This assignment is the fourth in a series of 4 assignments on the same topic, due in Weeks 2, 4, 7, and 9. The assignments build upon one another. This assignment asks you to summarize your investigative article or report in a professional setting, offering an interesting, visually appealing recap to other journalists or DOJ investigators. Your audience comprises peers and leadership.
Preparation
Use your assignments from previous weeks to refine and assemble the information you want to present at the professional conference. Take a creative, dynamic approach to telling your story. This might involve reordering some of the bullet points listed below; however, you must cover all the information listed in the bullet points.
To organize your presentation visually and grab your audience’s interest, use meaningful headings, short, bulleted lists, and visuals (such as photographs or pull quotes). See the Strayer Library’s PowerPoint/Slideshow Checklist and Microsoft PowerPoint for helpful information on getting started, organizing and formatting your slides, adding speaker notes, creating a Source list slide, and other presentation tips.
Requirements
Create a 10-12 slide presentation in which you:
Present your investigative article or report title and your name.
Include the name of your magazine or newspaper or explain that you work for the DOJ.
Describe the who, what, when, and where of your investigative article or report.
For example, when did you begin your investigative work? If you focused on a specific community, where is it? What are the demographics? What are the issues facing that community or group? Who did you interview or consult?
Outline the major points and findings of your investigative work.
Use your completed article or report to recap this information.
Describe 2-3 changes that have been proposed or implemented as solutions to the topic issue or problem.
Include the pros and cons of those changes.
Use this section as a “what’s next” or “looking to the future” conclusion.
Create a Source list identifying primary resources you used to support your work.
Use the Strayer Library’s Citing Sources page for formatting guidelines.
Create speaker notes within the PowerPoint document to accompany your presentation.
Include SWS formatted citations for any direct quotes or statistics used in your speaker notes.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The library is your home for SWS assistance, including citations and formatting. Please refer to the Library site for all support. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
Analyze historical events, current events, and trends that impact various cultural groups within a diverse and complex society.
Analyze an inclusive solution to a social problem concerning class, ethnicity, gender, or race.
Week 9 Assignment – Presentation of Issues and Changes
Week 9 Assignment – Presentation of Issues and Changes
Criteria Ratings Pts
Present your investigative article or report title and your name.
10 to >8.99 pts
Exemplary
Presented your investigative article or report title and your name.
8.99 to >7.99 pts
Competent
Presented your investigative article or report title and your name, but the presentation lacked some detail.
7.99 to >6.99 pts
Satisfactory
Presented your investigative article or report title and your name, but the presentation contained errors or inconsistencies.
6.99 to >5.99 pts
Needs Improvement
Presented your investigative article or report title or your name, but not both.
5.99 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not present your investigative article or report title.
/ 10 pts
Describe the who, what, when, and where of your investigative article or report.
15 to >13.49 pts
Exemplary
Described the who, what, when, and where of your investigative article or report.
13.49 to >11.99 pts
Competent
Described the who, what, when, and where of your investigative article or report, but the description lacked specificity or detail.
11.99 to >10.49 pts
Satisfactory
Described the who, what, when, and where of your investigative article or report, but the description contained errors or inconsistencies.
10.49 to >8.99 pts
Needs Improvement
Listed but did not describe the who, what, when, or where of your investigative article or report.
8.99 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not list the who, what, when, and where of your investigative article or report.
/ 15 pts
Outline the major points and findings of your investigative work.
20 to >17.99 pts
Exemplary
Outlined some of the major points and findings of your investigative work, with 0–2 errors.
17.99 to >15.99 pts
Competent
Outlined some of the major points and findings of your investigative work, with 3–4 errors.
15.99 to >13.99 pts
Satisfactory
Outlined some of the major points and findings of your investigative work, with 5–6 errors.
13.99 to >11.99 pts
Needs Improvement
Outlined the major points and findings of your investigative work, with more than six errors.
11.99 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not outline the major points and findings of your investigative work.
/ 20 pts
Describe 2–3 changes that have been proposed or implemented as solutions to the topic issue or problem.
20 to >17.99 pts
Exemplary
Described 2–3 changes that have been proposed or implemented as solutions to the topic issue or problem.
17.99 to >15.99 pts
Competent
Described 2–3 changes that have been proposed or implemented as solutions to the topic issue or problem, but descriptions lacked specificity or detail.
15.99 to >13.99 pts
Satisfactory
Described one change that has been proposed or implemented as a solution to the topic issue or problem, or descriptions lacked specificity and detail.
13.99 to >11.99 pts
Needs Improvement
Identified but did not describe 2–3 changes that have been proposed or implemented as solutions to the topic issue or problem.
11.99 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not identify changes that have been proposed or implemented as solutions to the topic issue or problem.
/ 20 pts
Create a Source list identifying primary resources you used to support your work.
10 to >8.99 pts
Exemplary
Created a Source list identifying the primary resources you used to support your work.
8.99 to >7.99 pts
Competent
Created a Source list identifying the primary resources you used to support your work, but the list contained 1–2 errors omitting citation details.
7.99 to >6.99 pts
Satisfactory
Created a Source list identifying the primary resources you used to support your work, but the list contained 3–4 errors omitting citation details.
6.99 to >5.99 pts
Needs Improvement
Created a Source list identifying the primary resources you used to support your work, but the list contained more than four errors omitting citation details.
5.99 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not create a Source list identifying the primary resources you used to support your work.
/ 10 pts
Create speaker notes within the PowerPoint document to accompany your presentation.
15 to >13.49 pts
Exemplary
Created speaker notes within the PowerPoint document to accompany your presentation.
13.49 to >11.99 pts
Competent
Created speaker notes within the PowerPoint document to accompany your presentation, but notes contained 1–2 inaccuracies.
11.99 to >10.49 pts
Satisfactory
Created speaker notes within the PowerPoint document to accompany your presentation, but notes contained 3–4 inaccuracies.
10.49 to >8.99 pts
Needs Improvement
Created speaker notes within the PowerPoint document to accompany your presentation, but notes were incomplete and contained more than four inaccuracies.
8.99 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not create speaker notes within the PowerPoint document to accompany your presentation.
/ 15 pts
Write with clarity, following mechanics and formatting requirements.
10 to >8.99 pts
Exemplary
Wrote with clarity, following mechanics and formatting requirements, with 0–2 errors.
8.99 to >7.99 pts
Competent
Wrote with clarity, but mechanics and formatting had 3–4 errors.
7.99 to >6.99 pts
Satisfactory
Wrote with clarity, but mechanics and formatting had 5–6 errors.
6.99 to >5.99 pts
Needs Improvement
Writing lacked clarity, and mechanics and formatting had more than six errors.
5.99 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
Did not write with clarity and did not follow mechanics and formatting requirements.