OLS 500 Organizational Challenge Research Project

Research questions are excellently constructed and all concepts are clearly and insightfully operationalized. Underlying assumptions are thoughtfully analyzed and justified.

Research questions are well-written, with important concepts conceptualized with occasional lack of clarity. Underlying assumptions are acknowledged and well discussed.

Research questions are present but unclear. Concepts are not fully conceptualized, and underlying assumptions are only partially acknowledged.

Research questions are absent and concepts or not conceptualized/ explained. Underlying assumptions are not addressed.

Literature Review I GOT 4

Literature review is thorough, well-organized, and showcases critical reflection, thoughtful synthesis, and sophisticated understanding of methodologies and data types.

Literature review is organized, and well synthesized, and contains application of course content related to methodologies and data types to academic literature with only minor errors. Some critical reflection on sources is present.

Literature review is poorly organized or lacks clarity. Limited synthesis of ideas. Errors in characterizing or describing the academic literature and limited critical reflection on sources.

Literature review is absent or contains substantial errors. No or extremely limited critical reflection on sources. Substantial errors in describing sources and methodological approaches.

Research & Recommendations I GOT 1

Student draws strongly reasoned and insightful conclusions from their research, and develops these conclusions into logical and well-founded recommendations for action. Link between research and recommendations is direct and clear.

Student reaches reasonable and well-stated conclusions based on their research, with occasional lack of clarity or logical gaps. Recommendations for action are well explained with and related to the research with minor errors or slight lack of clarity.

Student reaches conclusions, but their logical relationship to their research is unclear or contains substantial errors. Recommendations for action are vague and are not well-connected to their research

Conclusions and/or recommendations are absent or very unclear. There is a limited or unclear link between research and recommendations.

Criterion Feedback

This section is altogether missing

Evaluation Plan I GOT 2

The evaluation plan contains all required elements and is well-structured, clear, logical, and thoughtful. Survey/Focus group protocol implements course content and indices meet SMART criteria

The evaluation plan contains all required elements with minor errors. The plan is clear and logical, and shows an acceptable level of analysis. Survey/focus group protocol and indices are largely reflective of competency guidance with minor errors.

The evaluation plan contains almost all of the required elements, though some may be missing. There are issues with the clarity of the plan, and there are substantial errors in the construction of the survey/focus group protocol and indices.

The evaluation plan is incomplete, and/or there are substantial errors with the clarity and construction of the plan. There are major errors in the development of the survey/focus group protocol, and indices which do not reflect module materials.

Criterion Feedback

The appendices are good but there should also be an evaluation section where you talk about the risks of the recommendation and their impact on various stakeholders.

Writing Mechanics I GOT 4

The paper is logical, well- written, and the required length. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are accurate. APA formatting standards for the citations are followed; the citations and reference page is correct.

The paper is logical, well- written, and the required length. Errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation are minimal and do not affect readability. APA formatting standards for the citations are mostly followed with minor errors.

The paper is somewhat logical and well-written; too long or short. Errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation are present, affecting readability. APA standards for the citations are somewhat followed but with numerous errors.

The paper lacks clarity and may be confusing; too long or short. Numerous errors in spelling, grammar and/or punctuation. Limited if any adherence to APA standards for the citations.