Final
8 months ago 30
Draftfeedbackogl570.docx
RubricforProspectusDraft.docx
Draftfeedbackogl570.docx
Instructions for final paper: Please look at the feedback from the paper you did for me before, and write the final paper based off the input. I have attached the draft paper that you did for me.
Purpose: Complete an Applied Project Prospectus in OGL 570.
Specifics:
This is an outline for the final prospectus document. Please use APA formatting and the bolded headings and subheadings below to organize your document.
· Use APA (7th edition) Style with a minimum of 15 sources. Make sure to use in-text citations.
· Paraphrase authors instead of quoting them, unless absolutely essential. Include in-text citations.
· Do not use personal pronouns (I, me, we, us, they, them).
· Do not use contractions (don’t, isn’t, won’t, etc..).
· Use third person objective voice
· Since this is a proposal, avoid writing as if the research has already been conducted.
· Avoid the use of unnecessary adjectives or other descriptors (very, extremely, always, never) and redundancies.
· Be careful of over-reaching claims not supported by academic or your research
· Numbers below 10 are written alphabetically (example, two, three, four). Numbers above 10 are written numerically (example, 10, 11, 12)
Organize your prospectus using this format:
Cover Page
Abstract
Introduction, Rationale and Problem Statement
Scope & Project Context
Literature Review framed around three knowledge areas in organizational leadership studies that align with your project. Don't use subtitles for the knowledge areas. Rather, use transitional word, phrase or sentence to move from one knowledge area to the next.
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
Participants & Positionality
Ethical Considerations
Audience, Deliverables, Contribution
Assumptions & Limitations
Work Plan Schedule & Timeline
Conclusion: This refers to the conclusion of the prospectus, a summary of the highlights. It should restate the research problem and purpose, expected deliverables and contributions and summary of the methodological approach and expected completion date or semester.
References (Ensure that all items on the list have been cited in the text).
Appendix (which may include consent form, survey/interview questions, IRB Approval/CITI training certificate, etc.)
Below is the feedback and take from this to do the final paper.
Hello Thad,
Please see my comments in the grading rubric and the annotations on the paper. Address these issues for the final prospectus. Also, use the following format to re-organize the sections for structural coherence:
Introduction, Rationale and Problem Statement
Scope & Project Context
Literature Review of three knowledge areas
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
Participants & Positionality
Ethical Considerations
Audience, Deliverables, Contribution
Assumptions & Limitations
Work Plan Schedule & Timeline
Conclusion
References
Appendix (which may include consent form, survey/interview questions, IRB Approval/CITI training certificate, etc.)
RubricforProspectusDraft.docx
|
Rubric for Prospectus Draft |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
Introduction, Rationale and Problem Statement |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Introduction is engaging, clearly presents the background, organizational context, and identifies three relevant knowledge areas while transitioning smoothly into the rationale and problem statement. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Introduction includes background and problem statement, but may lack clarity or depth in connecting to the knowledge areas, rationale of the project and problem statement. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Introduction is vague or lacks a clear problem statement. Limited or no mention of leadership theories or knowledge areas. |
3 / 5 pts |
|
Scope & Project Context |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Scope is well-defined; context includes organizational overview, trends, and internal/external factors. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Problem and purpose statements are present but lack clarity or depth. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Scope and context are present but lack detail. Comments The focus and scope of the project are not clear. |
2.5 / 5 pts |
|
Literature Review of three knowledge areas |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Each area is clearly defined and supported with synthesis of at least five sources; strong alignment with purpose statement, 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Literature review of knowledge areas is strong but with minor alignment issues. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited synthesis; fewer than five sources per knowledge area; weak alignment. Comments While the required number of sources is present, the literature review is not robust enough to demonstrate the studies that have been done around the chosen topic and the gap that the proposed project is expected to address. |
3.5 / 5 pts |
|
Purpose Statement and Research Questions |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Purpose statement and research questions are present, align with each other as well as with the problem statement and project rationale. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Purpose statement and research questions are present, but fail to align with each other and/or with the problem statement and project rationale. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Purpose statement and research questions are vague and/or fail to align with the problem statement or rationale. Comments These need major revisions. |
3 / 5 pts |
|
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Methodology is clearly articulated, appropriate to the research questions, and well-justified. Data collection methods are specific, feasible, and aligned with the project’s purpose. Analytical strategies are clearly explained and appropriate for the data type. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Methodology and data collection strategy are mostly clear and appropriate, though some details may be underdeveloped. Analytical methods are mentioned but may lack depth or specificity. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Methodology is vague or only partially aligned with research questions. Data collection methods are unclear or lack justification. Analytical approach is minimally described or inappropriate. Comments The methodology is not clear. |
2 / 5 pts |
|
Participants & Positionality |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Clear identification of participants and thoughtful reflection on researcher’s positionality. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Participants identified; positionality discussed briefly. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited detail on participants or positionality. |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Audience, Deliverables, Contribution |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Clear identification of audience; detailed deliverables; strong contribution to the field of organizational leadership. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Audience and deliverables present; contribution to organizational leadership somewhat clear. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Vague audience or deliverables; limited contribution to the field. |
2 / 3.5 pts |
|
Ethical Considerations |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Ethical concerns are fully addressed; bias and conflict of interest considered. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Ethical concerns addressed but not fully. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited discussion of ethics or bias. |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Assumptions & Limitations |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Thoughtful identification of assumptions and limitations; scope clearly defined. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Assumptions and limitations present but need more detail. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited discussion of assumptions or limitations. |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Work Plan Schedule & Timeline |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Detailed and realistic timeline with clear milestones. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Timeline present but lacks detail or it is unrealistic. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Vague or incomplete timeline. Comments Timeline seems to extend beyond the duration of OGL 593, |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Conclusion |
2.5 to >1.5 pts Meets Expectation Conclusion effectively restates and summarizes the essential elements of the prospectus, and reflects on the broader implications of the proposed applied project for organizational leadership practice and future research. 1.5 to >0.5 pts Approaches Expectation Conclusion restates the purpose and summarizes main points, but lacks depth in reflection or implications. 0.5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Conclusion is brief or repetitive, with minimal synthesis or insights. Comments The conclusion is missing. |
0.5 / 2.5 pts |
|
Writing Style and Grammar |
2.5 to >1.5 pts Meets Expectation Writing is clear, concise, and consistently academic in tone. Uses third-person objective voice, past tense, and avoids contractions and personal pronouns. Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure are flawless. 1.5 to >0.5 pts Approaches Expectation Writing is mostly clear and academic. Minor lapses in tone, voice, or tense. Few grammatical or punctuation errors that do not impede understanding. 0.5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Writing is inconsistent in tone and style. Frequent use of personal pronouns, contractions, or present tense. Grammar and sentence structure issues occasionally interfere with clarity. |
1 / 2.5 pts |
|
References |
2.5 to >1.5 pts Meets Expectation Minimum of 15 sources; correctly formatted in APA style with hanging indent. 1.5 to >0.5 pts Approaches Expectation Minor formatting issues; meets source requirement. 0.5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Fewer than 15 sources or inconsistent formatting. |
2.5 / 2.5 pts |
|
|
Draftfeedbackogl570.docx
Instructions for final paper: Please look at the feedback from the paper you did for me before, and write the final paper based off the input. I have attached the draft paper that you did for me.
Purpose: Complete an Applied Project Prospectus in OGL 570.
Specifics:
This is an outline for the final prospectus document. Please use APA formatting and the bolded headings and subheadings below to organize your document.
· Use APA (7th edition) Style with a minimum of 15 sources. Make sure to use in-text citations.
· Paraphrase authors instead of quoting them, unless absolutely essential. Include in-text citations.
· Do not use personal pronouns (I, me, we, us, they, them).
· Do not use contractions (don’t, isn’t, won’t, etc..).
· Use third person objective voice
· Since this is a proposal, avoid writing as if the research has already been conducted.
· Avoid the use of unnecessary adjectives or other descriptors (very, extremely, always, never) and redundancies.
· Be careful of over-reaching claims not supported by academic or your research
· Numbers below 10 are written alphabetically (example, two, three, four). Numbers above 10 are written numerically (example, 10, 11, 12)
Organize your prospectus using this format:
Cover Page
Abstract
Introduction, Rationale and Problem Statement
Scope & Project Context
Literature Review framed around three knowledge areas in organizational leadership studies that align with your project. Don't use subtitles for the knowledge areas. Rather, use transitional word, phrase or sentence to move from one knowledge area to the next.
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
Participants & Positionality
Ethical Considerations
Audience, Deliverables, Contribution
Assumptions & Limitations
Work Plan Schedule & Timeline
Conclusion: This refers to the conclusion of the prospectus, a summary of the highlights. It should restate the research problem and purpose, expected deliverables and contributions and summary of the methodological approach and expected completion date or semester.
References (Ensure that all items on the list have been cited in the text).
Appendix (which may include consent form, survey/interview questions, IRB Approval/CITI training certificate, etc.)
Below is the feedback and take from this to do the final paper.
Hello Thad,
Please see my comments in the grading rubric and the annotations on the paper. Address these issues for the final prospectus. Also, use the following format to re-organize the sections for structural coherence:
Introduction, Rationale and Problem Statement
Scope & Project Context
Literature Review of three knowledge areas
Purpose Statement and Research Questions
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy
Participants & Positionality
Ethical Considerations
Audience, Deliverables, Contribution
Assumptions & Limitations
Work Plan Schedule & Timeline
Conclusion
References
Appendix (which may include consent form, survey/interview questions, IRB Approval/CITI training certificate, etc.)
RubricforProspectusDraft.docx
|
Rubric for Prospectus Draft |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
Introduction, Rationale and Problem Statement |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Introduction is engaging, clearly presents the background, organizational context, and identifies three relevant knowledge areas while transitioning smoothly into the rationale and problem statement. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Introduction includes background and problem statement, but may lack clarity or depth in connecting to the knowledge areas, rationale of the project and problem statement. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Introduction is vague or lacks a clear problem statement. Limited or no mention of leadership theories or knowledge areas. |
3 / 5 pts |
|
Scope & Project Context |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Scope is well-defined; context includes organizational overview, trends, and internal/external factors. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Problem and purpose statements are present but lack clarity or depth. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Scope and context are present but lack detail. Comments The focus and scope of the project are not clear. |
2.5 / 5 pts |
|
Literature Review of three knowledge areas |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Each area is clearly defined and supported with synthesis of at least five sources; strong alignment with purpose statement, 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Literature review of knowledge areas is strong but with minor alignment issues. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited synthesis; fewer than five sources per knowledge area; weak alignment. Comments While the required number of sources is present, the literature review is not robust enough to demonstrate the studies that have been done around the chosen topic and the gap that the proposed project is expected to address. |
3.5 / 5 pts |
|
Purpose Statement and Research Questions |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Purpose statement and research questions are present, align with each other as well as with the problem statement and project rationale. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Purpose statement and research questions are present, but fail to align with each other and/or with the problem statement and project rationale. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Purpose statement and research questions are vague and/or fail to align with the problem statement or rationale. Comments These need major revisions. |
3 / 5 pts |
|
Research Methodology and Data Collection Strategy |
5 to >3 pts Meets Expectation Methodology is clearly articulated, appropriate to the research questions, and well-justified. Data collection methods are specific, feasible, and aligned with the project’s purpose. Analytical strategies are clearly explained and appropriate for the data type. 3 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Methodology and data collection strategy are mostly clear and appropriate, though some details may be underdeveloped. Analytical methods are mentioned but may lack depth or specificity. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Methodology is vague or only partially aligned with research questions. Data collection methods are unclear or lack justification. Analytical approach is minimally described or inappropriate. Comments The methodology is not clear. |
2 / 5 pts |
|
Participants & Positionality |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Clear identification of participants and thoughtful reflection on researcher’s positionality. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Participants identified; positionality discussed briefly. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited detail on participants or positionality. |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Audience, Deliverables, Contribution |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Clear identification of audience; detailed deliverables; strong contribution to the field of organizational leadership. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Audience and deliverables present; contribution to organizational leadership somewhat clear. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Vague audience or deliverables; limited contribution to the field. |
2 / 3.5 pts |
|
Ethical Considerations |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Ethical concerns are fully addressed; bias and conflict of interest considered. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Ethical concerns addressed but not fully. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited discussion of ethics or bias. |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Assumptions & Limitations |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Thoughtful identification of assumptions and limitations; scope clearly defined. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Assumptions and limitations present but need more detail. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Limited discussion of assumptions or limitations. |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Work Plan Schedule & Timeline |
3.5 to >2.5 pts Meets Expectation Detailed and realistic timeline with clear milestones. 2.5 to >1 pts Approaches Expectation Timeline present but lacks detail or it is unrealistic. 1 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Vague or incomplete timeline. Comments Timeline seems to extend beyond the duration of OGL 593, |
2.5 / 3.5 pts |
|
Conclusion |
2.5 to >1.5 pts Meets Expectation Conclusion effectively restates and summarizes the essential elements of the prospectus, and reflects on the broader implications of the proposed applied project for organizational leadership practice and future research. 1.5 to >0.5 pts Approaches Expectation Conclusion restates the purpose and summarizes main points, but lacks depth in reflection or implications. 0.5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Conclusion is brief or repetitive, with minimal synthesis or insights. Comments The conclusion is missing. |
0.5 / 2.5 pts |
|
Writing Style and Grammar |
2.5 to >1.5 pts Meets Expectation Writing is clear, concise, and consistently academic in tone. Uses third-person objective voice, past tense, and avoids contractions and personal pronouns. Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure are flawless. 1.5 to >0.5 pts Approaches Expectation Writing is mostly clear and academic. Minor lapses in tone, voice, or tense. Few grammatical or punctuation errors that do not impede understanding. 0.5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Writing is inconsistent in tone and style. Frequent use of personal pronouns, contractions, or present tense. Grammar and sentence structure issues occasionally interfere with clarity. |
1 / 2.5 pts |
|
References |
2.5 to >1.5 pts Meets Expectation Minimum of 15 sources; correctly formatted in APA style with hanging indent. 1.5 to >0.5 pts Approaches Expectation Minor formatting issues; meets source requirement. 0.5 to >0 pts Fails to Meet Expectation Fewer than 15 sources or inconsistent formatting. |
2.5 / 2.5 pts |
|
|