Want create site? With Free visual composer you can do it easy.

Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

Contemporary Organization Change

The dynamism of the healthcare environment implies that healthcare organizations always have to the competence necessary to handle the complexity of the process. The process entails evaluating, planning, and executing operations, tactics, and strategies so as to make the change worthwhile. The complexity of the healthcare system alongside the

Assignment Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

Assignment Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

need to constantly produce quality and safe healthcare services means that healthcare organizations always face change events. The advent of evidence-based practice calling for the adoption of technology in various facets of healthcare has ensured that technology has disrupted the way facilities undertake matters. The present paper will thus examine the manner in which the University of Texas Medical has responded to technological disruption caused by EHR and its response to the change dynamics therein.

Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

 

Organization and Change

            The University of Texas Medical Branch consists of a healthcare system encompassing both research as well as emergency services on four of its campuses. The organization offers a network of specialty and primary care clinics, walk-in services and emergency care, as well as interprofessional collaboration entailing physicians and nurses among other healthcare professionals. The University of Texas Medical Branch has facilities that support both long-term and short-term care needs of numerous conditions from maternal issues to trauma cases (“Health care at UTMB”, n.d). The vast nature of the facilities comprising the UTMB demanded for the existence of a centralized way of addressing patient issues in terms of data leveraging. Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

UTMB provides itself in using advances in medicine to properly serve the Texas communities. In alignment with the above assertion, the facility currently responds to the healthcare disruptions caused by technology by adopting the use of electronic healthcare records to centralize patient data (Adler-Milstein et al., 2017). The UTMB purposes to ensure that it has a comprehensive EHR unit in all its facilities and clinical units. The desire to improve patient services and lead in evidence-based practice adoption by the UTMB has pushed it to embrace the technological disruption caused by EHR. By leveraging EHR and its innumerable benefits, the UMTB expects to improve the quality and safety of services that it offers to the Texas community.

 

Effects of Change

            The adoption of electronic health records by UMTB led to certain disruptions of the healthcare system at the facility. The disruptions witnessed align with the assertion made by Jacobs et al. (2019) that the formative stages of comprehensive EHR implementation form the most disruptive period. The UMTB experienced physician dissatisfaction following the implementation of comprehensive EHR system due to the absence of concomitant skills. Moreover, the execution of the comprehensive HER system led to the presence of reduced quality due to the disruption that it caused to the workflow (Busch, Bates, & Rauch, 2018). The waiting time of patients reduced in a statistically significant manner since the healthcare providers grappled with the complexity of the system. In other words, the adoption of the EHR system by the UMTB led to the presence of disruptions that affected the quality of care offered by the hospital to its patients.

In order to address the above disruptions, the UMTB turned to evidence-based practices related to adoption of a change process. The first step entailed the organization ensuring stakeholder involvement after reviewing the project after the first month (Jacobs et al., 2017). UMTB formulated a project organization comprising of physicians, nurse managers, nurses and essentially broad participation of every hospital department. During this period, the project team appointed key users who discussed a transparent list of issues weekly so as to solve them and ensure project ownership.

                        Moreover, UMTB chose to increase the competence of its workforce as relates to the operations of the comprehensive EHR system that it adopted. They achieved this through strategies such as group trainings to allow for optimum training of personnel through determining the optimum hours required for the same. Further, UMTB also introduced the provision of real-time support to personnel to leverage the optimum learning potential for the personnel at the facility. Moreover, the UMBT addressed the workflow disruption by having the vendor to re-assess their models and align them to the organizational requirements (Jacobs et al., 2019). The UMBT conducted successive review days entailing the assessment of the progress by a workgroup. Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

In lieu of the above strategies, UMBT star ted seeing numerous changes related to the adoption of the EHR. The workforce bought into the idea of change and participated in trainings to improve its competence level (Busch, Bates, & Rauch, 2018). The above enthusiasm allowed the organization to register improved physician and patient satisfaction. Moreover, the stratagems led to the improvement of workflow, which ensured the presence of improved quality of services. Further, the waiting times improved and overall quality parameters of the hospital enhanced.

Stakeholders

            The adoption of the EHR, similar to any change, faced certain resistance from various stakeholders. The nurses and other medical personnel felt left out of the matter and hence they did not feel like they owned the project. This resulted in a go slow during the first month of the project. Moreover, the EHR did not have a competent clinician champion, who resisted in due to lack of participation in the initial stages. The initial assigned project manager did not have the necessary skills and knowledge and hence resisted the adoption of certain aspects of the EHR. The rejected aspects of the project fell under the complex category.

The UMTB responded to the stakeholder change through various evidence-based practice. To address the issue of resistance by clinician champions, the hospital appointed a more knowledgeable clinician champion who solidified provider support through clearly identifying the way that the EHR would become useful in improving quality. The UMBT also adopted the “train the trainer” approach to train clinicians concerning various aspects of the EHR. Using the model, the vendor identified super-users within the organization and trained them, who in turn trained their colleagues. Moreover, the UMBT allowed clinicians to design and redesign the workflow process, hence making them support the EHR change and also address the workflow challenges.

Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615  Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration

            Since the introduction of the EHR, interdepartmental collaboration has improved within the UMBT departments. The change as produced by the EHR has led to improved collaboration between the nursing department and other departments at the hospitals in terms of medication management and other patient aspects. The EHR has improved patient management across the continuum of care from admission to discharge with wait times reducing dramatically. Moreover, the EHR has introduced the usage of clinical decision support at the facility, which has made easier decisions made by clinicians concerning patient welfare by referring them to necessary units (Busch, Bates, & Rauch, 2018). Therefore, the EHR system had created a seamless interdepartmental association between various units at the UMBT.

Evaluation of the Responses of the Leaders

            The leadership of the organization initially did not adequately prepare for the change. They thought that the personnel had sufficient goodwill to support the change. However, upon the realization that resistance to change existed, the strategies implemented by the leadership worked. For instance, the usage of train the trainer strategy made certain that all the personnel possessed requisite skills, which greatly influenced their embracing of the project (Reyes-Portillo et al., 2018). Moreover, allowing the personnel the latitude to design and redesign the model ensured that the final product had consistency with the desired product hence improved workflow at the facility. The resolution to change the project manager to a knowledgeable person similarly produced the desired results. Therefore, the leadership adopted effective responses in relation to resistance to the proposed change that the facility witnessed at the beginning.

Recommendations

            The adoption of the EHR by the facility due to the HITACH Act occurred in a manner characterized by challenges. However, the leadership of the UMBT can undertake certain steps to address the resistance to change at the facility. The leadership may have to identify a couple of clinician champions and then define their roles (Adler-Milstein et al., 2017). Moreover, the leadership ought to include clinical champions in tactical decision making so as to avoid errors as well as complex judgment calls that affect the personnel. Lastly, the leadership should formulate a framework that would enable clear and rapid communication concerning the health IT within the organization

References

Adler-Milstein, J., Holmgren, A. J., Kralovec, P., Worzala, C., Searcy, T., & Patel, V. (2017). Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: the emergence of a digital “advanced use” divide. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(6), 1142-1148.

Busch, A. B., Bates, D. W., & Rauch, S. L. (2018). Improving Electronic Health Record Adoption in Psychiatric Care: A Cornerstone for Healthcare Transformation. The New England journal of medicine, 378(18), 1665.

Health care at UTMB health. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.utmbhealth.com/servicelines

Jacobs, M., Boersma, L. J., Swart, R., Mannens, R., Reymen, B., Körver, F., … & Dekker, A. (2019). Electronic Health Record implementation in a large academic radiotherapy department: Temporarily disruptions but long-term benefits. International journal of medical informatics, 129, 342-348.

Reyes-Portillo, J. A., Chin, E. M., Toso-Salman, J., Turner, J. B., Vawdrey, D., & Mufson, L. (2018, June). Using electronic health record alerts to increase safety planning with youth at-risk for suicide: A non-randomized trial. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 391-402). Springer US. Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

LDR 615 Contemporary Organization Evaluation

Assessment Description

Most organizations face constant change in today’s fast-paced and global community. Investigate current organizations that are responding to a significant change in the industry, such as disruptive technology; state, government, or industry regulations; environmental constraints; judicial or legislative rulings; and so on.

Choose one organization from your research that has recently or is currently responding to major change. Write a paper (1,250-1,500 words) about how well the organization is adapting to the change dynamics. Include the following items:

Describe the organization and the change that it is dealing with.
Discuss the degree to which the change has been disruptive, as well as how the organization has responded to the new dynamics.
Evaluate the strategies that the organization used in its change plan and the level of success that the organization had with the strategies.
Determine the impact of the change on stakeholders and the extent to which stakeholders resisted it. Examine how well stakeholder opposition was addressed.
Examine the overall effects of the change on interdepartmental collaboration.
How well, in your opinion, did the organization’s leaders respond to and prepare for the change? What worked and what didn’t with the strategies they put in place?
What changes do you think the organization’s leaders should make to better address the change dynamics? What additional strategies would you suggest to help the organization navigate this transition?

Prepare this assignment in accordance with the APA Style Guide, which can be found in the Student Success Center. There is no need for an abstract.

This assignment makes use of a rubric. Please review the rubric before beginning the assignment to become acquainted with the requirements for successful completion.

You must turn in this assignment to LopesWrite. If you require assistance, a link to the LopesWrite technical support articles can be found in Class Resources

Resources

Backseat Leaders

Read “Backseat Leaders,” by Schlachter and Hildebrandt, from Leadership Excellence Essentials (2012).


Group Imago and Group Development: Two Theoretical Additions and Some Ensuing Adjustments

Read “Group Imago and Group Development: Two Theoretical Additions and Some Ensuing Adjustments,” by Tudor, from Transactiona

… 

May I Have Your Attention Please? A Review of Change Blindness

Read “May I Have Your Attention Please? A Review of Change Blindness,” by Ellis, from Organization Development Journal (

… 


The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations

Read Chapter/Step 6 in The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations.

Change Management: Leadership, Values and Ethics

Read “Change Management: Leadership, Values and Ethics,” by By, Burnes, and Oswick, from Journal of Change Management (2

… 

Contemporary Organization Evaluation – Rubric

Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change)
20 points
Criteria Description
Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change)

5. Excellent
20 points
A detailed description of a contemporary organization is presented; all relevant details are included and description provides insight into the organization. The description of the current change to which the organization is responding is well developed and contains relevant detail.

4. Good
17.4 points
A description of a contemporary organization is presented; all major details are included. A description of the change to which the organization is responding is current and accurately represented.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation LDR 615

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
A cursory description of a contemporary organization is presented; most major details are included. A general description of the change to which the organization is responding is presented, but contains some inaccuracies or lacks some relevant details; the change to which the organization is responding is not a current event.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
A partial description of the organization is presented; major relevant details are missing. A description of the change to which the organization is responding is cursory and incomplete. The organization and change issue are not contemporary or current.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of a contemporary organization responding to change is not provided.

Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized)
20 points
Criteria Description
Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized)

5. Excellent
20 points
A well-rounded discussion on the effects of change on the organization and its response to the change is presented. The discussion is detailed and strongly supported by documented facts.

4. Good
17.4 points
A discussion on the effects of change on the organization and its response to the change is presented. The discussion is supported by relevant and documented facts.

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
A general discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization to the change is presented, but it does not include a clear evaluation of the strategies of the organization. The discussion lacks relevant details, facts, and support.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
An incomplete discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization is not discussed.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The effects of change on the organization and the response of the organization to change are not discussed.

Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change)
20 points
Criteria Description
Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change)

5. Excellent
20 points
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed in detail. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented with accurate and relevant examples. Well-developed recommendations are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance. Strong evidence or rationale is provided for claims made, and strategies relevant to the organization and stakeholders are offered to help stakeholders overcome resistance.

4. Good
17.4 points
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is presented. Suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance. Evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Some evidence is provided to support statements, and common strategies are offered to help stakeholders overcome resistance.

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
The effect of change on stakeholders is discussed, but little evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is generally presented, but it is lacking in detail. Cursory suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance, but these strategies are incomplete and lack support for validity.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
The effect of change on stakeholders is briefly considered, but no evidence or rationale is provided for claims made. Stakeholder response/resistance to change is not presented. No suggestions are provided in responding to stakeholder resistance.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The effect of change on the stakeholders is not addressed.

Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration
20 points
Criteria Description
Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration

5. Excellent
20 points
A detailed evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented and provides insight into the situation. The evaluation is supported with strong detail, facts, support, and rationale.

4. Good
17.4 points
An evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation is supported with some detail, facts, support, or rationale.

3. Satisfactory
15.8 points
A superficial evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation lacks detail, facts, support, or rationale.

2. Less than Satisfactory
14.8 points
General effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are discussed, but the specific effects for the departments within the organization are not included.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are not evaluated.

Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders
30 points
Criteria Description
Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders

5. Excellent
30 points
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented with sufficient detail and supporting information vital to understanding the involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are clearly addressed and provide insight into the outcomes the organization experienced in responding to change. Overall, leadership response to change is clear and contains significant information or details that describe the extent of leadership involvement and the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.

4. Good
26.1 points
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to understanding the involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are generally addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders were responsive to change, but significant information or details are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.

3. Satisfactory
23.7 points
Evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is presented, but it lacks detail or information vital to understanding the actual involvement of the leaders. Strategies presented by leaders in response to change are generally addressed. Overall, it is apparent that the leaders were responsive to change, but significant information or details are missing to discern the actual extent of leadership involvement or the degree to which leadership involvement was influential.

2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points
A clear evaluation of the response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are referenced, but not formally addressed. Overall, the involvement of leadership in response to change is unclear.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evaluation response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are not referenced.

Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies)
30 points
Criteria Description
Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies)

5. Excellent
30 points
Well-supported recommendations to address change dynamics are clearly presented. Additional strategies are offered, with strong rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would indeed support a better change option in response to change.

4. Good
26.1 points
Recommendations to address change dynamics are presented. Additional strategies are offered, with appropriate rationale or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would support a better change option in response to change.

3. Satisfactory
23.7 points
General recommendations to address change dynamics are presented. Additional strategies are offered, but lack detail, rationale, or a clear plan to illustrate that the recommendations are relevant and would support a better change option in response to change.

2. Less than Satisfactory
22.2 points
Recommendations to address change dynamics or for additional strategies are incomplete. Recommendations do not contain substantial rationale or support and do not seem relevant to the organization or circumstances.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No recommendations are made.

Thesis Development and Purpose
14 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose

5. Excellent
14 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

4. Good
12.18 points
Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.

3. Satisfactory
11.06 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.

2. Less than Satisfactory
10.36 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.

Argument Logic and Construction
16 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction

5. Excellent
16 points
Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

4. Good
13.92 points
Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.

3. Satisfactory
12.64 points
Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.

2. Less than Satisfactory
11.84 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
10 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)

5. Excellent
10 points
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

4. Good
8.7 points
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.

Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
10 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)

5. Excellent
10 points
All format elements are correct.

4. Good
8.7 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.

Documentation of Sources
10 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)

5. Excellent
10 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.

4. Good
8.7 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.

3. Satisfactory
7.9 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.

2. Less than Satisfactory
7.4 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.

1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Sources are not documented.

Name:  Assignment Rubric

  Excellent Good Fair Poor
Summarize your interpretation of the frequency data provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, and family income from prior month. 32 (32%) – 35 (35%)

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, a summary of the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response accurately and clearly explains, in detail, the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values in describing intervals that sufficiently provides an analysis that fully supports the categorization of each variable value.

The response includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

28 (28%) – 31 (31%)

The response accurately summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response accurately explains the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response accurately explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and explains extreme values in describing intervals that provides an analysis which supports the categorization of each variable value.

The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

25 (25%) – 27 (27%)

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented.

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data.

The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and inaccurately or vaguely explains extreme values.

An analysis that may support the categorization of each variable value is inaccurate or vague.

The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the explanations provided for each of the areas described.

0 (0%) – 24 (24%)

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the frequency distributions for the variables presented, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the number of times the value occurs in the data, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the appearance of the data, the range of data values, and an explanation of extreme values, or it is missing.

An analysis that does not support the categorization of each variable values is provided, or it is missing.

The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the explanations provided for each of the areas described, or it is missing.

Summarize your interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided in the output for respondent’s age, highest school grade completed, race and ethnicity, currently employed, and family income from prior month. 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

The response accurately and clearly summarizes in detail the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response accurately and clearly evaluates in detail each of the variables presented, including an accurate and complete description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

The response accurately summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response accurately explains evaluates each of the variables presented, including an accurate description of the sample size, the mean, the median, standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

The response inaccurately or vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided.

The response inaccurately or vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate or vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

The response inaccurately and vaguely summarizes the interpretation of the descriptive statistics provided, or it is missing.

The response inaccurately and vaguely evaluates each of the variables presented, including an inaccurate and vague description of the sample size, the mean, the median, the standard deviation, and the size and spread of the data, or it is missing.

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.

A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.

No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 (4%) – 4 (4%)

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3 (3%) – 3 (3%)

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

0 (0%) – 2 (2%)

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

Total Points: 100

Name:  Assignment Rubric

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.