Using the initial
work in the Annotated Bibliography that was due in Week 2, complete a
literature review on the quality management topic chosen for the major
project.
You must address at least eight scholarly resources in this section.
How: approach this section as a mini “book report” on each of the
reference sources that significantly informed your analysis and proposed
solutions. Give the reader an encapsulated review of what information
you found most relevant to your research. You may have found conflicting
opinions/theories related to your topic area. Identify and discuss
contrasting viewpoints and/or describe in detail significant agreement
among your sources. Your literature review should be separate and
distinct from your analysis section; it is a summation of your research.
The goal should be a paragraph containing a minimum of three to five
sentences per review.
Topic Selection
Continue working with the problem statement presented in Week 1 (e.g.,
select a specific organization of interest to you and identify a problem
at the firm related to quality management).
Think of yourself as an organizational consultant, and assume that a key
manager has requested a thorough analysis and recommended course of
action to resolve an actual quality problem that will make a difference
to the future performance of the organization.
Identify which of course Terminal Course Objective(s) (TCO) are related to the problem you identify.
Research Sources
All papers must have a minimum of eight scholarly sources cited within
the text of the paper, and identified in the references section.
Additional research sources can be attached in a bibliography.
Review the following document for instructions on how to access and use EBSCOhost for your research: EBSCOhost.
Paper Format
All papers should be double-spaced, using an 11- or 12-point font.
The length of the paper is to be between 10 and 15 pages, not counting cover page, table of contents and appendices.
The first page should include the title of the work, student name, course number, date, and professor name.
Follow APA style for general format and citations (see APA Guidelines tutorial in the Syllabus).
Paper sections must adhere to the guidelines in the rubric, and each section must be labeled using titles and subtitles.
Language should be clear, concise, and precise.
The tone should be professional, consistent, and not filled with jargon.
Rules of academic writing suggest avoiding contractions, using third
person voice, avoiding idioms and colloquialisms, and controlling the
use of passive voice.
Grammar and syntax (sentence structure) must be correct.
The report must be free of misspellings and typos.
Tables and Figures (as applicable)
All figures and tables must be referred to in your text before they
appear on the page. Figures and tables should appear on the same page
as, or the page after, the text that refers to them.
All figures and tables need captions. Captions go below figures and above tables.
Quotations and Citations
Quotations and citations are crucial components of a research paper and must be present.
Failure to properly cite research sources and borrowed ideas is plagiarism.
Refer to APA style guide for assistance with properly citing quoted and/or borrowed materials and ideas.
Turnitin is used on all reports and projects. A report can be obtained
for your review prior to submitting your final work. Make sure that you
are in compliance with the University’s 20/80 rule.
Grading Rubric
Criteria
Failed to Meet Minimum Standards 0-59% (0 – 59 pts.)
Barely Meets Minimum Standards 60+% (60 – 69 pts.)
Meets Minimum Standards 70+% (70 – 79 pts.)
Good 80+% – B (80 – 89 pts.)
Superior 90+% – A (90 – 100 pts.)
Title Page (5 pts.)
Page not provided or only one element is provided. (0 – 2.99pts.)
Includes at least two of the six elements requested. (3 – 3.45 pts.)
Includes at least three of the six elements requested. TOC. (3.46 – 3.95 pts.)
Includes at least four of the six elements requested. (4 – 4.45 pts.)
A title is given to the literature review. Includes the student’s name,
course number and title, instructor, and date. (4.46 – 5 pts.)
Introduction (10 pts.)
Introduction is not apparent. (0 – 5.95 pts.)
Introduction is vague, incomplete, or lacks a focus. (6 – 6.99 pts.)
Introduction reflects barely adequate information to acquaint reader to the problem context. (7 – 8.99 pts.)
Contains some focus and provides sufficient detail to set the stage for
the analysis but may contain extraneous information or thesis statement
is not evident to the reader (8 – 8.89 pts.)
Introduction has a sharp, distinct focus; complete information and a clear thesis statement. (9 – 10 pts.)
Structure and Development (5 pts.)
Absence of titles and subtitles, poor organization, clarity, and logical
order. It is written without academic rigor. (0 – 2.99pts.)
Student misuses Titles and Subtitles. Student carries out a poor plan of
organization, with limited clarity or logical order, and narrative is
misaligned with the rules of academic writing. Ideas are not connected,
or the use of transitions is poor. (3 – 3.45 pts.)
Student uses Titles and Subtitles with limitations. Student carries out
some plan of organization, with ideas presented that can lack clarity or
logical order, or narrative is misaligned with the rules of academic
writing. Some ideas are not connected, or the use of transitions is
limited. (3.46 – 3.95 pts.)
Student uses Titles and Subtitles to divide topics and subtopics with
minor errors or deviations. Student carries out an understandable plan
of organization, with ideas presented mostly in a clear and logical
order and consistent with the rules of academic writing. Most ideas are
connected with the effective use of transitions. (4 – 4.45 pts.)
Student properly uses Titles and Subtitles to divide topics and
subtopics. Student carries out a superior plan of organization, with
ideas arranged in an exceptionally clear and logical order consistent
with the rules of academic writing. All ideas are clearly connected and
sentences and paragraphs are woven together smoothly with effective use
of transitions. (4.46 – 5 pts.)
Literature Review (50 pts.)
Absent or poor discussion of topics of from the perspective of the
problem of the project, theory, and academic literature. (0 – 29.99
pts.)
An insufficient discussion of topics, research and theory; a poor link
between the problem and academic literature. Discussions do not compare
and contrast theories and findings (30 – 34.99 pts.)
Discusses topics but cannot align them with research and theory at all
times, and it presents with a limited relationship between the problem
of the major project and non-academic literature. Discussions have
limited comparing and contrasting of theories and findings. (35 – 39.99
pts. )
Discusses topics and align them with research and theory sometimes,
establishing a relationship between the problem of the major project and
contemporary literature that could be non-scientific. Discussions
occasionally include a comparing and contrasting of theories and
findings. (40 – 44.99 pts.)
Discusses topics from the perspective of research and theory,
establishing a direct relationship between the problem of the major
project and the scientific literature. Discussions include comparing and
contrasting of theories and findings with originality and insight. (45 –
50 pts.)
Summary (10 pts)
Summary is not apparent. (0 – 5.95 pts.)
Summary is vague, incomplete, or lacks a focus. (6 – 6.99 pts.)
Summary condenses with limitation the ideas, theories, and alignments
with the problem discussed in the literature review with originality, or
introduces new topics of discussion. (7 – 8.99 pts.)
Summary condenses most of the ideas, theories, and alignments with the
problem discussed in the literature review, and without introducing new
topics of discussion. (8 – 8.89 pts.)
Summary is a high-level condensation of the ideas, theories, and
alignments with the problem discussed in the literature review with
originality, and without introducing new topics of discussion. (9 – 10
pts.)
References and APA (10 Points)
Information is not supported by use of in-text citations or references. (0 – 5.95 pts.)
Information is supported by insufficient use of references, without
in-text citations. Format may be inconsistent. (6 – 6.99 pts.)
Information is supported by the use of references and in-text citations,
but with major deviations from APA style. (7 – 8.99 pts.)
Information is supported by the appropriate use of research. Includes
in-text citations and references with minor deviations from APA style.
(8 – 8.89 pts.)
When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate use
of research. In-text citations and references are free of deviations
from APA style. (9 – 10 pts.)
Writing and Style (10 pts.)
Little evidence of a controlling idea. Fails to respond to the situation
or explore the issues. The writer’s voice presents inadequate control
of language. Excessive grammatical and mechanical errors block meaning.
(0 – 5.95 pts.)
Organization is flawed, and details are lacking or unrelated to a
central idea. The writer’s voice is indistinct, and the paper may rely
on poor and colloquial language. Frequent mechanical errors seriously
interfere with meaning. (6 – 6.99 pts.)
The plan of organization is undermined by omission of ideas and details
and illogical or simplistic reasoning. The writer’s voice is weakly
developed, and use of language may be vague, imprecise, or colloquial.
Mechanical errors sometimes interfere with meaning. (7 – 8.99 pts.)
Summaries are generally well organized with most details that directly
support major points. The professional voice of the writer emerges but
with some inconsistencies, come command of language and stylistic
variety and active voice. Mechanical errors do not significantly
interfere with meaning. (8 – 8.89 pts.)
Summaries are logically organized with concrete details that directly
support major points. The professional voice of the writer emerges
through a superior command of language and stylistic variety and active
voice. Essentially free from mechanical errors. (9 – 10 pts.)
NOTE: Points will be deducted for grammar, syntax, and/or punctuation
errors. Failure to cite sources properly or using incorrect protocol
when citing sources and listing references is cause for point reduction.
Failure to cite sources will result in submission for academic
integrity review.
