Critical Thinking Assignment Group Feedback

-->

Critical Thinking Written Assignment

Group Feedback

I have finished grading all of the Critical Thinking papers I received and I feel it is helpful to you if I give you some group feedback on what I noticed as I graded them.  Please note that the specific things I mention below may or may not relate to you.  In many cases, I have given each of you specific feedback as necessary.  I would prefer to deliver this group feedback in person so I could spontaneously answer your questions but since we don’t meet next week, a blog post will have to suffice. I will regularly give you this type of feedback, individually and as a group, to help you refine your writing and analytical skills, as well as be better equipped to meet future challenges inherent in your academic and professional pursuit. 

Your first written assignment on the topic of critical thinking helped me to get acquainted with your writing style, approach to decision-making and leadership. As I read what each of you wrote, I often saw glimpses of your unique analytical philosophy and I got to know you better as a result.

I was impressed by the way you embraced the concepts presented by Paul & Elder in this small booklet.  Many of you were very excited about the opportunity to apply new aspects of this very transferable skill personally. It was obvious that all of you read the material thoroughly.  Many of you provided personal examples to illustrate your answers.  This helped me recognize your level of interest in the subject matter and the automatic connection you were making between critical thinking and practical aspects of your life.  I encourage all of you to provide a few "real life" examples (professional or personal) to illustrate the concepts we will discuss in future lessons.  This is my strong recommendation but please don't overuse it.  To be sure, every point you make does not require an example.  In addition, be sure that any illustrations you include work to support the point you are making.

In addition, I encourage all of you to elaborate on general statements you make.  Some of you do this very well already and need no refinement in this area.  All of you had interesting insight into critical thinking and frequently I found myself wanting to hear more from you about some specific aspects you mentioned.  This balance between providing sufficient detail and yet remaining succinct will be even more of a challenge as we move to the Applied Theory assignments very quickly.

Suggestions for successful future assignments:

Please write your papers in a Word-compatible document before you submit it.  ANGEL has a difficult time interfacing with some other programs, including Apple's Mac-based software (I learned this the hard way).  Do not use the blank form at the bottom of the submission page to submit your paper to me.  I cannot offer specific feedback if you do it this way. 

For the sake of consistency, I prefer a 12 point professional font (Times New Roman, Cambria, Courier, etc) 1.5 spacing, with section headings and a reference page where appropriate.  Either MLA or APA guidelines will work. 

The choice to include bulleted lists, outlines or tables is up to you.  These are very acceptable to me for some of the future assignments in our course.  I will help you identify when this may be appropriate.  

Please name the documents you submit as follows:  Your first and last name followed by an abbreviated name for the specific assignment (for example, “Diane Waisner Critical Thinking”).  Your filename must always begin with your name so I won't lose sight of it after I download it into my system to grade it.  Many of you remembered to do it this way and I noted it but several of you failed to do this (I made a real point to discuss this in our first class).  Because this was your first paper for our class, I did not hold any of you accountable if you failed to name your paper this way, I did that myself.  However, I may subtract points from your future papers if this simple requirement is not adhered to consistently.  This may seem like a minor issue but it can be a real pain for me if everyone names her/his individual paper “critical thinking paper.”  Imagine trying to keep 16+ of those files distinguished in your own Word folder.

Pay very close attention to the required elements for each assignment as they are clarified and defined in the appropriate folder on ANGEL, rather than going by a more general discussion we may have in class or what is included in the summary Course Assignment table we reviewed together.  You will be held accountable for the elements of the assignment as they are described in the folder on our course site.  I specifically review every paper to make sure you answer my questions thoroughly, etc.  

Feel free to convert any Organizational Development tailored questions to your own field of study, if it isn’t OD (fundraising, project management, management, etc.), and answer them as is appropriate for that venue.  Please ask me if you have a question about this.

Finally, many of you are accomplished writers and this makes it easier for me to follow your line of thought when grading your work.  None of us is perfect grammatically, however, and proofing your own work thoroughly can be tricky.  I encourage you to watch your use (or lack) of commas, tense agreements within a sentence, and plural/singular agreement between the subject and verb in a statement.  These are the errors I see repeated most often. 

The following comment is directed to those of you who received a greater volume of individual critique from me as I graded your assignment.  Please don't be discouraged.  I spend a significant amount of time offering feedback in the hope that you will receive it in the spirit in which it is given.  I want you to be successful! 

Anticipating your success,

Diane

Kurt Lewin's Significant Contribution to Organizational Development & Beyond

More than anything else Organizational Development is about planning, implementing & managing the outgrowth of strategic change. Far too many organizational changes fail or fall short of their intended contribution and, unfortunately, a few leave the workplace in worse shape than before.  Kurt Lewin had his own theory about why this statement is true. 

It is interesting that he did not develop the foundation of this theory with the business environment in view.  He began with a desire to resolve social conflict and he saw this as necessary at several levels.  Lewin felt that unless changes are sponsored at the  organizational, societal and influential group level, they will not be lasting at an individual level.  In this way, his theory are based upon the psychological strengths of interrelationships and interdependence.  Furthermore, he saw learning and involvement as the primary way to sculpt such change.

Lewin believed that if you could better understand social groupings, their motivations & power to define the status quo, then you held the key to changing behavior.  It is interesting to note that he recognized both the unique and individual complexion of each social grouping, as well as the commonality in identity and function that all groups share. 

“It was Lewin’s view that “ . . . one cannot understand an organization without trying to change it . . .”’  This is a wonderful philosophical statement that explains his approach to planned change.  I encourage you to ponder the meaning of his statement and compare it with your own experience as a change catalyst.  Think of a time when you were a change agent in any venue.  How did the experience, which can be very challenging, teach you about the people you were involved with, both individually and corporately?

He believed that the understanding that grows as one progresses through change is more important than the resulting change itself.  This speaks to the essence of action research.   As you process through change the resistance one always faces surfaces biases, conflicting values, true goals which may be surprisingly different from the "spoken" ones, hidden processes and interrelationships which are not always correlated with an organizational chart (if one exists).

Field theory and group dynamics were developed to help analyze and understand how social groupings were formed, motivated and maintained.  It is his attempt to explain how any given group really operates (decision making, leadership, influence, etc.).

A “field” can be both nonhuman environmental factors related to resources, for instance, or the human-sponsored environment where the behavior takes place related to factors such as the pace of the environment.  A field encompasses the entirety of all of these factors.   

Field theory is the analysis of the current environment in which behavior happens and what stabilizing forces create and maintain the status quo.   He believed that the field reveals the equalibrium forces, those forces that sustain the "balance" and make change difficult.  Sometimes the forces that work to maintain the status quo sustain a balance that is decidedly "off balance."  They are simply the forces that must be destabilized if change is to happen.

He believed that if you saw changes in behavior there had to be changes in the field as well because the two were linked and mutually interdependent—one was influenced by the other.

He believed that each field is in a constant state of adaptation, so if you can determine the strength of each shaping force in the environment, then you would be able to manipulate/diminish the strength of them to sponsor change.

In Group Dynamics he believed that there are always forces operating within any group that shape the behavior of everyone in the group. Think about groups you are part of.  Everyone naturally assumes a role or persona within the group—official or not.  The overall dynamic, dominants within the group, submissives within the group, those "natural leaders," how pressures are handled, etc., are all part of the dynamic within the interdependent group of people.

So how do you successfully make changes in direction, goals, processes, interaction, reporting relationships if you believe that the field and the dynamic within a group exerts that degree of control?

The focus should be on the norms, roles within the group, leadership and interaction.

Group behavior should be the focus of change initiatives.  The focus should be on recognizing what forces work to maintain status quo and changing that equilibrium.  Lewin believed that the pressure to conform within the group one identifies with is strong enough to shift the power to the group instead of the individual (even though it may not be recognized by the individuals involved).

In group counseling there is an understanding of this concept.  It is the knowledge that the individual's identity within a cohesive group is very influential and can be positive or negative in the movement and success of the counseling, on an individual level.

Some criticisms of the group dynamic portion of the theory:

We are all part of many overlapping groups and that makes behavior a bit more individual.  Hard to take a look at just one group in a vacuum.  Behavior is less static, less a product of one group and more the sum of all of them.

There were two primary methods Lewin promoted to sponsor change: Action Research and the 3-Step Model or approach to change.

Action Research has its roots in Gestalt Psychology.  We are the product of the whole and as the entire situation changes only then do we change as well.  Gestalt Theory espouses that change can only come as people gain new insight into their situation. 

According to Lewin, "felt need" is important to understand as well.  He believed that if people didn't feel the need to make a change at a personal level, the likelihood that change would happen was unlikely.  He believe that if the “felt need” is low in a group overall, the probability of permanent change was low.  He believed that change could only be permanent if it was a measure of their success because the factors stabilizing the previous status quo continue to exert influence.  Change must be a collaborative process of analysis, application and reanalysis.
 

The 3-step model of change:

According to Lewin’s model, any successful change process involved 3 specific steps. 

1.    
     Unfreezing involves:

• Disconfirmation of the status quo; (proving the old ways won’t work now)
• Induction of guilt or survival anxiety; (“An emotional stir-up”).  Internal talk that says, "It isn’t best for me to stay where I am (theoretically)."
• Creating psychological safety.  If people don’t feel secure, the case for disconfirmation of the status quo will be denied or in other ways defended against.  There is always a degree of fear in leaving a comfort zone.  Anytime we leave one of our comfort zones and create a new one, we are redefined to a degree.

Important to note that unfreezing isn’t a destination.  Action Research begins at this point.  

2    Moving involves:

•      Moving defines the direction.  This is not static but is a constantly evolving process of individual factors emerging to influence the direction and pace of the change.

3    Refreezing involves:

•      Stabilizing a group at a new level for however long is necessary to make the change successful.  Refreezing as he describes it refers to progression in the right direction; not allowing people to regress back to old behaviors.  Isn’t this the essence of change period?  If people regress and don’t apply new approaches to new result, change hasn’t happened in the first place.  For refreezing to reinforce change, the culture, norms, policies, practices within an organization must be conducive to it.

Elements of Lewin’s theory continue to be highly criticized and usually the substance of their criticisms mirror their own conflicting theory or approach to change.  After all, everyone has a theory about how change happens.  

How did the culture-excellence supporters think about change differently than Lewin did?  The culture-excellence pundants placed a considerable weight on developing a culture of innovation and synergy.  For those who chose this approach, there was simply too much ambiguity in the world to allow a “planned approach to change” to ever work.

For them Lewin’s talk of freezing, moving, and refreezing, was inappropriately static. They focus on the abstract quality and constancy of less controllable change. They say “Organizations are never frozen, much less refrozen. They are fluid and organic entities with many “personalities.” They didn’t like his focus on structure and bureaucracy. They felt “stages” don’t exist the way Lewin felt they did. They merged together independently.

Advocates of the Processual Approach felt that change is what happened naturally in organizations every day.  It is ongoing . . . with no beginning and no end, very abstract and ill-defined.

They believed that change is unpredictable and therefore there is an inherent need to accommodate and adapt to the unexpected, the unforeseen twists and turns, the omissions and revisions that are all part of managing the process of change over time.  Lewin is too static they say.

General Criticisms of Lewin’s approach to change by many others:

1.    Too simplistic and mechanistic—unrealistic approach in a world that is constantly changing.

Response:

Lewin didn’t see stability as a fact of life.  On the contrary, he believed that forces in the environment are constantly changing, and that nothing within the influence of those forces is static for long. Sometimes moving faster, sometimes slower but always in a state of constant inconstancy!  (pages 150-151)

He believed that in such an environment, outcomes cannot be predicted but emerge on a trial and error basis. (page 151)  Which aspect of his theory does this relate to?  Action Research

2.  Lewin’s theory is only relevant to change projects—it does not apply to radical or transformational change (bottom page 151).

The response to this criticism relates more to timing/speed than to degree.  Enough incremental steps in the right direction bring radical/transformational change.  No doubt, he was more invested in the social side of change, in which steps are naturally more incremental. 

In general, people respond better to the need to change in smaller degrees because it decreases their natural discomfort with it.  Radical change is more related to organizational structural changes.  (Top of page 152)

What happens when an organization implements a radical structural change?  What needs to take place within the human resources in the organization in response? 

The structural change may be implementable quickly but the behavior, relationships & habits which contribute heavily to the culture don’t respond so quickly.  You can change the organizational chart, but the behaviors & relationships are more difficult to come around.  Where people’s habits, comfort zones, motivation are involved, small steps are usually to be expected.

3.  He ignores the role of power and politics in organizations--the conflict that is naturally part of such a social environment. (bottom, page 152)

Where did this criticism come from? From a misunderstanding of his theory—relates to the claim that it is “mechanistic” and prescriptive and doesn’t take enough consideration of politics.  This is ridiculous considering his work on group dynamics & field theory.

4.   He advocates a top-down, management-driven approach to change and ignores situations where a bottom-up change is not only necessary but desirable. (bottom page 153)

Response:

He recognized that the impetus for change can come from any quadrant where the need was felt FIRST, but that there had to be some “felt-need” by all those involved eventually before change could happen.  Everyone must play their part or change will not happen as it should.


I believe that no theory is perfect.  There are pros and cons to each but Lewin makes some strong points that jive with what I know about the psychology of human behavior, regardless of where it takes place.  There is some degree of predictability about the way groups interact.  There are varying field conditions and the dynamics of each group takes on the shape of the individual influences within the group but there is still some degree of predictability related to what is required for change (which Lewin calls "movement") to happen. 

Gallos' Reframing Complexity -- Instructor's Comments

-->

According to theorist Joan Gallos, all theories, regardless of their focus, present two challenges:

1.     choosing the appropriate theoretical approach to apply to a specific situation;

2.     avoiding narrow or overly simplistic interpretations of complex organizational processes (i.e., narrowing the focus of your analysis before the entire situation has been considered).

The theoretical approach Gallos developed is called “Reframing” because it was developed in an attempt to avoid the myopic view that can naturally develop from the application of any single theory.  In addition, it provides a practical diagnostic form which can be used by an OD practitioner to categorize aspects of any organizational problem which is uncovered.

In any typical organizational analysis, aspects of situations and problems that are uncovered are multifaceted.  In addition, during the course of interviewing and evaluating data to get to the heart of the initial challenge, unrelated issues are often uncovered which need to be addressed by the organization at some point, even though they may not be part of the focus of the investigation.  The approach she developed helps to record and categorize every pertinent issue which is uncovered.

She describes Reframing as “the practice of deliberately and systematically examining a complex situation from multiple perspectives.”  This requires an understanding of the components of each frame and practice in applying each of them in an organizational environment.

Any “narrowing” of focus too soon can completely miss the target.  If the symptoms of an issue, potential problem or opportunity are not analyzed and evaluated completely, the focus of any applied response may be completely off target as well.

The example offered on p349 of the Gallos text details a common situation between two coworkers and their verbal battles at work.  This is a good way to illustrate the difference between inappropriately jumping to conclusions about what the root of problem is versus viewing the situation from each frame to see what could be the essence of the problem.   The danger in narrowing one’s focus too soon is that the recommendations and any changes that result may not solve the existing problem at all.

When we address a situation like this, our tendency is to default to the HR frame to view this situation.  When we jump to this conclusion, it often unwisely becomes more about finding the one(s) to blame, train, reposition or fire.   The problem with this working bias is obvious—this often does nothing to fix the situation and the impact on the people involved is significant.

The essence of Reframing holds us accountable to ask, “what else could the verbal disputes be due to?”

From the Structural frame we determine that it could be due to overlapping job responsibilities.  This situation is fairly straightforward to address.  It may mean rewriting job descriptions; clarifying job duties and eliminating any overlap, etc.

It could be Political, rooted in favoritism shown to one of the employees by a clueless boss who has unknowingly created a competitive work environment where the powerless grasp at any small share of he turf. If this is the case, the problem that needs to be addressed is with the manager.

The final possibility is Symbolic.  It could be culturally acceptable to spar with one another (as it is in the culture of some families, groups of friends, etc.).  The Symbolic frame focuses on the meaning of organizational events to insiders and suggests ways to support the development of a healthy organizational culture. 

Although any of the frames may account for what’s happening among those two coworkers, it is hard to know which one really does without first looking at them all.  Any one frame may oversimplify a complex reality or send us blindly down the wrong path, squandering resources, time, and the change agent’s credibility along the way.                                                                                                 (Gallos, p351)

A comprehensive diagnoses is launched with the following questions:

Ø  What is going on Structurally? 

Ø  What is happening from a Human Resources perspective? 

Ø  What is going on Politically? 

Ø  What is happening in the culture (Symbolically)?

The author states, “Without a larger integrating framework for both diagnosis and intervention, OD risks becoming a series of incomplete or disconnected practices.” (Gallos, p357)

Each frame has “tensions” that need to be watched. We all have political leanings, values and biases that will tend to send us to one end of the continuum or the other.  These competing forces must be balanced as Organizational Development professionals work with decision makers within an organization.  We need to watch our own tendencies to jump to conclusion and lead others down that path. 

In summary, each of the four frames suggests an area of specialized attention and intervention for OD professionals.  Natural specialization in this industry tends to develop as people move into the OD consultant role from other areas of focus (e.g., being promoted into OD from an HR Generalist position brings a natural predilection favoring the HR frame and an understanding of the central tensions that are prevalent in it).  The advantages of specialization are that change agents can know more about a selected area, develop stronger skills in facilitating frame-related processes and diagnoses, and reflect their own values and talents.  Although specialization may be natural, Organizational Development exists to broaden the view of an integrated, multifaceted organization, which often suggests the need for dynamic, comprehensive interventions.

Bottom line:  Each of the 4 frames has its own purposefully limited view of the organization.  For this reason, you must use all four frames or none.   Remember that organizations are complex, functioning in all of these frames at once. 

To better understand the perspective inherent within each frame, take careful note of Figure 16.1, pages 347-348, especially focusing on the underlying assumptions that are often part of each frame.

Table 16.2, page 352, has been converted to a diagnostic form which is available for you to download under Section I.  Not only will it be helpful to you as you review the assigned case study, Computer Services at Avionics, but I encourage you to keep a copy to utilize later in your work as an OD Practitioner.

Teaming with you,

Diane Waisner

Welcome to Organizational Psychology & Behavior

Any blended course requires some tweaking from time to time and this one is no different.  Changes are to be expected throughout our short 8 weeks together.  I'm excited about the flexibility of teaching a subject I'm familiar with both the personal touch of face-to-face interaction and the convenience of new online tools.  It appears to be the best of both worlds educationally.  Among other things, electronic mediums applied in academic settings offer incredible flexibility related to integration with your existing schedule, vast improvement in audio/visual support, connection to the class from almost everywhere and timely communication between instructor and student.  In a blended setting, however, neither of us will lose the personal touch.  We can still get to know one another in our traditional class scheduled dates as well.  There is nothing to complain about in this list; this plan is all very good!

Regardless of what you perceive about your own academic success thus far, each successive course, whether online or traditional, brings renewed challenges inherent in new expectations. As long as these are clearly expressed to you, you will know where to devote your attention.  Thus, this blended method of learning enhances the need for very effective two-way communication.  

There are many ways to ensure that this happens in a timely way. During our face-to-face class time, I will reach farther ahead when explaining upcoming assignments, etc., so that you will have an opportunity to ask questions and receive clarification in person, while it is easiest to communicate.  My contact information is included on the course site.  Please feel free to contact me personally when you have questions but only after you have been unsuccessful finding the answer in the information that has already been provided to you, both in the module and on the course site. When I receive several questions from different students with virtually the same theme, I will communicate the answer "globally" to all of you via a new post or tweet, depending upon the complexity required.  E-mail is the easiest way to get in touch with me.  I check it daily and will respond to you ASAP.

Some of you are versed in the rigors of online learning but others may be trying this out for the first time.  I speak to both of you when I recognize that there are some additional challenges related to it for all of us.  Once again, meeting in person for the predominance of our 8-week session will help lessen this confusion.  

Some students naturally like to be provided with more detail before they feel comfortable beginning a task.  Others don't feel the need for as much detailed instruction. This can be due to differences in levels of school experience, as well as differing personality styles.  In explaining assignments, you will find that my instructions are most often tailored toward the students who wants additional instruction.  I always attempt to communicate more rather than less.  If, however, anything in my instructions is unclear or incomplete, feel free to contact me and I'll be happy to clarify the issue for you. 

In addition, you may have a question, observation or suggestion about the content of this class or mode of communication.  If so, I want to hear from you.  Every attempt will be made to continue to improve the blended way this class functions. 


As I receive questions from students pertaining to the content or requests for clarification I will most likely respond back to you in the medium you used to communicate with me. Personal questions will be handled as such but if the same general question is received from more than one person, I may choose to send out a response to the entire class via Twitter (if it is short, of course), a new blog or course announcement.  During the weeks we are online only, please check the class site several times each day for new posts.  This is very important.  Asking forgiveness for missing an important date change or a communication I send out that is fundamental to an assignment when it was readily available to you simply won't work to remove the penalty in most cases.

To those of you who are new to this varied form of learning let me say that it does require some additional patience at times but it can be a very convenient form of education, melding easily into your existing schedule.  I caution you, however, not to take this flexibility for granted.  Allocate plenty of time to accomplish the required activities when we don't meet face to face.  It is easy to put off what must be done when there is no class time to report to.  The deadlines provided for each online activity are as inflexible as they are when we meet traditionally.


If you haven't done so already, join Twitter.  This will help to keep you and I connected.  I will use it primarily to point you to information that I have changed or reposted and I will often remind you of deadlines you might miss otherwise.


This is going to be a very beneficial eight weeks.   I expect that each of you will exercise patience and professionalism in working with each other and (especially) with me.   I'm here to help you achieve your academic goals so let me know how I can assist you.  My contact information is listed on our course home page.


Anticipating your success,
Diane Waisner

Writing Successful Papers

Congratulations, because you are reading this post, you have successfully found the Course RSS Feeds section on our course site.  I will be posting regular blogs here throughout the duration of our very short 8 weeks together.  Many of these blogs will pertain to course content and my expectations for your success.  I will also give you group feedback on papers, discussion forums, etc., here.  I encourage you to pay particular attention to what I regularly communicate via blog because I will assume that you have.

Successful completion of this course will require good writing skills.   This includes applied critical thinking, making the flow of your written thoughts logical, supported and easy to follow.  In addition, you are strongly urged to pay very close attention to grammar, word usage and spelling.  All of us miss things at times but I want to be clear, the standards are high. At the risk of sounding overly testy, it is not my job to proof your work.  If the job of grading your papers is made more difficult because I can't make sense of your sentence structure, grammar, spelling, etc., it will reflect itself in your grade.  You may have great ideas and clear understanding but if I can't read and assimilate what you've written, you will be probably be disappointed in my assessment of your work.  The overall professionalism of your paper, both content and formatting, will be weighed heavily as well.  At the graduate level, successful completion of assignments should encompass all of this analysis, not just pure content.  

If you believe any of this might be a struggle for you, please seek help through Avila’s Learning Center sooner rather than later. It is a wonderful resource, staffed by very helpful professionals and provided as a free service to every student.  In addition, please find someone who can regularly proof your papers for you.

Here are a few of my own suggestions related to successful completion of the written assignments:

1.    Unless the focus is intended to be different, consider the concepts as an OD practitioner would.  While you are in this course, that should always be your default perspective.  For example, when applying facets of a theory or OD method to a particular case, please don’t turn in book report-type content, where one simply summarizes what the chapter or case study story was about.  Instead pull out specific facets of the theory/method you are examining and use them to assess problems revealed in the case, including any subsequent recommendations.  Be thorough; scrutinize every crucial detail provided to you.

2.    I am always impressed when students make correct use of their own personal examples (drawn from interaction in work, religious or civic organizations) to illustrate a point they are making.  This can bring personal practicality into what is otherwise an academic exercise.  It also illustrates to me that you are automatically trying to apply what you are learning.  Of course, be sure that any example you choose applies well and aids understanding of the point you are trying to make.  For instance, when completing the first written assignment (linking Joan Gallos’ Reframing method to the case Reputation in Jeopardy), you must thoroughly link the four frames (Structural, Human, Political, Cultural) to the conflict and change described in the Home Savings organization but if you wish to further illustrate your point with a personal example, it may strengthen your written opinion. 

3.    In your papers, address specific facets of the theory rather than generalizing.  When you generalize, you are writing in a single loop way.  Probe deeper and unpack the concepts you refer to, asking yourself probing questions about the material and how it might be applied practically. 

For example, a statement which is too general might sound like this: 

“The problem relates to insufficient resources.  If they were given everything the situation required, they would have been successful.” 

Now if “the problem” and “resources” and what “the situation required” and “success” have each been specifically defined previously in your paper, this might make a good summary statement to end with.  But in most cases, there is little detail provided when I read general statements like this from students.  As the author, you may have the additional details in mind when you write the summary above but good writers record the flow of their thinking so there are no jumps in logic for the reader.

Before you submit your written assignment, take a fresh look about your paper. 

1.    Have you considered the case and theory implications as an OD professional would? 

2.    Is it specific enough?  Are there any generalizations which are ill-defined?

3.    Does it include your critical assessment and any applicable suggestions related to  next steps you would recommend to help remedy the problem(s) (as applicable)? 

4.    Is the flow of your writing logical and easy to follow? 

5.    Have you proofed your text for grammar, word usage and spelling errors?

What you learn about effective writing now will pay professional dividends later. 

Committed to your success,

Diane