Maturity test and publicationLaajuus (3 ECTS)

Objective

Students are able to describe and evaluate their entire final project process. They communicate according to their chosen target group and demonstrate their competence in expert organisations.

Content

Writing of the maturity test
Publication of a project in the form of an article, poster or presentation

Assessment criteria, satisfactory (1)

Workplace cooperation: Subject matter of the final project is not focused on the workplace environment or relevant to the development of the field.

Professional interaction has been limited with the representatives of the workplace.

Product/report: Objectives have been set for the final project, but they remain unrelated and are not justified.

Choices and solutions regarding theoretical basis and methodology are inadequate, or the methods have been used inconsistently.

Dealing with the subject matter has been limited, sources are scarce or their use is inconsistent. Discussion or summary of the central issues in the project is too limited.

Applying results to the workplace environment has not provided new development suggestions to clinical practice. Workplace or subscriber can only utilise the project partly.


Process: Work does not proceed as planned or according to objectives.

Students have utilised mentoring inadequately, formalistically and without any critical examination.

Assessment criteria, good (3)

Workplace cooperation: Benefits of the final project for the workplace have been clearly presented and justified.

Work conveys close and working professional interaction with the representatives of the workplace.


Product/report: Objectives and goals have been set for the final project, but they have not been justified coherently.


Choices and solutions regarding theoretical basis and methodology have been justified and are purposeful.

The final project conveys the author’s familiarisation with the subject matter and the ability to apply the research-oriented approach.

Results can be applied to the workplace environment.


Process: Work has proceeded steadily throughout the process.

Students have sought for mentoring and have been able to utilise it. Cooperation with all parties has been good.

Students have critically examined their final project process without presenting alternative ways of action for it.

Process has supported the development of expertise.

Assessment criteria, excellent (5)

Workplace cooperation:
Results of the final project have practical value and the work provides a new perspective on the topic.

Professional interaction with the representatives of the workplace has been flexible, innovative and professionally constructive as well as has provided reciprocal learning.

Product/report:
Purpose and objectives have been justified in an excellent way from the theoretical and workplace-oriented perspective as well as have been conveyed to the reader in all phases of the final project.

Choice and solutions regarding theoretical basis and methodology convey author’s own critical and creative thinking.

Dealing with the subject matter has been innovative and consistent.

Achieved results arouse interest and can be applied to the workplace environment on a larger scale as well.

Final project is comprehensive and has a new perspective on the subject matter.

Process:
Students have proceeded goal-orientedly and as planned throughout the process.

Expertise of the workplace and mentor has been utilised throughout the process and students have acted responsibly in different phases of the project.

Students have examined the final project process critically and have suggested improvements on it.

Process conveys students’ expertise and sharing it. Dialogue with peers is goal-oriented.

Further information

Failed
Workplace cooperation: Justification for the workplace-oriented focus is missing.
Professional interaction has not been implemented as agreed.


Product/report: Purpose and objectives of the final project are not clearly defined.
Theoretical basis is not solid and no methodological solutions have been presented.
Dealing with the subject matter is inconsistent; the final project is not cohesive and does not include a critical or systematic examination of the implementation.
Suggestions for development and further measures are lacking. Subscriber cannot utilise the results.

Process: Students have not been able to proceed as planned or in a goal-oriented way. Mentoring has not been utilised and students have not been able to seek answers to questions raised.