Communication Through the Web

DCI 108

Winter 2021

Credits: 3

Requirements Met: DCI Minor Core

Class Meeting Metadata
Meets: MW 4:00 - 5:35pm Eastern
Classroom: Virtual (Zoom links in Canvas)
Instructor's Metadata
Instructor: Jason T. Mickel, Ph.D.
E-Mail: mickelj@wlu.edu How to Email a Professor
Phone: (540) 458-8653
Office: Leyburn M33
Office Hours: M 1:00-2:00
T 2:30-3:30
W 11:00-12:00
Or by appointment

Exercise #2: Learning from Your Audience75 points

Due Friday, February 5 @ 11:55pm ET

Overview

Now that you have established who your audience is and the story you're going to tell, test your expectations against the real thing.

Using all of the readings and concepts discussed to guide the process, reach out to professionals in your field who can help to narrow in on creating the type of portfolio that will draw their attention. Consider contacting:

  • A previous employer/internship
  • Local business leaders in your area of interest (either in/around Lexington or from your home area)
  • W&L professors in your field (you may not use me)
  • W&L alumni

You may not interview immediate family members or fellow students.

Speak to at least 2 different people. Generate a list of questions ahead of time so that you are organized and prepared. Plan for your conversations to be brief out of respect for their time; however, use as much time as each person offers to gain insight. Remember, the focus of this exercise is to gather what THEY would expect this website/portfolio to contain and look like.

You will submit a brief paper that summarizes your conversations and then synthesizes the insight you received with your own portfolio design approach from Exercise #1. As with the previous exercise, the contents of this one will inform the design document produced for your final portfolio site.

Expectations

The paper should meet the following criteria:

  • 1,000 to 1,500 words
  • Double-spaced
  • Arial or Times New Roman
  • Contain the list of questions prepared for each person
  • Make clear reference to the sources assigned as reading. You should cite using the academic format you are most familiar with (APA, MLA, etc.). If you need help, refer to the University Library's guide to citation and plagiarism.

You may use any word processing software that you are comfortable with (Word, Google Docs, Apple Pages, etc.). Submit either the document itself or a link to it to this assignment's Canvas page. If submitting a link, you MUST test it before submitting to ensure it works (i.e., don't assume that a copy and paste gives me exactly what I need).

Grading Specifications

Grading Rubric
Sophisticated Very Competent Fairly Competent Not Yet Competent
Argument/depth of analysis
50 points total
Fully meets requirements of assignment. Explores implications of choices in thoughtful and/or original ways. Makes convincing case for why selected key ideas connect (or contradict) with the material studied thus far. Asks probing questions of interviewee(s) and connects their answers back to the material discussed. (45-50 pts) Paper fully meets the requirements but does not exceed them. Makes good case for why selected key ideas connect (or contradict) material studied thus far. Asks solid questions of interviewee(s) and makes some connection to the material discussed. (40-44 pts) Paper does not address some aspects of the assignment. Makes mildly convincing case for why selected ideas connect (or contradict) material studied thus far. Asks some pertinent questions of interviewee(s) and makes only minor connection back to the material discussed. (30-39 pts) Paper does not address the assignment. Selects minor rather than key ideas, and/or does not show why the selected ideas connect (or contradict) material studied thus far. Asks basic questions of interviewee(s) and/or makes no connection to material discussed. (0-29 pts)
Clarity
20 points total
Consistently precise and unambiguous wording, clear and lucid sentence structure. All citations are well chosen, effectively framed in the text and explicated where necessary. (17-20 pts) Mostly precise and unambiguous wording, mostly clear sentence structure. Mostly effective choice of citations. Mostly effective framing and explication of citations where necessary. (13-16 pts) Imprecise or ambiguous wording. Confusing sentence structure. Poorly chosen citations,or ineffective framing and explication of citations. (10-12 pts) Consistently imprecise or ambiguous wording, confusing sentence structure. Citations contradict or confuse student's text. Citations used to replace student's own ideas. (0-9 pts)
Presentation
5 points total
Paper is clean, well formatted, and written in complete sentences. Citations are all properly attributed in a consistent style. Virtually no spelling or grammatical errors. (5 pts) Paper is clean, well formatted, and written in complete sentences. Citations are all properly attributed in a consistent style. A few minor spelling or grammatical errors. (4 pts) Paper is clean, well formatted, and written in complete sentences. Some improperly attributed citations and/or inconsistent citation style. A number of spelling or grammatical errors. (3 pts) Paper is sloppy, incorrectly formatted, and/or not written in complete sentences. Many improperly attributed citations or inconsistent style of citation. Many spelling or grammatical errors. (0-2 pts)

Rubric adapted from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/examples/courselevel-bycollege/cfa/tools/reflectionpaper-cfa.pdf