dministration assessment report · pdf filethat the chair reviews annually in the departmental...

of 27 pages

Maharishi University of ManagementSCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Assessment ReportPh.D. Program

July 2010

THE MISSION AND BROAD-BASED GOALS OF THE SCHOOL 2

GOALS AND STRUCTURE OF THE PH.D. PROGRAM 2

Goals of the Program 2

Structure of the Program 3

OUTCOMESASSESSMENTFORTHEPH.D.PROGRAM 2009‐10 3

Enrollment, Progress and Attrition 3

OUTCOMESASSESSMENT 4

Written Comprehensive Exam 4

Written and Oral Qualifying Exam 4

Dissertation Proposals 5

Dissertation Defenses 5

Placement 5

Publication of Research by Students 5

Survey of graduating students 6

APPENDICES: ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS 7

Appendix A: Evaluation of Ph.D. Comprehensive Exam Question—Research Critique 7

Appendix B: Evaluation of Ph.D. Student Comprehensive Exam Question on Curriculum Content 11

Appendix C: Evaluation Rubric for the Literature Review Comprehensive Exam 12

Appendix D: Evaluation of Ph.D. Student Teaching Demonstration 13

Appendix E: Rubric for Prospectus & Oral Qualifying Exam 15

Appendix F: Rubric for Dissertation Proposals and Dissertations 16

of 27 pages

The Mission and Broad-based Goals of the School

The Mission Statement of the School of Business and Public Administration describes the long-term goals toward which the School is directed.

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONMission Statement

The goal of the School, like that of the University, is to unfold in every student the full potential ofconsciousness and thereby realize the long-sought ideal of education to create ideal citizens —graduates who can fulfill their own aspirations while promoting all good in society.

The School of Business and Public Administration integrates knowledge of the traditionaldisciplines of management with knowledge and scientifically verified technologies of consciousness,primarily the Maharishi Transcendental Meditation program. Through this integrated approach, theUniversity develops the students’ ability to manage their lives successfully, to grow steadily in health,happiness and wisdom, and to achieve both personal and professional satisfaction.

The School will teach the most up-to-date knowledge of business and public administration andwill conduct research and apply knowledge that will introduce the organizing power of Natural Lawinto every aspect of management and thereby raise the practice of business and public administrationto the supreme efficiency and effectiveness by which the administration of the universe is conducted.

This Assessment Plan begins with the plans for student learning outcomes assessment in each ofthe degree programs offered by the School and finishes with a section on the school-level outcomesthat the chair reviews annually in the departmental assessment report.

Goals and Structure of the Ph.D. Program

Goals of the Program

Maharishi University of Management is the leading University in the world specializing indevelopment of human consciousness. The coursework and research in this doctoral program aretaught in the light of the science and technology of consciousness, from the founder of the universityMaharishi Mahesh Yogi. The doctoral program is designed to prepare students for careers asprofessors, corporate educators or researchers. The focus of the curriculum is on creating and applyingknowledge for transforming the performance of individuals, organizations, and societies. The goals ofthe program can be expressed in terms of research, teaching, and personal development:

• The Ph.D. program prepares each student to conduct original and significant researchthrough courses in research methods and statistics.

• Students in the Ph.D. program are trained in principles and practices for successful collegeteaching and corporate education.

• Furthermore, by learning the theoretical and practical aspects of the science and technologyof consciousness, including the Transcendental Meditation program, students personallygrow in better health, clearer thinking, greater creativity, moral development, and wisdom.

of 27 pages

Structure of the Program

The Ph.D. in Management requires four semesters of full-time study in residence and has fourphases:

Doctoral Course Work. Students take a program of courses that consists of a Ph.D. Core of 4courses (14 units) covering organizational behavior, human resource development, assessment andevaluation, and responsible management. There is also a required Research Methods Core of 6 courses(24 units) and 4 units of seminars in teaching and writing.

Written Comprehensive and Oral Qualifying Exams. As part of the required course work in thefourth semester, students undertake a written comprehensive exam and a written and oral qualifyingexam. When a student successfully completes the qualifying examination, the student is advanced toPh.D. candidate status.

Dissertation Proposal. When a dissertation proposal is accepted, the student is advanced to Ph.D.researcher status.

Dissertation Research and Defense. The Ph.D. researcher must write the dissertation research andsuccessfully complete an oral defense of the dissertation.

Outcomes Assessment for the Ph.D. Program 2009-10

Enrollment, Progress and Attrition

The annual assessment plan of the Ph.D. program calls for data on enrollment, retention, andattrition at the stages of new and continuing doctoral student, doctoral candidate, and doctoralresearcher. The following table summarizes enrollment data, retention, and status data.

2008-09 2009-2010

Newly admitted Ph.D. Students 6 0

Continuing Ph.D. Students 0 3

Ph.D. Candidates 3 7

Ph.D. Researchers 4 3

Researchers graduated 1 1

A positive indicator from this data is that there was no program attrition in the 2009-2010academic year; in fact, one Ph.D. researcher returned to enrolled status, and one continuing Ph.D.student is rejoining for Fall 2010.

For the group that entered the Ph.D. program in January 2009, all 4 have completedcomprehensive exams by summer 2010.

A point of concern in this data is that three students who were in candidate status at the beginningof the 2009-2010 year are still in candidate status at the end of June, 2010. They have been developingtheir research plans but do not have approved dissertation proposals yet. The program is planningadjustments to help students move more quickly into approved dissertation proposals after thequalifying exam is passed.

A solution for this is being implemented in Fall, 2010. The course MGT 700 Dissertation ProposalPreparation involves a textbook, syllabus and structure of class meetings with faculty. This course willguide students through the dissertation proposal process and will create accountability and social

of 27 pages

support. The intended outcome—that students progress more quickly to having approvedproposals—will be evaluated in the next annual program assessment.

Outcomes Assessment

Written Comprehensive Exam

Five students took the Comprehensive Exam this year. Four have completed all parts of the exam.One student is still working on one of the four parts of the exam. Their results are summarized asfollows.

1. Critique of a Research Manuscript. Five of five students completed this exam by satisfyingthe assessment criteria in Appendix A. Specific research questions in a given year will emphasize partsof the this comprehensive rubric. In 2010 the Comprehensive Exam for Research Critique focused onidentifying the major research hypotheses, summarizing the research design, evaluating threats tointernal validity, and suggesting how the research design could be improved in a future study.

2. Discussion of Selected Topics from the Ph.D. curriculum. Five out of five students passedusing the rubric in Appendix 4. The minimum passing score was 20 out of 25. The average score of 5students was 22.1.

Two students did not pass the exam on the first attempt, not because of deficiencies in contentknowledge, but because of weaknesses in development and organization of writing. These two wereinternational students. They did pass a second attempt after detailed feedback and coaching aboutgeneral principles of essay writing. The faculty advised these two students to seek support of writingtutors while writing proposals and dissertations.

One point learned from this assessment is to be even more selective in Ph.D. admissionsscreening—by careful evaluation of writing samples from applicants.

3. Literature Review evaluated according to the rubric in Appendix C. The criteria in the rubricare scored on a Yes/No basis and students needed Yes on all criteria to pass. Four students whoattempted this part of exam all passes in 2010.

4. Teaching. Students teach a sample lesson and are evaluated according to the checklist inAppendix D. To pass, the students needed to satisfy all points on the Checklist for Lecture Structureand receive ratings of 80 out of 100 on the Rating Form for Lecture Delivery. All students weresuccessful. The average rating of 5 students was 93 out of 100. One student did not pass on firstattempt; he did pass on second attempt, following coaching and rehearsal.

Written and Oral Qualifying ExamThe qualifying exam consisted of a written presentation of a preliminary research proposal as well asan oral presentation to the program faculty.

Three students completed the written prospectus and oral presentation and were evaluatedaccording to the rubrics in Appendix E. For the written prospectus the average score was 20.3 out of24 (minimum 16 of 24 to pass). For the oral the scores for three test takers were 6 of 6 (minimum 4 of6 to pass). One student attempted this qualifying exam but was advised to make revisions to sharpenhis expression of the rationale, research hypotheses, and methods.

The addition of this rubric to our evaluation process enabled us to have a standard tool forassessments from a panel of faculty and enabled us to give specific feedback to students.

of 27 pages

Dissertation Proposals

No students presented dissertation proposals this year.

Dissertation Defenses

One student successfully defended a completed dissertation this year. She passed with Yes on allthe criteria in the dissertation rubric (Appendix F).

Placement

The one graduate of the Ph.D. program this year is continuing her education. She is onTranscendental Meditation Teacher Training Course.

Publication of Research by Students

The success of the Ph.D. program is measured also by the publication of research in which currentstudents, or recently graduated students, were involved in each of two ways:

• Publications with students as co-authors• Publications, including research derived from the doctoral dissertation

This year Ravi Subramaniam was coauthor with Dr. Dennis Heaton of a chapter in a forthcomingbook on global ethics. This chapter was started during a course in this year’s Ph.D. curriculum.

Heaton, D. P. and Subramaim, R. (2010, in press). An Eastern approach to the global problem ofcorruptibility. In C. Wankel and S. Malleck (Eds.), Globalization and Ethics. Charlotte, NC:Information Age Publishing.

Graduates Zhao Jiangning and Richard Thompson have had their dissertations published as books:Jiangning Zhao (2009). The Effect of ISO-14001 Environmental Management System on theCorporate Financial Performance, Köln, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing AG &Co. KG., ISBN: 978-3-8383-1042-8 (The Book is also Available at:http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&fieldkeywords=zhao+jiangning&x=12&y=18)

Richard Thompson (2009) Successful Cross-Cultural Strategies for Distance Education Partners: Astudy of successful cross-cultural strategies experienced by stakeholders in international ...partnerships based in the Caribbean . LAP Lambert Academic Publishing (August 31, 2009)http://www.amazon.com/Successful-Cross-Cultural-Strategies-Distance-Education/dp/3838311248/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280949844&sr=1-8

Jiangning Zhao had a published article from his dissertation research:Jiangning Zhao & D. Steven White (2010). Dynamic Capability – Explaining the Impact of ISO-14001 on Corporate Financial Performance, International Journal of Service and OperationsManagement, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 470-488.

Jiangning Zhao also published an research study conducted after his Ph.D. graduation:Jiangning Zhao (2009). Merger / Acquisition and Strategy – A Case Study from AT&T to at&t,Köln, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing AG & Co. KG., ISBN: 978-3-8383-1083-1. (The Book is also Available at: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=zhao+jiangning&x=12&y=18)

of 27 pages

Sabita Sawhney had two conference presentations.S. Sawhney. Developing trust in a supply chain: Use of TM technique,” The Second GlobalStudies Conference, Dubai, UAE, May 31, 2009

S. Sawhney. “Bringing Greater Emphasis on Environmental Greening in MBA programs”,International Decision Sciences Conference, Nancy, France, June 24-27, 2009.

Ayako Huang presented a conceptual paper from her research proposal:Ayako, Huang (2010). The Role of New Institutional Economics in Licensing Contracts.Presentated at the Midwest Business Adminstration Conference, Chicago, March, 2010.

Survey of graduating students

Will be added in future reporting years.

of 27 pages

Appendices: Assessment Instruments

Appendix A: Evaluation of Ph.D. Comprehensive Exam Question—Research Critique

(adapted from http://www.sonoma.edu/users/n/nolan/n400/critique.htm)

The reviewers will evaluate the critique according to the following checklist. Mark each item Yes, no,or NA (not applicable). Comment on strengths and areas for improvement in the critique.Research Problems, Research Questions, and Hypotheses

1. What is the research problem? Has the researcher appropriately delimited the scope of theproblem?

2. Do the hypotheses (if any) flow from a theory or from previous research? If not, what is thebasis for the researcher's predictions?

3. Are hypotheses (if any) properly worded (i.e., do they state a predicted relationship betweentwo or more variables)?

Research Literature Reviews

1. Does the coverage of the literature seem thorough? Does it appear that the review includes allor most of the major studies that have been conducted on the topic of interest? Are recentresearch reports cited?

2. Does the review rely on appropriate materials (e.g., mainly on research reports, using primarysources)?

3. Is the review organized in such a way that the development of ideas is clear?

Conceptual and Theoretical Frameworks

1. Does the research report describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for thestudy? If not, does the absence of an explicit framework detract from the usefulness orsignificance of the research?

Research Designs in Quantitative Studies

1. Given the nature of the research question, what type of design--experimental, quasi-experimental, or pre-experimental--is most appropriate? How does this correspond to the typeof design used?

2. Was the study longitudinal or cross-sectional? Was the number of points of data collectionappropriate, given the research question?

3. What type of comparisons were called for in the research design (e.g., was the study designwithin-subjects or between-subjects)? Are these comparisons the most appropriate forilluminating the relationship between the independent and dependent variables?

of 27 pages

4. To what extent is the study internally valid? What types of alternative explanations must beconsidered (i.e., what are the threats to the study's internal validity)? Does the research designenable the researcher to draw causal inferences about the relationship among study variables?

5. To what extent is the study externally valid?

6. What are the major limitations of the design used? Are these limitations acknowledged by theresearcher and taken into account in interpreting the results?

Qualitative and Integrated Designs

1. Does the research question appear to be congruent with the research tradition (i.e., is thedomain of inquiry for the study congruent with the domain encompassed by the tradition)? Dothe data sources and general methods of the study appear consistent with the tradition?

2. How well is the research design described? Are design decisions explained and justified?

3. Does the design appear thoughtful and appropriate? Does the design lend itself to a thorough,in-depth, intensive examination of the phenomenon of interest?

Quantitative Sampling Designs

1. Is the target or accessible population identified and described? Are eligibility criteria specified?to whom can the study results be generalized?

2. Are the sample selection procedures clearly described? What type of sampling plan was used?

3. How adequate is the sampling plan in terms of yielding a representative sample?

4. Did some factor other than the sampling plan affect the representativeness of the sample (e.g.,a low response rate)?

5. Are possible sample biases identified?

6. Is the sample size sufficiently large? Was the sample size justified on the basis of a poweranalysis or other rationale?

Qualitative Sampling Designs

1. Is the setting or study group adequately described? Is the setting appropriate for the researchquestion?

2. Are the sample selection procedures described? What type of sampling strategy was used?

3. Given the information needs of the study, was the sampling approach appropriate? Weredimensions of the phenomenon under study adequately represented?

4. Is the sample size adequate? Did the researcher stipulate that information redundancy wasachieved? Do the findings suggest a richly textured and comprehensive set of data without anyapparent "holes" or thin areas?

Self-Reports

of 27 pages

1. Does the research question lend itself to a self-report method of data collection? Would analternative method have been more appropriate?

2. Is the degree of structure consistent with the nature of the research question?

3. Given the research question and respondent characteristics, did the researcher use the bestpossible mode for collecting the data (i.e., personal interviews, telephone interviews, or self-administered questionnaires)?

4. Do the questions included in the instrument or topic guide adequately cover the complexities ofthe problem under investigation?

Observational Methods

1. Does the research question lend itself to an observational approach? Would an alternativemethod have been more appropriate?

2. Is the degree of structure consistent with the nature of the research question?

3. Where did the observations take place? To what extent did the setting or the observer influencethe naturalness of the behaviors observed?

4. How were data actually recorded (e.g., on field notes, checklists)? Did the recording procedureappear appropriate?

5. What was the plan by which events or behaviors were sampled? Did this plan appearappropriate?

Data Collection Procedures

1. Who collected the research data? Were the data collectors qualified for their role, or is theresomething about them (e.g., their professional role, their relationship with study participants)that could undermine the collection of unbiased, high-quality data?

2. How were data collectors trained? Does the training appear adequate?

3. Where and under what circumstances were the data gathered? Were other people presentduring the data collection? Could the presence of others have created any distortions?

4. Did the collection of data place any undue burdens (in terms of time or stress) on participants?How might this have affected data quality?

Data Quality in Qualitative Studies

1. Does the research report discuss efforts the researcher made to enhance or evaluate thetrustworthiness of the data? If so, is the description sufficiently detailed and clear?

2. Which techniques (if any) did the researcher use to enhance and appraise the credibility of thedata? Was the investigator in the field an adequate amount of time? Was triangulation used,and, if so, of what type? Did the researcher search for disconfirming evidence? Were there peerdebriefings or member checks? Do the researcher's qualifications enhance the credibility of thedata?

of 27 pages

3. Which techniques (if any) did the researcher use to enhance and appraise the dependability,confirmability, and transferability of the data?

4. Were the procedures used to enhance and document data quality adequate? Given theprocedures used (if any), what can you conclude about the trustworthiness of the data?

Quantitative Analyses

1. Do the selected statistical tests appear to be appropriate—for assumptions for those tests (e.g.,are the tests appropriate for the level of measurement of key variables)?

2. Was an appropriate amount of statistical information reported? Were important analysesomitted, or were unimportant analyses included?

Qualitative Analyses

1. Who coded the data--the researcher or assistants? Did the report indicate that efforts weremade to determine interrater reliability of the coding?

2. Does the report describe the process by which an integrated thematic analysis was performed?What major themes emerged? If excerpts from the data are provided, do the themes appear tocapture the meaning of the narratives (i.e., does it appear that the researcher adequatelyinterpreted the data and conceptualized the themes)?

3. What evidence does the report provide that the researcher's analysis is accurate and replicable?

4. Was the context of the phenomenon adequately described? Does the report give you a clearpicture of the social or emotional world of the study participants?

Conduct of a Written Research Critique

1. Give specific examples of the study's strengths and limitations. Avoid vague generalizations ofpraise and fault finding.

2. Suggest realistic alternatives that the researcher (or future researchers) might want to consider.Don't just identify problems--offer some recommended solutions, making sure that therecommendations are practical ones.

The Interpretative Dimensions of a Research Report

1. Are the interpretations consistent with the results? Do the interpretations give dueconsideration to the limitations of the research methods?

2. Are alternative explanations for the findings mentioned, and is the rationale for their rejectionpresented?

3. In quantitative studies, does the interpretation distinguish between practical and statisticalsignificance?

4. Are generalizations made that are not warranted on the basis of the sample used?

5. Are specific recommendations for practice or future studies made? Are the recommendationsconsistent with the findings and consistent with the body of knowledge on the topic?

of 27 pages

Appendix B: Evaluation of Ph.D. Student Comprehensive Exam Question on Curriculum ContentEssay Evaluation Rubric (total 25 points) (minimum 20 points passing)

CONTENT (10)up to 1 point Assignment Criteria

clearly identifies the strategic objectives of the businessexplains the firms specific programs for these objectivesdemonstrates knowledge of process improvementdemonstrates knowledge of human resource developmentdemonstrates knowledge of leadershipdemonstrates knowledge of social and environmental responsibilitydemonstrates knowledge of organizational changeLogically connects organizational improvement to theoretical aspects of thescience and technology of consciousnessExplains human characteristics needed in order to implement these programsExplains TM research related to those human characteristics

DEVELOPMENT (5)5 (Excellent) Develops ideas thoroughly and effectively with strong specific details,

examples or explanations; may demonstrate originality, creativity or factualsupport; is thoroughly completed.

4 (Good) Develops ideas thoroughly and effectively with strong specific details,examples or explanations; is complete

3 (Fair) Develops ideas thoroughly; ideas sufficiently supported with specificexamples. May not be complete.

2 (Poor) Develops ideas in a limited way; includes only a few details, examples orexplanations. May include inappropriate detail. Fails to address key aspects(requirements) of assignment.

ORGANIZATION (5)5 (Excellent) Very well organized; main ideas are very clear and vivid; effective smooth

sequencing. Begins with attention and wholeness. Ends with conclusion.4 (Good) Organized; clearly stated main ideas with only minor problems in

cohesiveness; ideas appropriately sequenced.3 (Fair) Not clearly organized; may wander or lack appropriate transitions, but thought

can be followed.2 (Poor) Disorganized with confusing, disconnected ideas; difficult to follow.

MECHANICS/LANGUAGE (5)5 (Excellent) Displays consistent facility with language; variety of sentence structures

(simple and complex); sophisticated/precise/clever word choice; no detectablegrammatical or mechanical errors.

4 (Good) Displays facility with language; competence with most sentence structures;good word choice; occasional minor errors in grammar, mechanics idiomusage, but meaning is not obscured.

3 (Fair) Displays competence with simple sentence structure, although may haveproblems with complex sentences; lacks variety of sentences; occasional errorsin grammar; mechanics, word choice or idiom usage may occasionally confusemeaning.

2 (Poor) Meaning is seriously or frequently obscured or confused due to major orfrequent problems in sentence construction, grammar, mechanics or wordchoice/idiom usage.

of 27 pages

Appendix C: Evaluation Rubric for the Literature Review Comprehensive ExamLiterature Review Rubric

Your literature review will be evaluated according to the Literature Review section in the followingrubric, taken from the Maharishi University of Management Proposal/Dissertation Rubric

Rating Scale for Proposal/Dissertation Quality Indicators

Y = Acceptable as written: all crucial elements are included and adequately described. N = Must be revised and resubmitted: one or more essential component(s) are missing or notsatisfactorily described.

N/A = Not Applicable (N/A). This quality indicator does not apply to the document

Literature Review: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies(for Proposal and Dissertation Documents)

Quality Indicators Rating

1. There is an Introduction that describesa. the content of the review,b. the organization of the review, andc. the strategy used for searching the literature.

Comments:

select

2. The review of related literature is organized under headings such as:a. research hypotheses (quantitative), or study questions (qualitative)b. each of the variables in the researchc. methods of research

Comments:

select

3. The review of related research and literature includesa. comparisons/contrasts of points of view, research methods, research outcomes,b. the relationship of the study to previous researchc. comparisons are summarized by means of a table or figure

Comments:

select

4. The review contains concise summaries of literatures that helpa. define the most important aspects of the theoretical models that will be

examined or tested (for quantitative studies), orb. substantiate the rationale or conceptual framework for the study (for

qualitative studies).

Comments:

select

5. The content of the review is drawn from acceptable peer-reviewed journals or soundacademic journals, or there is a justification for using other sources.

Comments:

select

6. The literature review is sufficiently broad

of 27 pages


Comments, suggested additions: select

7. Multiple sources are synthesized in a concise way

Comments:select

8. The Conclusion of the literature review is a critical synthesis of the most relevant andcurrent published knowledge and substantiates the purpose of the study.

Comments:

select

Appendix D: Evaluation of Ph.D. Student Teaching DemonstrationEvaluation Criteria:

a. Teaching Materials for lecture and for activitiesb. Lesson Planc. Lecture Structure (see checklist for lecture structure)d. Delivery (see rating form for lecture delivery)e. Active learning exercise that reviews and summarizes the lessonf. Student to student interactiong. Questions from teacherh. Answering questions from studentsi. Time (60–90 minutes)j. Professional Appearance

CHECKLIST FOR LECTURE STRUCTURE INTRODUCTION

Attention Step — enlivening receptivity Motivation Step — inspiring the students with the usefulness of the lesson Course Overview Chart — large wall chart Wholeness — the most important idea of the whole lecture or course Overview —brief statement of what will be covered in the lecture

BODY Main Points from the discipline, shown on charts. Main Points alternated with concrete supporting material SCI or Maharishi Vedic Science point illuminating every Main Point

CONCLUSION Summary — brief recapitulation of the main points and SCI perspective Reference to the Unified Field Chart Conclusion with the Unity Chart — connecting the main theme of the lecture to de-velopment of higher states of consciousness

of 27 pages

RATING FORM FOR LECTURE DELIVERYPresenter: __________________ Overall evaluation: _______ (on a 100 point scale)

How interesting was the presentation?not very

interestingveryinteresting

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 How informative was the presentation?

not veryinformative

veryinformative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Was the material presented clearly and articulately?not at all yes

definitely1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How useful was the activity in helping you understand the material?

not veryuseful

veryuseful

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How well did the SCI principles help you understand the material?poor excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How would you rate the structure of the presentation (organization, logic, flow)?poor excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How would you rate the pacing of the presentation (speed, time management)?poor excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How would you rate the presenter’s poise, comprehensibility, confidence?poor excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

How well did the presenter answer questions?not very well very well

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

of 27 pages

Appendix E: Rubric for Prospectus & Oral Qualifying ExamEvaluators will check the appropriate boxes on the rubric forms and total the points for the prospectus and oralqualifying exam. Evaluator scores will be aggregated by the program director to make a composite score.

Student name ___________________________ Date: _________________________

Rubric for the ProspectusElement Excellent 3 Competent 2 Needs more work 1 Missing 0Researchquestion

Presents an originalsignificant theoreticalissue.

Addresses a principle orissue generalized beyondthe immediate researchsetting.

Addresses a practicalproblem in the fieldlacking theoreticalframework.

No researchquestion

Rationale Literature reviewcompellingly concludeswith the need for theproposed research.Methods are suitable tothe aim.

Shows why researchquestion is important oruseful within the field ofmanagement; indicateslimitations of student’saims

A purpose for theresearch is stated but theoriginal contribution ofthe research is notevident.

Norationale

BriefLiteratureReview

Reviews recent relevantpeer-reviewed academicarticles; explainsmethods, measures;evaluates limitations ofprior research.

Reviews recent relevantpeer-reviewed academicarticles.

Reviews literature that istoo broad or too out ofdate and does notdiscriminate the researchquality of the literature.

Noliteraturereview

SCI/MVS Uses MVS/SCI todevelop or drive theory

Explains how SCI/MVSaddresses key problems inthe field

Includes MVS/SCI butnot integrated with keyproblems in the field

NoSCI/MVS

Researchhypothesis

Focused hypotheses orpropositions come acrossas logical conclusion ofthe literature andrationale.

Specifies at least 1 well-formed, quantitativelytestable hypothesis or 1qualitatively researchableproposition

Hypotheses orpropositions are stated invague terms; constructsare too general to beresearched.

Nohypothesesorpropositions

Researchmethod

Describes methods ofdata collection andanalysis. Discussesstrengths and limits interms of validity ofmeasures and design.

Outlines and justifiesproposed researchmethod; Briefly addressesdesign, measures,controls, sample,procedures, and analysis.

Outlines proposedmethod, but someelements of design are notaddressed; or lacksjustification

Nodiscussionof method

Timeline Identifies realistic majormilestones and expecteddates of completion

Identifies majormilestones and expecteddates of completion, butmay lack practical timeestimates.

Timeline omits importantmilestones

NoTimeline

References& in-textcitations

Complete bibliography;correct APA Style

APA style bibliographywith minor style errorsof omissions.

Biblilography has majoromissions and formattingerrors.

NoReferences

Maximum total points: 24 (8*3). Minimum for passing: 16 points (8*2). Score for this prospectus_________.

If prospectus does not achieve minimum passing points, the student will redo with coaching.

of 27 pages

Rubric for Oral Qualifying Exam –all of the above PLUSElement Competent 1 Needs more work 0Structure Follows all steps of good presentation

in sequence.Follows steps of good presentation but leavesout one of two items.

VisualAids

Uses PowerPoint slides that are legible,not too wordy, error-free.

Slides have some errors and problems ofreadability

Delivery Speaks clearly with good tempo. Audience has some difficulty to understand themessage.

Time Delivers presentation in 20-25 minutes Parts of the presentation are too time-consuming

Fieldsaudiencequestions

Answers to questions from audienceshow knowledge and understanding ofthe subject.

Does not show understanding or receptivity tocomments from audience.

AudienceHandouts

Main Points Chart and Unity Chart incorrect format, error free, legible

Charts have some errors in construction of thecontent and form of charts.

Oral minimum points: 4/6. Score for this oral qualifying exam. __________.If the oral presentation does not achieve the minimum points, the student will practice, with coaching,and redo.

Appendix F: Rubric for Dissertation Proposals and Dissertations

The purpose of the rubric is to guide students and dissertation supervisory committees as theywork together to develop high-quality proposals and theses. The rubric should be shared with studentsearly in their doctoral programs and frequently used in advisement and graduate courses to reflectMaharishi University of Management’s expectations for high-quality dissertations.

Use of the rubric is intended to provide ongoing and flexible evaluation and reevaluation of the proposaland dissertation drafts as they are developed. For the final copy of each document (either the proposal ordissertation), there must be unanimous approval by the dissertation supervisory committee before the studentproceeds to the oral defense (although revisions may be required following the oral).

For some sections, the rubric is divided into two separate threads: one for qualitative research designs andone for quantitative designs. It is intended that students develop a working knowledge of the overall rubric,reflecting their understanding of diverse research designs. As the student begins the process of developing aproposal for the dissertation, each dissertation supervisory committee should select the threads of the rubric thatbest reflect the design of the proposed dissertation study.

As the proposal is developed and submitted for review to the dissertation supervisory committee, eachcommittee member should use the version of the dissertation rubric selected by the committee to communicatehis or her evaluations to the student, the chairperson, and the other members of the committee. This process ofongoing evaluation and communication will continue throughout the development of the proposal anddissertation.

Quality indicators are specified in the rubric for each chapter of the proposal and dissertation. Thesubsections for each chapter are made up of descriptions of substantive characteristics of the proposal or

of 27 pages

dissertation, specifically related to the scholarly quality and integrity of the document. A numerical rating scaleis associated with each subcategory of proposal/dissertation quality indicators.

A space for comments is provided for each subgroup of quality indicators in each chapter.Comments provided by the evaluator (committee member) should refer to praiseworthy aspects of thedocument as well as offer specific guidance for revision when needed. Comments should provideformative evaluation for that particular chapter and be useful to the student and other members of thedissertation supervisory committee. The spaces provided for comment are not to be used forcommunicating line-by-line editing of the manuscript. If the document is in need of editing, thecommittee member needs to comment to that effect, but provide any extensive comments in a separatecommunication.

Descriptors to be used on the 5-point rating scale connote sequential levels in the developing quality of thedocument and/or chapter. Specific expectations relating to revision, reevaluation, and approval are in thedefinition for each value on the rating scale.

Maharishi University of Management

page 18 of 27 pages

Student and Evaluator Information

Date:

Student Name:

Evaluator Name:

Overall EvaluationSelect the rating that represents the committee’s judgment: selectY = Acceptable as written: all crucial elements are included and adequately described.

N = Must be revised and resubmitted

Rating Scale for Proposal/Dissertation Quality Indicators

Y = Acceptable as written: all crucial elements are included and adequately described. N = Must be revised and resubmitted: one or more essential component(s) are missing or notsatisfactorily described.

N/A = Not Applicable (N/A). This quality indicator does not apply to the document.

Committee members:After you complete this form:

1. save it to your hard drive, and then2. attach the saved version to an e-mail addressed and sent to the committee chair.

AbstractQuality Indicators Rating

1. Abstracta. For the proposal, abstract contains a concise description of the study, a brief

statement of the problem, exposition of methods and procedures.b. For the dissertation, abstract also includes a summary of findings and

implications.

Comments:

select


page 19 of 27 pages

Introduction: Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesQuality Indicators Rating

1. The Purpose of the study is described in a logical, explicit manner. The theoreticalbase or the conceptual framework shows which ideas from the literature ground theresearch being conducted. There is a brief, well-articulated summary of researchliterature that substantiates the study, with references to more detailed discussionsin the Literature Review chapter.

Comments:

select

2. In quantitative studies, the Problem Statement concisely states what will bestudied by describing at least two variables and a conjectured relationship betweenthem. In qualitative studies, the Problem Statement describes the need for increasedunderstanding about the issue.

Comments:

select

3. The Nature of the Study, Specific Research Questions, Hypotheses, or ResearchObjectives are briefly and clearly described. Reference is made to more detail inthe Methods chapter.

Comments:

select

4. Operational Definitions of technical terms, jargon, or special word uses areprovided.

Comments:

select

5. Assumptions, Limitations, and Scopea. facts assumed to be true but not actually verified,b. potential weaknesses of the study, andc. the bounds of the study.

Comments:

select

6. The Significance of the Study is described in terms of knowledge generation,professional application, and social change.

Comments:

select

7. Chapter 1 ends with a transition statement that contains a summary of key points ofthe study and an Overview of the content of the remaining chapters in the study.

Comments:

select


page 20 of 27 pages

Literature Review: Qualitative and Quantitative Studies(for Proposal and Dissertation Documents)


1. There is an Introduction that describes the:a. content of the review,b. organization of the review, andc. strategy used for searching the literature.

Comments:

select

2. The review of related literature is organized under headings, such as:a. research hypotheses (quantitative), or study questions (qualitative)b. each of the variables in the researchc. methods of research

Comments:

select

3. The review of related research and literature includes:a. comparisons/contrasts of points of view, research methods, research

outcomes,b. the relationship of the study to previous researchc. comparisons are summarized by means of a table or figure

Comments:

select

4. The review contains concise summaries of literatures that helpa. define the most important aspects of the theoretical models that will be

examined or tested (for quantitative studies), orb. substantiate the rationale or conceptual framework for the study (for qualitative

studies).

Comments:

select

5. The content of the review is drawn from acceptable peer-reviewed journals orsound academic journals, or there is a justification for using other sources.

Comments: select

6. The literature review is sufficiently broad

Comments, suggested additions: select

7. Multiple sources are synthesized in a concise way.

Comments: select

8. The Conclusion of the literature review is a critical synthesis of the most relevantand current published knowledge and substantiates the purpose of the study.

Comments:

select


page 21 of 27 pages

Science and Technology of ConsciousnessQuality Indicators Rating

1. The research problem is discussed in relation to Theoretical Literature from theScience and Technology of Consciousness

Comments:

select

2. The research problem is discussed in relation to Empirical Research Literatureregarding the Science and Technology of Consciousness

Comments:

select

3. The context of the research is illustrated through a Unified Field Chart thatconnects the parts of knowledge to the wholeness of knowledge and to the Self.

Comments:

select

4. A Richo Akshare line explains the fundamental element in the area of investigationand the practical significance of that fundamental element.

Comments:

select


page 22 of 27 pages

Research Methods: Qualitative StudiesQuality Indicators Rating

1. Introduction describes how the research design derives logically from the problem orissue statement.

Comments:

select

2. Design describes which qualitative paradigm will be used. The choice of paradigm isjustified, with explanations why other likely choices would be less effective.

Comments:

select

3. The Role of the Researcher in the data collection procedure is described.

Comments: select

4. Where appropriate, questions and sub-questions make sense, are answerable, are fewin number, are clearly stated, and are open-ended. When it is proposed that questionswill emerge from the study, initial objectives are sufficiently focused.

Comments:

select

5. The context for the study is described and justified. Procedures for gaining access toparticipants are described. Methods of establishing a researcher-participant workingrelationship are appropriate

Comments:

select

6. Measures for ethical protection of participants are adequate

Comments: select

7. Criteria for selecting participants are specified and are appropriate to the study.There is a justification for the number of participants, which is balanced with depthof inquiry—the fewer the participants, the deeper the inquiry per individual.

Comments:

select

8. Choices about which data to collect are justified. Data collected are appropriate toanswer the questions posed in relation to the qualitative paradigm chosen. How andwhen the data are to be or were collected and recorded is described

Comments:

select

9. How and when the data will be or were analyzed is articulated. Procedures fordealing with discrepant cases are described. If a software program is used, it isclearly described. The coding procedure for reducing information into categories andthemes is described.

Comments:

select


2010 Assessment Report 23

Research Methods: Quantitative Studies


1. Introduction includes a clear outline of the major areas of the chapter.

Comments: select

2. Research Design and Approach:a. Includes a description of the research design and approach.b. Provides justification for using the design and approach.c. Derives logically from the problem or issue statement.

Comments:

select

3. Setting and Sample:a. Describes the population from which the sample will be drawn.b. Describes and defends the sampling method including the sampling frame used.c. Describes and defends the sample size.d. Describes the eligibility criteria for study participants.e. Describes the characteristics of the selected sample.

Comments:

select

4. If a treatment is used, it is described clearly and in detail.

Comments: select

5. Data Collection:a. Presents descriptions of instrumentation or data collection tools, including name

of instrument, type of instrument, concepts measured by instrument, how scoresare calculated and their meaning, processes for assessment of reliability andvalidity of the instrument(s)

b. Describes processes needed to complete instruments by participantsc. Includes a detailed description of data that comprise each variable in the study.d. Describes where raw data are available (appendices, tables, or by request).

Comments:

select

6. Data Analysis:a. Includes an explanation of descriptive and/or inferential analyses in the study.

i. Nature of the scale for each variable. ii. Statements of hypotheses related to each research question. iii. Description of parametric, nonparametric, or descriptive analytical tools used.

b. Includes description of any pilot study results, if applicable.

select

Comments:

7. Measures taken for protection of participants’ rights are summarized.

Comments: select



Findings: Qualitative StudiesQuality Indicators Rating

1. The process by which the data were generated, gathered, and recorded is clearlydescribed.

Comments:

select

2. The systems used for keeping track of data and emerging understandings (researchlogs, reflective journals, cataloging systems) are clearly described.

Comments:

select

3. The findingsa. build logically from the problem and the research design, andb. are presented in a manner that addresses the research questions

Comments:

select

4. Discrepant cases and nonconforming data are included in the findings.

Comments: select

5. Patterns, relationships, and themes described as findings are supported by the data.All salient data are accounted for in the findings.

Comments:

select

6. A discussion on Evidence of Quality shows how this study, as completed, followedprocedures to assure accuracy of the data (trustworthiness, member checks,triangulation, etc.). Appropriate evidence occurs in the appendixes (sampletranscripts, researcher logs, field notes, etc.) (May appear in Discussion chapter)

Comments:

select



Findings: Quantitative Studies


1. Findings are structured around the research questions and/or hypotheses addressedin the study, reporting findings related to each.

Comments:

select

2. Research toolsa. Data collection instruments have been used correctly.b. Measures obtained are reported clearly, following standard procedures.c. Adjustments or revisions to the use of standardized research instruments have

been justified, and any effects on the interpretation of findings are described.

Comments:

select

3. Overall, data analysis (presentation, interpretation, explanation) is consistent withthe research questions or hypotheses, and underlying theoretical/conceptualframework of the study.

Comments:

select

4. Data analyses:a. logically and sequentially address all research questions or hypotheses,b. where appropriate, outcomes of hypothesis-testing procedures are clearly

reported (e.g., findings support or fail to support....) andc. do not contain any evident statistical errors.

Comments:

select

5. Tables and Figuresa. are as self-descriptive as possible, informative, and conform to standard

dissertation format,b. are directly related to and referred to within the text included in the chapter,c. have immediately adjacent comments,d. are properly identified (titled or captioned), ande. show copyright permission is shown, if not in the public domain.

Comments:

select

6. The comments on findings address observed consistencies and inconsistencies anddiscuss possible alternate interpretations.

Comments:

select

7. In a concluding section of the chapter, outcomes are logically and systematicallysummarized and interpreted in relation to their importance to the research questionsand hypotheses.

Comments:

select



Discussion: Qualitative and Quantitative StudiesQuality Indicators Rating

1. The chapter begins with a brief Overview of why and how the study was done,reviewing the questions or issues being addressed, and a brief summary of thefindings.

Comments:

select

2. The Interpretation of Findingsa. Refers to outcomes in Findings chapter,b. includes conclusions that address all of the research questions,c. is bounded by the evidence collected,d. discusses internal and external validity and limitations of the study,e. relates the findings to a larger body of literature on the topic, including the

conceptual/theoretical framework.

Comments:

select

3. The Implications for practice are clearly grounded in the significance section ofIntroduction chapter and outcomes presented in Findings chapter.

Comments:

select

4. Recommendations for Actiona. flow logically from the conclusions and contain steps to useful action,b. state who needs to pay attention to the results, andc. indicate how the results might be disseminated.

Comments:

select

5. Recommendations for Further Study point to topics that need closer examinationand may generate a new round of questions.

Comments:

select

6. For qualitative studies, includes a reflection on the researcher's experience with theresearch process in which the researcher discusses possible personal biases orpreconceived ideas and values, the possible effects of the researcher on theparticipants or the situation, and her/his changes in thinking as a result of the study.

Comments:

select

7. The work closes with a strong concluding statement making the “take-homemessage” clear to the reader.

Comments:

select



General Comments OverallQuality Indicators Rating

Writing Style and CompositionThe proposal/dissertation is written in scholarly language (accurate, balanced,objective, and tentative). The writing is clear and precise, and avoids redundancy.Statements are specific, and topical sentences are established for paragraphs. Theflow of words is smooth and comprehensible. Bridges are established between ideas.

Comments:

select

Writing MechanicsThe proposal/dissertation

a. follows a standard form and has a professional, scholarly appearance,b. is written with correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling,c. includes citations for the following: direct quotations, paraphrasing, facts,

and references to research studies,d. in-text citations are found in the reference list.

Comments:

select

Organization and FormThe proposal/dissertation is logically and comprehensively organized. The chaptersadd up to an integrated “whole.” Subheadings are used to identify the logic andmovement of the proposal/dissertation, and transitions between chapters are smoothand coherent. Each chapter is limited to a single global concept.

Comments:

select

Overall QualityThe dissertation/proposal makes an original and significant contribution.The contribution of the dissertation/proposal is life-supporting.The dissertation is of publishable quality.

Comments:

select

Committee members:After you complete this form:save it to your hard drive, and thenattach the saved version to an e-mail addressed and sent to the committee chair.