Contemporary Organization Evaluation Assignment LDR 615

https://nursingpaperslayers.com/contemporary-organization-evaluation-assignment/

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.

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation Assignment
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.

In lieu of the above strategies, UMBT started 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.

In today’s fast-paced and global community, most organizations are faced with constant change. Research contemporary organizations that are currently responding to a significant change within the industry,

Contemporary Organization Evaluation Assignment Slayers
Contemporary Organization Evaluation Assignment Slayers

such as disruptive technology; state, government, or industry regulations; environmental constraints; judicial or legislative rulings; etc.

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

Click here to ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Assignment: Contemporary Organization Evaluation Assignment
Describe the organization and the change to which it is responding.
Discuss the degree to which the change has been disruptive and how the organization has responded to the dynamics created by this change.
Evaluate the strategies the organization used in its change plan and determine the level of success the organization experienced with the strategies.
Determine the effect the change had on stakeholders, and to what degree stakeholders have resisted. Assess how well stakeholder resistance was addressed.

Effects of Change

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.

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.

Evaluate the overall implications the change had on interdepartmental collaboration.
In your opinion, how well did the leaders of the organization respond and prepare for the change? What worked and what did not work with the strategies they implemented?
What modifications would you suggest the leaders of the organization make in order to better address the change dynamics? What additional strategies would you recommend to assist the organization through this change?

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 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.

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.

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.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Resources
Collapse All
Backseat Leaders

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

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=82953867&site=ehost-live&scope=site
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

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2014-04423-008&site=ehost-live&scope=site
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 (

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=94475438&site=ehost-live&scope=site

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.

View Resource
Change Management: Leadership, Values and Ethics

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

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/lo
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.

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.

Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
LDR-615 LDR-615-O500 Contemporary Organization Evaluation 200.0

Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) Satisfactory (79.00%) Good (87.00%) Excellent (100.00%)
Content 70.0%
Contemporary Organization (Description of Organization and Responding to Change) 10.0% Description of a contemporary organization responding to change is not provided. 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. 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. 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. 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. Contemporary Organization Evaluation Assignment

Effects of Change (Discusses Effects of Change, Organizational Response and Strategies Utilized) 10.0% The effects of change on the organization and the response of the organization to change are not discussed. An incomplete discussion on the effects of change on the organization is presented. The response of the organization is not discussed. 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. 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. 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.

Stakeholders (Determine Effects of Change and Response to Change) 10.0% The effect of change on the stakeholders is not addressed. 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. 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. 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. 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. Contemporary Organization Evaluation Assignment

Effects of Change on Interdepartmental Collaboration 10.0% The effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are not evaluated. General effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration are discussed, but the specific effects for the departments within the organization are not included. A superficial evaluation of the effects of change on interdepartmental collaboration for the organization is presented. The evaluation lacks detail, facts, support, or rationale. 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. 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.

Evaluation of the Response of the Leaders to Change and the Strategies Presented by Leaders 15.0% Evaluation response of the leaders to change is not addressed, and strategies presented by leaders are not referenced. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Recommendations (Suggestions to Better Address Change Dynamics, Additional Strategies) 15.0% No recommendations are made. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Organization and Effectiveness 20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.

Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. 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. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.

Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed. 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. 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. 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. The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.

Format 10.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.

Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.