignment in the discussion forum. This request must be submitted to the instructor via Course Mail prior to posting the Collaborative Working Group assignment for presentation and marking.

Organization and structure	/5
Uses a presentation style that is clear, logical, organized & systematic
Evidence of internal consistency in the presentation
Defines topic
Sets out objectives that are clear and provide the context for discussion
Evidence of a match between materials and medium used for presentation
Cites references correctly using APA format (6th edition)
Presentation materials are professional in appearance & free from grammatical and typographical errors
Content of the presentation	/10
Identifies context of discussion (historical, evolutionary or evaluative approach)
Uses a multifaceted perspective
States a personal position clearly
Develops arguments for position point by point
Uses authorities or evidence in the field to substantiate argument
Demonstrates familiarity with the status of the issue/topic in Canada
Contains content that extends beyond course materials
Uses content that both informs and challenges
Collaboration in developing the presentation	/5
Evidence of collaboration in development
Evidence that work was appropriately allocated
Discussion management in the forum following presentation	/5
Uses open ended questions to stimulate discussion and participation in forum
Works to keep discussion in forum on target and constructive
Uses reference citations in forum to illustrate points raised in discussion
Provides summaries that are clear, concise and extend discussion
Demonstrates flexibility in responding to learning needs of class in discussion
Originality & creativity in presentation	/5
Evidence of original thinking that demonstrates creativity and innovation
Uses original voice in developing and presenting material
Uses a variety of learning activities in presentation of material
Uses humor appropriately, if used
Total	/30

Assignment 3 - Final Paper

For the final paper you will be required to develop a discussion/background paper on a proposed health informatics application that would transform the delivery of healthcare services in a defined area of practice (e.g., your workplace or another a health care organization)

This assignment should include the following;

Description of a current problem or defined need for the health informatics application.
Description of the proposed informatics application as a solution to address the identified need.
Literature review of the proposed application based on implementation of similar applications in other regions or disciplines. You should review, where possible, examples of the application to help you develop and present a good understanding of the application, its use, and proposed benefit to the organization/workplace/patient care.
Description of steps and strategies for implementation, including who would be involved in the project (decision-makers, committee members, project managers, etc.) and resources (time, equipment, etc) that might be required.
Discussion of relevant issues involved in the implementation of the application. These may include technical challenges, access issues, management of change factors, or barriers to implementation (e.g., political, financial or environmental issues).
Your paper should not exceed 20 pages of 8 ½ X 11 inch double-spaced text (excluding cover page, references, and appendices). Paper formatting, references, and citations should comply with APA 6th edition guidelines.
The feedback on your assignment will be organized and presented to reflect assessment of Content, Organization/Presentation, Expression/Diction and Writing Mechanics. A marking grid will be provided prior to the assignment due date.

Criteria for Final Paper

Criterion	Met
Relevance Central questions or issues clearly defined
Subsequent content closely related to stated questions or issues
Identifies the context of discussion, (historical/evolutionary /evaluative approach to the issue/problem
Demonstrates familiarity with the status of the issue/problem in Canada
Definition Terms that need to be defined (technical terms or terms whose meaning are central to the argument)
Organization, argument, support, accuracy & clarity Fundamental thesis (argument that comprises the paper) is coherent
Topic is sufficiently introduced and concluded
Presentation is free of factual error and omissions
Arguments are sufficiently elaborated (argument is developed position point by point)
Arguments are supported by illustrative examples and references to external sources as appropriate
Demonstrates broad familiarity with literature
Demonstrates wide range of reading to develop the personal position related to the solution proposed
Sources of material are appropriately acknowledged
Originality Writing displays an original voice, as opposed to one that relies primarily on others’ words
Evidence of original and creative thought
Evidence of analysis, synthesis and integration of content with the approach chosen
States a personal position clearly
Scholarship Proposal is clear, organized, and systematic
Writing is succinct and concise
Appropriate organization, (one idea /paragraph, unity of theme within headings)
Transition between ideas is clearly and smoothly accomplished
Proposal is thorough and comprehensive demonstrating both depth & breadth
There is congruence between textual references and reference list
Vocabulary is appropriate to the discipline and topic
Style Relevant & focused title
Abstract or Executive Summary
Table of contents
Proper use of grammar, syntax & punctuation
Gender neutral language
Proper spelling absence of typographical errors, appropriate abbreviations
APA format is implemented correctly and consistently

Marking Guide 602 Final Assignment

Content (35%)

Organization/Presentation

(35%)

Expression/Diction (15%)

Mechanics (15%)

Grammar/Punctuation/Spelling)

Excellent

90%

Clear central thesis

Intelligent consideration & knowledge of topic with originality of thought

Carefully selected details that support general statements & central thesis

Good synthesis evident among subject areas represented

(31.5 - 35)

Effective introduction, body & conclusion

Various parts of the proposal effectively tied together

Writing flows smoothly, with effective paragraph transitions

Effective plan with evidence of analysis

(31.5-35)

Clear, controlled and fluent diction

Effective variety in sentence type, length & structure

Effective subordination and coordination

Appropriate, lively, and wide-ranging word choice

(13.5-15)

No major errors

Sentence fragments, if present, are used deliberately for effect and emphasis

Impeccable punctuation & spelling

Evidence of careful proofreading throughout

Excellent APA formatting with full congruence between citations and reference list

(13.5-15)

Proficient

75%

Clear central thesis

Adequate engagement of topic but little originality

Appropriate details, but some gaps identified

Evidence of synthesis

(26 – 31)

Clear introduction, body & conclusion albeit somewhat mechanical

Unified well-developed paragraphs

Effective paragraph transitions; sentence transitions sometimes conventional

Specific plan followed fairly consistently

(26-31)

Clear and reasonably fluent

Appropriate sentence variety

Satisfactory subordination and coordination

Appropriate, clear and correct word choice

(11-13.5)

A few minor errors and one or two major errors which do not reduce the clarity of communication

Occasional spelling , punctuation, or typographical errors

Good APA formatting with congruence between citations and reference list

(11-13.5)

Satisfactory

65%

Limited central thesis

Adequate knowledge, ideas may be conventional

Details may be repetitious

(23-25.5)

Reasonably adequate introduction, body and conclusion

Adequate paragraphs but some are needlessly long or short

Mechanical or abrupt transitions

Specific plan but limited emphasis

(23-25.5)

Clear but functional

Some sentence variety

Subordination and co-ordination usually correct

Correct but unimaginative word choice

(9.5-11)

Minor errors and a few major errors that reduce clarity of communication

Multiple spelling, punctuation or typographical errors

Fair APA formatting with some differences between citations and reference list

(9.5-11)

Not Acceptable D

55%

Ambiguous thesis, limited

Demonstrates some understanding of topic but ideas are mainly obvious

Insufficient or unclear details

(19-23)

No clear introduction or conclusion

Paragraphs not sufficiently unified or developed

Transitions poor and inappropriate

Plan of development barely adequate

(19-23)

Frequently awkward

Almost no sentence variety

Overuse of coordination

Limited and sometimes inaccurate word choice

(7.5-9)

Frequent errors that seriously impede communication

Significant spelling, punctuation & typographical errors

Limited APA use, with multiple errors in format and no congruence between citations and reference list

(7.5-9)