DNP 805 Week 8: the professionalism assignment
You do not submit this one — faculty score it. Which means the only useful preparation is knowing what is being watched, and knowing that four specific conditions cost all twenty-five points at once.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
There is nothing to submit, and that is the point
This is not an assignment you write, and reading it as one is the mistake worth avoiding. Faculty complete the grading in the learning management system, learners upload nothing, and the assessment runs across the whole practice immersion experience rather than at a deadline. That changes what preparation means: there is no draft to improve, only behaviour that is already being observed by preceptors and faculty on a formative basis throughout the course. The twenty-five points divide into three bands, and knowing the weights tells you where attention actually matters. Twelve points sit on professional behaviour in written and verbal form across courses, peers, preceptors, faculty, staff, and the practice immersion site, plus compliance with the Office of Field Experience guidelines and attendance at scheduled meetings. Everything else in this assessment is recoverable; the starred items are not, and that asymmetry is the reason to read the resource early.
Eight points sit on being timely and organised, which is the band most learners lose against without noticing: late discussion posts, thin participation, and failing to raise a site or project concern in good time all count here, and none of them feels like a professionalism issue at the moment it happens. Five points cover incidence and variance reporting with any counselling or remediation. Then there are the four starred conditions, and they are not deductions — any report to the code of conduct or professional practice committee, failing to report not having a mentor, or a mentor evaluation below meets expectations forfeits the full twenty-five. Failing to report that you have no mentor is the one to watch, because silence feels like the safe option and is explicitly the penalised one. Read the guidelines and the dispositions before your first immersion day rather than after a problem.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Identify what is being assessed when there is no submission.
- 02Understand how the twenty-five points are weighted across three bands.
- 03Recognise the four conditions that forfeit the whole score.
- 04Know which documents the assessment is graded against.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Nothing is submitted; faculty complete the grading in the learning management system.
- 02Professional behaviour maintained across courses, peers, preceptors, faculty and site staff.
- 03Timely submission and full participation throughout the course.
- 04Timely reporting of any practice immersion site or project concern, including having no mentor.
What is scored, and what forfeits everything
What this assessment is
Establish that faculty score it, nothing is submitted, and it runs across the whole course.
The twelve-point band
Professional behaviour, compliance with OFE guidelines and meeting attendance.
The eight-point band
Timeliness, participation and appropriate communication about site or project concerns.
The forfeiture conditions
Set out the four starred items that cost all twenty-five points.
The documents this is actually graded against
Recommended databases
- The Professionalism Assignment resource
- Office of Field Experience Guidelines for Graduate Field Experiences
- University Policy Handbook
- GCU Professional Dispositions
Search sequence
- 1.Read the Professionalism Assignment resource before the first immersion day.
- 2.Read the OFE graduate field experience guidelines, which compliance is measured against.
- 3.Check the reporting route for a site concern before you need it.
- 4.Confirm your mentor arrangement is documented and current.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
2025 Code of Ethics for Nurses
American Nurses Association · 2025
The professional standard the university's dispositions are downstream of, and the reference point when a site concern has to be raised.
- 02
Nursing Scope and Standards of Practice
American Nurses Association · 2021
Scope and standards, including the accountability that makes failing to report a problem a professional issue rather than an administrative one.
- 03
AACN Essentials
American Association of Colleges of Nursing · 2024
The doctoral competencies the practice immersion experience is being assessed against.
- 04
Nursing Professional Development Evidence-Based Practice
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2024
Places professional conduct inside continuing professional development rather than inside grading.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Treating it as a paper and looking for something to upload.
- Assuming timeliness is graded elsewhere, when eight of the points sit there.
- Staying silent about not having a mentor, which forfeits all twenty-five points.
- Reading the resource after the first immersion day rather than before it.
- Ignoring the Professional Dispositions document, which is explicitly part of compliance.
Submission checklist
- Have you read the Professionalism Assignment resource before your first immersion day?
- Do you have a mentor, and if not, have you reported that?
- Are your discussion posts and participation up to date?
- Have you read the OFE guidelines and the Professional Dispositions?
- Have you raised any site or project concern through the right route?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.