Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce: Diversity and Consciousness

I will need 9 full pages, if you won’t do it DO NOT TAKE the assignment.

The subject is Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce: Diversity and Consciousness
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

The file (Diversity and Consciousness) is the information of what you are going to write about also I uploaded research data support. FOLLOW THE RUBRIC FILE, this paper has a lot of points, the paper will be evaluated based on the attached rubric.

This paper needs 7th edition APA Format, I uploaded an example

 I uploaded a file named (Emad MSA 603). YOU DONT NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO THIS FILE, THIS FILE JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT YOU DID WRONG IN YOUR LAST WRITING.

MIND MAP DISCUSSION

1

2

MIND MAP DISCUSSION

Diversity and Consciousness

There is a connection between diversity and the cultural constraints existent in a workforce. It is possible to connect challenges of diversity, systematic attention, competence, language use, and training. A work can encounter challenges in regard to diversity whereby there are age, gender, expertise, cultural, and religious constraints. Diversity should not get viewed as an issue to development but rather as a factor that promotes improvement of an organization. Issues such as gender diversity should not be a limiting factor since productivity should be based on merit (Narasimhan, 2019). Systematic attention is required in the field of diversity since it is possible to promote the output of an organization by assessing all its departments. An effective plan of action gets developed by ensuring the planning technique does not limit organizational outcomes. Competence is involved in diversity of a workforce since it is possible to limit personal constraints such as language through training of all participants.

MSA 604 Diversity Consciousness and John Doe Administration

1. A System’s Approach to Cultural Competence

· Dimensions of diversity

· John Doe diversity challenges

· John Doe disparities in the United States

· Changing the U.S. John Doe care system

· System approach in the John Doe care delivery organization

· The importance of leadership

2. Systematic Attention to John Doe Disparities

· What are John Doe disparities?

· Race and ethnic disparities in John Doe

· Disparities or differences across other diversity dimensions: Gender, sexual

orientation, the elderly

· Stakeholder attention to John Doe disparities

· Systematic strategies for reducing John Doe disparities

3. Workforce Demographics
• Trends in the US labor force
• Diversity and the John Doe professions
• Drivers of inequalities in the John Doe professions • Workforce diversity challenges

4. Foundations for Cultural Competence in John Doe
• What is cultural competence in John Doe?
• Cultural competence and the John Doe provider organization
• Cultural competence and the multicultural John Doe workforce

5. Training for knowledge and skills in culturally competent care for diverse populations

· The principals for knowledge and skills training

· Cultural competence knowledge and skills for John Doe administrators

· Cultural competency training for the John Doe professional in John Doe

operations

· Cultural competence training for support staff

· The role of assessment in cultural competence training

6. Cultural Competence in John Doe Encounters • Models from transcultural nursing
• Being culturally responsive

7. Language Access Services and cross-cultural communication • Language use in the United States
• Language differences in John Doe encounter
• Attitudes toward limited-English speakers

8|Page

· Changing responses to language barriers in John Doe operations

· An expanding profession: The John Doe interpreter

· The translation is written by John Doe communication

8. Group Identity Development and John Doe Delivery

· Discuss the minority status group – identity development

· Discuss the majority status group – identity development

· Models to illustrate

9. The Centrality of Organizational Behavior
• The science of organizational behavior
• Organizations as a context for behavior
• Can culturally competent John Doe professionals do it by themselves?

10. The Business Case for Best Practices

· The business case for cultural competence in John Doe operations

· Workforce, HRM, and the business case

· Best demonstrated practices • Benchmarking

11. The Future of Diversity and Cultural Competence in John Doe

· Trends to support the adoption of a system’s approach to diversity and cultural

competence in John Doe practices

· The sustainability movement

· Change management and force field analysis: Tools to envision and shape the

future

Master of Science in

A

dministration Project Paper

Partial Fulfillment for MSA 698

Rubric for MSA 604 Paper

Student Name:

Student I.D. Number:

C

oncentration:

Project

Title:

Program Center:

E

PN:

Semester/Year for MSA 698:

Instructor’s Name:

Instructions

Course instructors are required to use this rubric for the individual papers, MSA 601, 60

2

, 603, and 604.

Compute the total points and insert the grade based on the grading scale at the bottom of this form.

Score:

Score:

Score:

Score:

Dimension and Percentage Weight

MSA Instructor

(Score & Feedback)

Assessment (10 points)

Score:

Relationship to Concentration and Administration

This paper reflects an administrative approach to examining an issue directly related to the student’s concentration. Specify the student’s concentration in the feedback box.

Core Course Objectives (20 points)

Does the paper reflect current thinking regarding administration, multiculturalism and globalization?

Does the paper describe the effects cultural variables have on the administrative process and apply cultural understanding to the effective strategic planning and administration of global and multicultural organizations?

Does the paper reflect the student’s understanding of the role of organizational polices, practices, design, and structure in facilitating diversity management strategies?

Does the paper demonstrate a solid understanding of the objectives of MSA 604?

Paper Introduction,

B

ody of the Paper and Conclusion (45 points)

Does the introduction adequately support the contents of the paper?

Is there a natural progression from the introduction through to the conclusion of the paper?

Does the paper explain how this core course fits it with the other core courses?

Does the conclusion fully summarize the contents of the paper?

References (10 points)

Are the references in compliance with the latest APA style manual?

Are references scholarly and sufficient in number to support the paper. There should be no less than 6 scholarly references.

Are sources in the text properly listed on the reference pages, and vice-versa?

Writing Format (15 points)

Executive summary is not over one page.

Demonstrates proper English usage, spelling, and context

Proofread for spelling, typing, and grammatical errors.

References in text and on reference page follow current APA style,

Proper citation

All elements conform to the latest edition of the APA Style Manual

Writing reflects graduate work.

Total Points (Possible 100 Points)

Total Score:

Grade:

Grading Scale:

94-100%

A

90-93%

A-

87-89%

B+

84-86%

B

80-83%

B-

77-79%

C+

74-76%

C

<74%

E

Instructor’s Name:

Title:

Date:

2

– Rubric for MSA 604 Paper –(revised August 2017)

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 1

Executive Summary

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 2

Comparison of Student Evaluations of Teaching with Online and Paper-Based Administration

John F. Doe

Central Michigan University

Master of Science in Administration

MSA 698: Directed Administrative Portfolio

Dr. Larry F. Ross

September 28, 2020

Author Note

Data collection and preliminary analysis were sponsored by the Office of the Provost and the

Student Assessment of Instruction Task Force. Portions of these findings were presented as a poster at

the 2016 National Institute on the Teaching of Psychology, St. Pete Beach, Florida, United States. We

have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Claudia J. Stanny, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, University of West Florida,

Building 53, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514, United States. Email:

cstanny@institution.edu

mailto:cstanny@institution.edu

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 3

Table of Contents (optional)

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 4

Comparison of Student Evaluations of Teaching with Online and Paper-Based Administration

Student ratings and evaluations of instruction have a long history as sources of information

about teaching quality (Berk, 2013). Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) often play a significant role in

high-stakes decisions about hiring, promotion, tenure, and teaching awards. As a result, researchers

have examined the psychometric properties of SETs and the possible impact of variables such as race,

gender, age, course difficulty, and grading practices on average student ratings (Griffin et al., 2014;

Nulty, 2008; Spooren et al., 2013). They have also examined how decision-makers evaluate SET scores

(Boysen, 2015a, 2015b; Boysen et al., 2014; Dewar, 2011). In the last 20 years, considerable attention

has been directed toward the consequences of administering SETs online (Morrison, 2011; Stowell et al.,

2012) because low response rates may have implications for how decision-makers should interpret SETs.

Online Administration of Student Evaluations

Administering SETs online creates multiple benefits. Online administration enables instructors to

devote more class time to instruction (vs. administering paper-based forms) and can improve the

integrity of the process. Students who are not pressed for time in class are more likely to reflect on their

answers and write more detailed comments (Morrison, 2011; Stowell et al., 2012; Venette et al., 2010).

Because electronic aggregation of responses bypasses the time-consuming task of transcribing

comments (sometimes written in challenging handwriting), instructors can receive summary data and

verbatim comments shortly after the close of the term instead of weeks or months into the following

term.

Despite the many benefits of online administration, instructors and students have expressed

concerns about online administration of SETs. Students have expressed concern that their responses are

not confidential when they must use their student identification number to log into the system

(Dommeyer et al., 2002). However, breaches of confidentiality can occur even with paper-based

administration. For example, an instructor might recognize student handwriting (one reason some

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 5

students do not write comments on paper-based forms), or an instructor might remain present during

SET administration (Avery et al., 2006).

In-class, paper-based administration creates social expectations that might motivate students to

complete SETs. In contrast, students who are concerned about confidentiality or do not understand how

instructors and institutions use SET findings to improve teaching might ignore requests to complete an

online SET (Dommeyer et al., 2002). Instructors, in turn, worry that low response rates will reduce the

validity of the findings if students who do not complete a SET differ in significant ways from students

who do (Stowell et al., 2012). For example, students who do not attend class regularly often miss class

the day that SETs are administered. However, all students (including nonattending students) can

complete the forms when they are administered online. Faculty also fear that SET findings based on a

low-response sample will be dominated by students in extreme categories (e.g., students with grudges,

students with extremely favorable attitudes), who may be particularly motivated to complete online

SETs, and therefore that SET findings will inadequately represent the voice of average students (Reiner

& Arnold, 2010).

Effects of Format on Response Rates and Student Evaluation Scores

The potential for biased SET findings associated with low response rates has been examined in

the published literature. In results that run contrary to faculty fears that online SETs might be dominated

by low-performing students, Avery et al. (2006) found that students with higher grade-point averages

(GPAs) were more likely to complete online evaluations. Likewise, Jaquett et al. (2017) reported that

students who had positive experiences in their classes (including receiving the grade they expected to

earn) were more likely to submit course evaluations.

Institutions can expect lower response rates when they administer SETs online (Avery et al.,

2006; Dommeyer et al., 2002; Morrison, 2011; Nulty, 2008; Reiner & Arnold, 2010; Stowell et al., 2012;

Venette et al., 2010). However, most researchers have found that the mean SET rating does not change

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 6

significantly when they compare SETs administered on paper with those completed online. These

findings have been replicated in multiple settings using a variety of research methods (Avery et al., 2006;

Dommeyer et al., 2004; Morrison, 2011; Stowell et al., 2012; Venette et al., 2010).

Exceptions to this pattern of minimal or nonsignificant differences in average SET scores

appeared in Nowell et al. (2010) and Morrison (2011), who examined a sample of 29 business courses.

Both studies reported lower average scores when SETs were administered online. However, they also

found that SET scores for individual items varied more within an instructor when SETs were

administered online versus on paper. Students who completed SETs on paper tended to record the same

response for all questions, whereas students who completed the forms online tended to respond

differently to different questions. Both research groups argued that scores obtained online might not be

directly comparable to scores obtained through paper-based forms. They advised that institutions

administer SETs entirely online or entirely on paper to ensure consistent, comparable evaluations across

faculty.

Each university presents a unique environment and culture that could influence how seriously

students take SETs and how they respond to decisions to administer SETs online. Although a few large-

scale studies of the impact of online administration exist (Reiner & Arnold, 2010; Risquez et al., 2015), a

local replication answers questions about characteristics unique to that institution and generates

evidence about the generalizability of existing findings.

Purpose of the Present Study

In the present study, we examined patterns of responses for online and paper-based SET scores

at a midsized, regional, comprehensive university in the United States. We posed two questions: First,

does the response rate or the average SET score change when an institution administers SET forms

online instead of on paper? Second, what is the minimal response rate required to produce stable

average SET scores for an instructor? Whereas much earlier research relied on small samples often

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 7

limited to a single academic department, we gathered SET data on a large sample of courses (N = 364)

that included instructors from all colleges and all course levels over three years. We controlled for

individual differences in instructors by limiting the sample to courses taught by the same instructor in all

three years. The university offers nearly 30% of course sections online in any given term, and these

courses have always administered online SETs. This allowed us to examine the combined effects of

changing the method of delivery for SETs (paper-based to online) for traditional classes and changing

from a mixed method of administering SETs (paper for traditional classes and online for online classes in

the first two years of data gathered) to uniform use of online forms for all classes in the final year of

data collection.

Method

Sample

Response rates and evaluation ratings were retrieved from archived course evaluation data. The

archive of SET data did not include information about the personal characteristics of the instructor

(gender, age, or years of teaching experience), and students were not provided with any systematic

incentive to complete the paper or online versions of the SET. We extracted data on response rates and

evaluation ratings for 364 courses that had been taught by the same instructor during three consecutive

fall terms (2012, 2013, and 2014).

The sample included faculty who taught in each of the five colleges at the university: 109

instructors (30%) taught in the College of Social Science and Humanities, 82 (23%) taught in the College

of Science and Engineering, 75 (21%) taught in the College of Education and Professional Studies, 58

(16%) taught in the College of Health, and 40 (11%) taught in the College of Business. Each instructor

provided data on one course. Approximately 259 instructors (71%) provided ratings for face-to-face

courses, and 105 (29%) provided ratings for online courses, which accurately reflects the proportion of

face-to-face and online courses offered at the university. The sample included 107 courses (29%) at the

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 8

beginning undergraduate level (1st- and 2nd-year students), 205 courses (56%) at the advanced

undergraduate level (3rd- and 4th-year students), and 52 courses (14%) at the graduate level.

Instrument

The course evaluation instrument was a set of 18 items developed by the state university

system. The first eight items were designed to measure the quality of the instructor, concluding with a

global rating of instructor quality (Item 8: “Overall assessment of instructor”). The remaining items

asked students to evaluate components of the course, concluding with a global rating of course

organization (Item 18: “Overall, I would rate the course organization”). No formal data on the

psychometric properties of the items are available, although all items have obvious face validity.

Students were asked to rate each instructor as poor (0), fair (1), good (2), very good (3), or

excellent (4) in response to each item. Evaluation ratings were subsequently calculated for each course

and instructor. A median rating was computed when an instructor taught more than one section of a

course during a term.

The institution limited our access to SET data for the three years of data requested. We

obtained scores for Item 8 (“Overall assessment of instructor”) for all three years but could obtain

scores for Item 18 (“Overall, I would rate the course organization”) only for Year 3. We computed the

correlation between scores on Item 8 and Item 18 (from course data recorded in the 3rd year only) to

estimate the internal consistency of the evaluation instrument. These two items, which serve as

composite summaries of preceding items (Item 8 for Items 1–7 and Item 18 for Items 9–17), were

strongly related, r(362) = .92. Feistauer and Richter (2016) also reported strong correlations between

global items in a large analysis of SET responses.

Design

This study took advantage of a natural experiment created when the university decided to

administer all course evaluations online. We requested SET data for the fall semesters for 2 years

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 9

preceding the change, when students completed paper-based SET forms for face-to-face courses and

online SET forms for online courses, and data for the fall semester of the implementation year, when

students completed online SET forms for all courses. We used a 2 × 3 × 3 factorial design in which course

delivery method (face to face and online) and course level (beginning undergraduate, advanced

undergraduate, and graduate) were between-subjects factors and evaluation year (Year 1: 2012, Year 2:

2013, and Year 3: 2014) was a repeated-measures factor. The dependent measures were the response

rate (measured as a percentage of class enrollment) and the rating for Item 8 (“Overall assessment of

instructor”).

Data analysis was limited to scores on Item 8 because the institution agreed to release data on

this one item only. Data for scores on Item 18 were made available for SET forms administered in Year 3

to address questions about variation in responses across items. The strong correlation between scores

on Item 8 and scores on Item 18 suggested that Item 8 could be used as a surrogate for all the items.

These two items were of particular interest because faculty, department chairs, and review committees

frequently rely on these two items as stand-alone indicators of teaching quality for annual evaluations

and tenure and promotion reviews.

Results

Response Rates

Response rates are presented in Table 1. The findings indicate that response rates for face-to-

face courses were much higher than for online courses, but only when face-to-face course evaluations

were administered in the classroom. In the Year 3 administration, when all course evaluations were

administered online, response rates for face-to-face courses declined (M = 47.18%, SD = 20.11), but

were still slightly higher than for online courses (M = 41.60%, SD = 18.23). These findings produced a

statistically significant interaction between course delivery method and evaluation year, F(1.78, 716) =

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 10

101.34, MSE = 210.61, p < .001.1 The strength of the overall interaction effect was .22 (ηp2). Simple main-

effects tests revealed statistically significant differences in the response rates for face-to-face courses

and online courses for each of the 3 observation years.2 The greatest differences occurred during Year 1

(p < .001) and Year 2 (p < .001), when evaluations were administered on paper in the classroom for all

face-to-face courses and online for all online courses. Although the difference in response rate between

face-to-face and online courses during the Year 3 administration was statistically reliable (when both

face-to-to-face and online courses were evaluated with online surveys), the effect was small (ηp2 = .02).

Thus, there was minimal difference in response rate between face-to-face and online courses when

evaluations were administered online for all courses. No other factors or interactions included in the

analysis were statistically reliable.

Evaluation Ratings

The same 2 × 3 × 3 analysis of variance model was used to evaluate mean SET ratings. This

analysis produced two statistically significant main effects. The first main effect involved evaluation

year, F(1.86, 716) = 3.44, MSE = 0.18, p = .03 (ηp2 = .01; see Footnote 1). Evaluation ratings associated

with the Year 3 administration (M = 3.26, SD = 0.60) were significantly lower than the evaluation ratings

associated with both the Year 1 (M = 3.35, SD = 0.53) and Year 2 (M = 3.38, SD = 0.54) administrations.

Thus, all courses received lower SET scores in Year 3, regardless of course delivery method and course

level. However, the size of this effect was small (the largest difference in mean rating was 0.11 on a five-

item scale).

1 A Greenhouse–Geisser adjustment of the degrees of freedom was performed in anticipation of a
sphericity assumption violation.

2 A test of the homogeneity of variance assumption revealed no statistically significant difference in
response rate variance between the two delivery modes for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 11

The second statistically significant main effect involved delivery mode, F(1, 358) = 23.51, MSE =

0.52, p = .01 (ηp2 = .06; see Footnote 2). Face-to-face courses (M = 3.41, SD = 0.50) received significantly

higher mean ratings than did online courses (M = 3.13, SD = 0.63), regardless of evaluation year and

course level. No other factors or interactions included in the analysis were statistically reliable.

Stability of Ratings

The scatterplot presented in Figure 1 illustrates the relation between SET scores and response

rates. Although the correlation between SET scores and response rate was small and not statistically

significant, r(362) = .07, visual inspection of the plot of SET scores suggests that SET ratings became less

variable as response rate increased. We conducted Levene’s test to evaluate the variability of SET scores

above and below the 60% response rate, which several researchers have recommended as an

acceptable threshold for response rates (Berk, 2012, 2013; Nulty, 2008). The variability of scores above

and below the 60% threshold was not statistically reliable, F(1, 362) = 1.53, p = .22.

Discussion

Online administration of SETs in this study was associated with lower response rates, yet it is

curious that online courses experienced a 10% increase in response rate when all courses were

evaluated with online forms in Year three. Online courses had suffered from chronically low response

rates in previous years when face-to-face classes continued to use paper-based forms. The benefit to

response rates observed for online courses when all SET forms were administered online might be

attributed to increased communications that encouraged students to complete the online course

evaluations. Despite this improvement, response rates for online courses continued to lag behind those

for face-to-face courses. Differences in response rates for face-to-face and online courses might be

attributed to the characteristics of the students who enrolled or to differences in the quality of student

engagement created in each learning modality. Avery et al. (2006) found that higher-performing

students (defined as students with higher GPAs) were more likely to complete online SETs.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 12

Although the average SET rating was significantly lower in Year 3 than in the previous 2 years,

the magnitude of the numeric difference was small (differences ranged from 0.08 to 0.11, based on a 0–

4 Likert-like scale). This difference is similar to the differences Risquez et al. (2015) reported for SET

scores after statistically adjusting for the influence of several potential confounding variables. A

substantial literature has discussed the appropriate and inappropriate interpretation of SET ratings

(Berk, 2013; Boysen, 2015a, 2015b; Boysen et al., 2014; Dewar, 2011; Stark & Freishtat, 2014).

Faculty have often raised concerns about the potential variability of SET scores due to low

response rates and thus small sample sizes. However, our analysis indicated that classes with high

response rates produced equally variable SET scores, as did classes with low response rates. Reviewers

should take extra care when they interpret SET scores. Decision-makers often ignore questions about

whether means derived from small samples accurately represent the population mean (Tversky &

Kahneman, 1971). Reviewers frequently treat all numeric differences as if they were equally meaningful

as measures of actual differences and give them credibility even after receiving explicit warnings that

these differences are not significant (Boysen, 2015a, 2015b).

Because low response rates produce small sample sizes, we expected that the SET scores based

on smaller class samples (i.e., courses with low response rates) would be more variable than those

based on larger class samples (i.e., courses with high response rates). Although researchers have

recommended that response rates reach the criterion of 60%–80% when SET data are used for high-

stakes decisions (Berk, 2012, 2013; Nulty, 2008), our findings did not indicate a significant reduction in

SET score variability with higher response rates.

Implications for Practice

Improving SET Response Rates

When decision-makers use SET data to make high-stakes decisions (faculty hires, annual

evaluations, tenure, promotions, teaching awards), institutions would be wise to take steps to ensure

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 13

that SETs have acceptable response rates. Researchers have discussed effective strategies to improve

response rates for SETs (Nulty, 2008; see also Berk, 2013; Dommeyer et al., 2004; Jaquett et al., 2016).

These strategies include offering empirically validated incentives, creating high-quality technical systems

with good human factors characteristics, and promoting an institutional culture that supports the use of

SET data and other information to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Programs and

instructors must discuss why information from SETs is essential for decision-making and provide

students with tangible evidence of how SET information guides decisions about curriculum

improvement. The institution should provide students with compelling evidence that the administration

system protects the confidentiality of their responses.

Evaluating SET Scores

In addition to ensuring adequate response rates on SETs, decision-makers should demand

multiple sources of evidence about teaching quality (Buller, 2012). High-stakes decisions should never

rely exclusively on numeric data from SETs. Reviewers often treat SET ratings as a surrogate for a

measure of the impact an instructor has on student learning. However, a recent meta-analysis (Uttl et

al., 2017) questioned whether SET scores have any relation to student learning. Reviewers need

evidence in addition to SET ratings to evaluate teachings, such as evidence of the instructor’s disciplinary

content expertise, skill with classroom management, ability to engage learners with lectures or other

activities, impact on student learning, or success with efforts to modify and improve courses and

teaching strategies (Berk, 2013; Stark & Freishtat, 2014). As with other forms of assessment, anyone’s

measure may be limited in terms of the quality of information it provides. Therefore, multiple measures

are more informative than any single measure.

A portfolio of evidence can better inform high-stakes decisions (Berk, 2013). Portfolios might

include summaries of class observations by senior faculty, the chair, or peers. Examples of assignments

and exams can document the rigor of learning, especially if accompanied by redacted samples of

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 14

student work. Course syllabi can identify intended learning outcomes; describe instructional strategies

that reflect the severity of the course (required assignments and grading practices); and provide other

information about course content, design, instructional strategies, and instructor interactions with

students (Palmer et al., 2014; Stanny et al., 2015).

Conclusion

Psychology has a long history of devising creative strategies to measure the “unmeasurable,”

whether the targeted variable is a mental process, an attitude, or the quality of teaching (e.g., Webb et

al., 1966). Besides, psychologists have documented various heuristics and biases that contribute to the

misinterpretation of quantitative data (Gilovich et al., 2002), including SET scores (Boysen, 2015a,

2015b; Boysen et al., 2014). These skills enable psychologists to offer multiple solutions to the challenge

posed by the need to objectively evaluate the quality of teaching and the impact of teaching on student

learning.

Online administration of SET forms presents multiple desirable features, including rapid

feedback to instructors, economy, and support for environmental sustainability. However, institutions

should adopt implementation procedures that do not undermine the usefulness of the data gathered.

Moreover, institutions should be wary of emphasizing methods that produce high response rates only to

lull faculty into believing that SET data can be the primary (or only) metric used for high-stakes decisions

about the quality of faculty teaching. Instead, decision-makers should expect to use multiple measures

to evaluate the quality of faculty teaching.

Recommendations

Data

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 15

References

Avery, R. J., Bryant, W. K., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic course evaluations: Does an

online delivery system influence student evaluations? The Journal of Economic Education, 37(1),

21–37. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37

Berk, R. A. (2012). Top 20 strategies to increase the online response rates of student rating scales.

International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 98–107.

Berk, R. A. (2013). Top 10 flashpoints in student ratings and the evaluation of teaching. Stylus.

Boysen, G. A. (2015a). Preventing the overinterpretation of small mean differences in student

evaluations of teaching: An evaluation of warning effectiveness. Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000042

Boysen, G. A. (2015b). Significant interpretation of small mean differences in student evaluations of

teaching despite explicit warning to avoid overinterpretation. Scholarship of Teaching and

Learning in Psychology, 1(2), 150–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000017

Boysen, G. A., Kelly, T. J., Raesly, H. N., & Casner, R. W. (2014). The (mis)interpretation of teaching

evaluations by college faculty and administrators. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

39(6), 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860950

Buller, J. L. (2012). Best practices in faculty evaluation: A practical guide for academic leaders. Jossey-

Bass.

Dewar, J. M. (2011). Helping stakeholders understand the limitations of SRT data: Are we doing enough?

Journal of Faculty Development, 25(3), 40–44.

Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., & Hanna, R. W. (2002). College students’ attitudes toward methods of

collecting teaching evaluations: In-class versus online. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1),

11–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599691

https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37

https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000042

https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000017

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860950

https://doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599691

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 16

Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. S. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching

evaluations by in-class and online surveys: Their effects on response rates and evaluations.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611–623.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689171

Feistauer, D., & Richter, T. (2016). How reliable are students’ evaluations of teaching quality? A variance

components approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(8), 1263–1279.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083

Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive

judgment. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098

Griffin, T. J., Hilton, J., III, Plummer, K., & Barret, D. (2014). Correlation between grade point averages

and student evaluation of teaching scores: Taking a closer look. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 39(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.831809

Jaquett, C. M., VanMaaren, V. G., & Williams, R. L. (2016). The effect of extra-credit incentives on

student submission of end-of-course evaluations. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in

Psychology, 2(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000052

Jaquett, C. M., VanMaaren, V. G., & Williams, R. L. (2017). Course factors that motivate students to

submit end-of-course evaluations. Innovative Higher Education, 42(1), 19–31.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9368-5

Morrison, R. (2011). A comparison of online versus traditional student end-of-course critiques in

resident courses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 627–641.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003632399

Nowell, C., Gale, L. R., & Handley, B. (2010). Assessing faculty performance using student evaluations of

teaching in an uncontrolled setting. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 463–

475. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862875

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689171

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1261083

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.831809

https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000052

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9368-5

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003632399

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862875

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 17

Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done?

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231

Palmer, M. S., Bach, D. J., & Streifer, A. C. (2014). Measuring the promise: A learning-focused syllabus

rubric. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 33(1), 14–36.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20004

Reiner, C. M., & Arnold, K. E. (2010). Online course evaluation: Student and instructor perspectives and

assessment potential. Assessment Update, 22(2), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/au.222

Risquez, A., Vaughan, E., & Murphy, M. (2015). Online student evaluations of teaching: What are we

sacrificing for the affordances of technology? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,

40(1), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.890695

Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The

state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870

Stanny, C. J., Gonzalez, M., & McGowan, B. (2015). Assessing the culture of teaching and learning

through a syllabus review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(7), 898–913.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956684

Stark, P. B., & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen Research.

https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1

Stowell, J. R., Addison, W. E., & Smith, J. L. (2012). Comparison of online and classroom-based student

evaluations of instruction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(4), 465–473.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.545869

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2),

105–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231

https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20004

https://doi.org/10.1002/au.222

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.890695

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.956684

https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.545869

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 18

Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student

evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational

Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

Venette, S., Sellnow, D., & McIntyre, K. (2010). Charting new territory: Assessing the online frontier of

student ratings of instruction. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(1), 101–115.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618336

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive

research in the social sciences. Rand McNally.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802618336

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 19

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Response Rates (Course Delivery Method by Evaluation Year)

Administration year Face-to-face course Online course

M SD M SD

Year 1: 2012 71.72 16.42 32.93 15.73

Year 2: 2013 72.31 14.93 32.55 15.96

Year 3: 2014 47.18 20.11 41.60 18.23

Note. Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) were administered in two modalities in Years 1 and 2:

paper based for face-to-face courses and online for online courses. SETs were administered online for all

courses in Year 3.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 20

Figure 1

Scatterplot Depicting the Correlation Between Response Rates and Evaluation Ratings

Note. Evaluation ratings were made during the 2014 fall academic term.

COMPARISON OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING 21

Appendixes (if applicable)

1

4

Emad,this is a better effort than the other paper. However, you still have some sentences that lack clarity and are hard to understand by the reader. I made changes to the paper to help it to flow better. It is best to match this paper up with the one I change to understand better what changes and why. As I stated before, to write academically, you must write precisely and succinctly. Let me know if you have any questions. Hang in there, I know you can get this done. I am here to help! Be safe,

Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce

Emad N. Alkhadabah

Central Michigan University

Master of Science in Administration

MSA 698: Directed Administrative Portfolio

Dr. Larry F. Ross

March 28, 2021

Ensuring Diversity in the Workforce

In the workplace, diversity refers to the encompassing of different aspects of individuals such as race, ethnicity, gender, personality, education level, organization leadership occupation among other factors. Diversity can also be looked into as how people perceive themselves and others in the workplace. When an organization is having a diverse workplace, they understand the demographics and what it’s involved in such groups of people.

. When an organization does not have diversity inclusion it can pose disadvantages since there are potential lawsuits on the creation of equal employment opportunity. These legal suits are a disadvantage to any business since they tend to be costly and diverse of the organization’s resources. It can also lead to the creation of a negative perception of the customers, potential investors, and future employees. Having diversity inclusion in an organization is not enough to guarantee the success of an organization.

Diversity and transformational leadership

Diversity is connected to transformational leadership; in a diverse environment, there will be a lot of assessment that will take place because different people are involved, and this will help to monitor the work they are doing. Leaders will have to be very keen to know the kind of employees they may need assistance. The other issue connected to transformational leadership is that once many people from different parts and with different cultures are involved in the organization, they will be in a fair and healthy competition. The reason for this is because different people have different ways in which they are going to work to make sure that the organization is in safer hands and it is getting profit just as it is supposed to be doing. Another important aspect in transformational leadership is that it brings training since it enables the organization to appreciate the individual differences among the employees while at the same time providing an equal opportunity for all the employees to exercise potential regardless of their differences. This will make the organization to have a very smooth working relationship with all other employees.

When it comes to diversity training, it is supposed to target everyone in the organization from the top level to the bottom level. At the top management, diversity training enables the managers to make decisions and implement policies that can influence the organization’s view on diversity and inclusion, this is one thing that was not always present with leaders in the past. They are also responsible for staffing, firing, renting, and policymaking, impacting the organization’s performance. The top managers can dictate the culture of an organization since the lower ranks emulate them. The top managers must understand the impacts that their decision has on all people in the workplace. The lower ranks are essential to an organization’s success since they are responsible for implementing the regulations set by the organization. Each employee needs to feel appreciated regardless of his/her background and this is very important in making sure that transformational leadership has been achieved.

Diversity and SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis means that the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the organization are assessed. This is to conclude whether having different people in the organization is bringing strengths and opportunities in the workplace or are the presence of different people from all diversities what they are bringing to the organization are weaknesses and threats. SWOT plays a vital role in studying the organization; this is through knowing the organization’s internal and external aspects. When weaknesses and threats have been identified it can become very easy for the organization to know how it is going to deal with the negative outcomes and at the same time how it is going to enhance the positive ones.

The organization has adopted inclusion and diversity in its workforce, it is capable of tapping into its employees’ full potential. All those employees have different abilities and skills; when all capabilities of different employees are brought together, there will be enhanced performance of the organization. This is one of the strengths of having a diverse workforce. An organization can broaden its viewpoint obtained from the diverse experiences from the employees who were obtained from different backgrounds, which can be used as learning experience. An organization can also have a competitive advantage in the marketplace since hiring individuals with different talents enables the organization to tackle the challenges facing them effectively (Graham et al., 2017). APA problem corrected!

For the diverse strategic marketing plan to work effectively, the HR professionals should assess diversity through discussions, create open forums that enable employees to discuss the challenges and obstacles of diversity, and conduct satisfaction surveys. Through this, the top officials will be able to know how they can curb threats and weaknesses of the organization mentioned. In the process of developing a marketing plan, the HR department should ensure that they set a measurable goal regarding diversity. After the completion of the plan, both the management and executive should be committed to the goals. This is supposed to be a collective responsibility for everyone in the organization but not just the executives and human resource managers.

Diversity and Business plan development

When the organization adopts the inclusion and diversity programs, it should ensure that the programs positively reflect the organization. This can be through ensuring that it complies with the federal mind state law. This is in terms of the business plan which they are developing. The business plan should be complying with the cultures and the beliefs of people they are serving. A manager in the office may not know what he is supposed to do and may not know what those in the ground want the organization to deal with so that the organization can impact the locals. With having majority of the organization staff coming from different and diverse worlds knowing what kind of the products will be good for different groups of people as they are planning and documenting the business plan will be very easy. They will not have to spend a lot of money and time as they are going out to the field to make research. This is because people who have interacted with such people will always be in the organization and they will be providing any information in case there is a need for that. This is very important because the company will not spend any extra cost as they try to do some research. It will also minimize the time which could have been spent in the field.

Diversity and market assessment

Market assessment is very important, this is because with many people from different places, they are going to know what their local people are lacking and what they could have accepted willingly if the company embarked in producing such products. The other way for assessing the market is ensuring that feedback should be taken from the customers and if it is possible all those feedbacks are supposed to be incorporated and whatever they had said should be taken into consideration. This is because most of the loyal clients will give out their honest feedback and in case this is used for the right purpose, and it will make sure that the company’s brand is continuing to improve. With such information and feedback, it will be of so much value to make sure that the next campaign will be containing what the customers had previously listed. This is most cases it is going to act as the motivating factor. They are going to make sure that they are supporting whatever the organization is coming up with and the reason for doing this is that they are going to feel like they are part and parcel of the organization and this is going to make them own whatever is being done in the organization, (Chau et al. 2019).

The reason why campaigns are supposed to be carried out is to ensure that there is a lot of collection of as much data as possible. In most cases, it will be off so much important to focus on the future for the organization. The data will be collected from the feedback of the customers and other stakeholders and it will be analyzed by using qualitative analysis of data since it cannot be quantified as it answers questions on why. This is going to attract all meaningful insights from the data. This will help the organization to know which the best tactics are. The tactics are going to get the most appropriate picture of how things are on the ground. Such insight should never be ignored (Del et al. 2019)

Diversity and marketing strategy

Embracing diversity in the creative team is very essential in ensuring that the marketing strategy is diverse. This is to create an authentic message for the diverse team. When many people are being engaged in any forum, for instance in marketing strategy, one can be able to get variety of information regarding what consumers in the ground would want. These insights choosing the best and the most effective strategy will be very easy. All people are supposed to be involved before any information is developed. This is because with these the information will be incorporating all that people would need to hear. This is either as they are old, young, whether they live with diversity or from different cultures. Most people buy the product if they are sure, and they have been convinced that the product is the best for them at that very time. Therefore, embracing diversity within the whole team is very important and it is going to make the organization sell more and in the long run, they are going to make as much profit as possible. organizations are also supposed to make sure that they are striving and building diversity in the workplace through crafting a team that has got different backgrounds, philosophies and also help in improving the marketing strategies, through this, there will be high chances that there will be a diversity of marketing flow which will come out from the team.  

When one wants to achieve the best diverse marketing, they should use an effective strategy, (Khan et al. 2019). The most effective one is a campaign this is because with these campaigns different and large numbers of people are going to know about the existence of the product. The campaign will not be restricted to any people, but instead, it will include all people without minding where they are from or which religion or culture they subscribe to. This is because there will be a lot of learning which will be taking place. People are going to know so much about the organization as well. During the campaigns, they will be given a chance to be able to ask anything that they would feel that they would need any form of clarification.

Building from the ground up 

When it comes to diversity, the organization is supposed to use a brand message is supposed to be as clear and direct to the point as possible. This is because with that all people who are going to come across such a message are going to understand what is happening. This is because various people are the target group, for instance, women, men, children, young and older adults. The message is supposed to be modified so that it could be able to fit into each of the groups that are going to be the target groups. This is because if one kind of message is used in all groups of people in most cases it is going to fail.

Using of organic messages which is unique from each group is important since the needs which are specific to different groups of people have been identified and it has been acted accordingly. The desires as well are supposed to be considered and at the same time whether those certain groups have any prior information about whatever is being marketed (Ng et al., 2020). APA problem corrected! The reason for his is that if they have the bases the information is not supposed to come as a brand-new thing, but just little modifications are the ones which are supposed to be done to make sure that there is no confusion which is being caused about the product.

Understanding inclusivity languages

To create campaigns and other strategies that are going to be used for marketing in a diverse capacity, one must be aware of the audience that one will speak with. However, despite the understanding of the audience is essential it is not necessary that the message which is going to be written is supposed to be very direct and at the same time they are going to exclude others. One is trying and understanding the language that the audiences are speaking so that there will be no language barrier that can hinder the work which the campaign wants to achieve. 

However, because of diversity, one is supposed to be very familiar with as many languages as possible to make sure that there are at no point will there be a language barrier but at least there will be communication even though it is not that fluent communication but at least one will be in a position to at least say something which will help ensure that the strategies have had an impact to all the people whom they have been met. There must be a language that is all-inclusive as well this is especially in all the aspects of the campaigns and this will make the whole process to be target-specific and at the same time, it will welcome others since they can be in a position to understand what is going on, (Ashe, et al, 2017). The crafting of a diversity statement is very essential, and it is going to act as a motivation for many other clients.

Conclusion

The employees have not accepted diversity in the workplace, and there is a high possibility of having a misunderstanding, conflicts that will eventually prevent the organization from achieving its objectives. For the employees to accept diversity, the organization must set a strategic plan that includes diversity training to enable employees’ diversity and teamwork, leading to attaining the organization’s objectives. The paper has discussed how it has enabled organization to have transformational leadership and SWOT analysis as well.

APA problem – page break needed to land on the reference page and keep it from moving.

References

Ashe, S., & Nazroo, J. (2017). Equality, diversity and racism in the workplace: A qualitative analysis of the 2015 race at work survey. Online: http://hummedia. manchester. ac. uk/institutes/code/research/raceatwork/Equ

Chau, J. Y., Engelen, L., Kolbe-Alexander, T., Young, S., Olsen, H., Gilson, N., … & Brown, W. J. (2019). “In Initiative Overload”: Australian perspectives on promoting physical activity in the workplace from diverse industries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(3), 516.

del Carmen Triana, M., Richard, O. C., & Su, W. (2019). Gender diversity in senior management, strategic change, and firm performance: Examining the mediating nature of strategic change in high tech firms. Research Policy, 48(7), 1681-1693.

Graham, M. E., Belliveau, M. A., & Hotchkiss, J. L. (2017). The view at the top or signing at the bottom? Workplace diversity responsibility and women’s representation in management. ILR Review, 70(1), 223-258.

Khan, M. S., Lakha, F., Tan, M. M. J., Singh, S. R., Quek, R. Y. C., Han, E., … & Legido-Quigley, H. (2019). More talk than action: gender and ethnic diversity in leading public health universities. The Lancet, 393(10171), 594-600.

Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2020). Walking the talk on diversity: CEO beliefs, moral values, and the implementation of workplace diversity practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 437-450.

References are not 0/0/doubled-spaced.

Emad, this is a better effort than the other paper. However, you still have some sentences that lack clarity and are hard to understand by the reader. I made changes to the paper to help it to flow better. It is best to match this paper up with the one I change to understand better what changes and why. As I stated before, to write academically, you must write precisely and succinctly. Let me know if you have any questions. Hang in there, I know you can get this done. I am here to help! Be safe, Dr. Ross.

What Will You Get?

We provide professional writing services to help you score straight A’s by submitting custom written assignments that mirror your guidelines.

Premium Quality

Get result-oriented writing and never worry about grades anymore. We follow the highest quality standards to make sure that you get perfect assignments.

Experienced Writers

Our writers have experience in dealing with papers of every educational level. You can surely rely on the expertise of our qualified professionals.

On-Time Delivery

Your deadline is our threshold for success and we take it very seriously. We make sure you receive your papers before your predefined time.

24/7 Customer Support

Someone from our customer support team is always here to respond to your questions. So, hit us up if you have got any ambiguity or concern.

Complete Confidentiality

Sit back and relax while we help you out with writing your papers. We have an ultimate policy for keeping your personal and order-related details a secret.

Authentic Sources

We assure you that your document will be thoroughly checked for plagiarism and grammatical errors as we use highly authentic and licit sources.

Moneyback Guarantee

Still reluctant about placing an order? Our 100% Moneyback Guarantee backs you up on rare occasions where you aren’t satisfied with the writing.

Order Tracking

You don’t have to wait for an update for hours; you can track the progress of your order any time you want. We share the status after each step.

image

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

Areas of Expertise

Although you can leverage our expertise for any writing task, we have a knack for creating flawless papers for the following document types.

image

Trusted Partner of 9650+ Students for Writing

From brainstorming your paper's outline to perfecting its grammar, we perform every step carefully to make your paper worthy of A grade.

Preferred Writer

Hire your preferred writer anytime. Simply specify if you want your preferred expert to write your paper and we’ll make that happen.

Grammar Check Report

Get an elaborate and authentic grammar check report with your work to have the grammar goodness sealed in your document.

One Page Summary

You can purchase this feature if you want our writers to sum up your paper in the form of a concise and well-articulated summary.

Plagiarism Report

You don’t have to worry about plagiarism anymore. Get a plagiarism report to certify the uniqueness of your work.

Free Features $66FREE

  • Most Qualified Writer $10FREE
  • Plagiarism Scan Report $10FREE
  • Unlimited Revisions $08FREE
  • Paper Formatting $05FREE
  • Cover Page $05FREE
  • Referencing & Bibliography $10FREE
  • Dedicated User Area $08FREE
  • 24/7 Order Tracking $05FREE
  • Periodic Email Alerts $05FREE
image

Our Services

Join us for the best experience while seeking writing assistance in your college life. A good grade is all you need to boost up your academic excellence and we are all about it.

  • On-time Delivery
  • 24/7 Order Tracking
  • Access to Authentic Sources
Academic Writing

We create perfect papers according to the guidelines.

Professional Editing

We seamlessly edit out errors from your papers.

Thorough Proofreading

We thoroughly read your final draft to identify errors.

image

Delegate Your Challenging Writing Tasks to Experienced Professionals

Work with ultimate peace of mind because we ensure that your academic work is our responsibility and your grades are a top concern for us!

Check Out Our Sample Work

Dedication. Quality. Commitment. Punctuality

Categories
All samples
Essay (any type)
Essay (any type)
The Value of a Nursing Degree
Undergrad. (yrs 3-4)
Nursing
2
View this sample

It May Not Be Much, but It’s Honest Work!

Here is what we have achieved so far. These numbers are evidence that we go the extra mile to make your college journey successful.

0+

Happy Clients

0+

Words Written This Week

0+

Ongoing Orders

0%

Customer Satisfaction Rate
image

Process as Fine as Brewed Coffee

We have the most intuitive and minimalistic process so that you can easily place an order. Just follow a few steps to unlock success.

See How We Helped 9000+ Students Achieve Success

image

We Analyze Your Problem and Offer Customized Writing

We understand your guidelines first before delivering any writing service. You can discuss your writing needs and we will have them evaluated by our dedicated team.

  • Clear elicitation of your requirements.
  • Customized writing as per your needs.

We Mirror Your Guidelines to Deliver Quality Services

We write your papers in a standardized way. We complete your work in such a way that it turns out to be a perfect description of your guidelines.

  • Proactive analysis of your writing.
  • Active communication to understand requirements.
image
image

We Handle Your Writing Tasks to Ensure Excellent Grades

We promise you excellent grades and academic excellence that you always longed for. Our writers stay in touch with you via email.

  • Thorough research and analysis for every order.
  • Deliverance of reliable writing service to improve your grades.
Place an Order Start Chat Now
image

Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code Happy