MS Program Evaluation: Scholarly Inquiry Scale
(Approved 2/22/99, Revised 3/11/05)
[PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY]
PURPOSE:
This scale is designed to evaluate qualities of the written report and/or oral presentation of master’s thesis with
respect to the following five MS program outcomes:
(1) Evaluate the state of current nursing knowledge and findings from related disciplines to formulate
theories, research studies, and practice decisions that demonstrate a high level of independent and
ethical judgement. (outcome A-I)
(2) Demonstrate competence in a focused area of scholarly inquiry and a commitment to life-long
learning directed toward research-based refinement of theories for practice. (outcome E-I)
(3) Develop, design, & implement inquiry relevant to nursing practice, education or administration.
(outcome A-II)
(4) Use written/oral communication to disseminate nursing knowledge to practitioners, other
professionals, communities, and the public. (outcome B-III)
(5) Consider cultural, socioeconomic, & political factors in the design, implementation, & evaluation of
research and practice. (outcome C-II)
COMPLETED BY STUDENT:
You may also fill out this form online
https://catalysttools.washington.edu/webq/survey/gradeval/58531
Student name
Student ID
The format of scholarly inquiry selected by this student to fulfill the graduation requirement was a
___ Thesis
( ___ individual, ___ group)
COMPLETED BY A SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER:
The committee member with the most information is asked to complete this form when the student
completes the thesis. Please rate the student's competency on the following items based on your
assessment of the student having met the previously listed five outcomes. Use the following 5-point
scale or indicate N/A (Not/Applicable) to rate each item. Data will become a part of student database as
well as be used for the summative evaluation of our MS program.
Faculty name
1.
To what extent, did this student meet the goals or aims that were proposed for the thesis?
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
barely met
fairly
very well
2.
How adequate was the review of literature? (outcome A-I)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
minimally
fairly
completely
3.
N/A
How well did this student demonstrate critical examination of the content and design of the reviewed
studies in the written report and/or oral presentation? (outcome A-I & E-I)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
very poorly
poorly
fairly
well
very well
4.
N/A
N/A
How well did this student articulate the state of current knowledge of the focused area as it related to
practice and research? (outcome A-I)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
very poorly
poorly
fairly
well
very well
- over -
N/A
5.
How well did this student address ethical issues that were related to practice and research in the focused
area? (outcome A-I)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
not addressed
poorly
fairly
well
very well
6.
How well did this student link the results or product of the thesis to theories, practice, and research?
(outcome A-I)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
very poorly
poorly
fairly
well
very well
7.
N/A
How well did this student address the relevance and/or limitations of the thesis to culturally competent
practice, education, or administration in the oral presentation, written report, or both? (outcome C-II)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
not addressed
poorly
fairly
well
very well
9.
N/A
How well did this student address the dissemination of the results or product of the thesis to researchers,
clinicians, communities, and the public? (outcome B-III)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
not addressed
poorly
fairly
well
very well
8.
N/A
N/A
How well did this student orally show ability to understand and integrate the literature and conclusions of the
inquiry, and the implications for nursing theories, research, and practice? (outcome B-III)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
very poorly
poorly
fairly
well
very well
N/A
10. How well did this student demonstrate competency in development and implementation of inquiry relevant
to nursing practice, education, or administration? (outcome A-II)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
not addressed
poorly
fairly
well
very well
N/A
11. How much editing by faculty was required for the written work? (outcome B-III)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
no editing
minor
moderate
major
extensive
N/A
Did the student use an editor?
__ (1) No
__ (2) Yes
__ (3) Don’t know
12. How well did this student reflect the appreciation for the life-long learning directed toward ongoing
research- based refinement of theories for practice? (outcome E-I)
1
2
3
4
5
+------------------------------+-------------------------------+------------------------------+--------------------------------+
very poorly
poorly
fairly
well
very well
N/A
13. Comments:
Place this completed form in the attached envelope, seal the envelope, and send it back to AS/MCC RA.
Thanks!