This document contains instructions for three different assignments. The first asks students to discuss questions related to online course engagement and structure. The second prompts students to analyze a work process and suggest improvements, or research a global business and propose a strategy to improve competition. The third provides guidelines for an annotated bibliography assignment, including selecting sources on a research topic, summarizing and analyzing each source, and presenting the research. Students are to write annotations in a specific format that describes the argument, context, and relevance of each source to help understand the complexity of the research topic.

1. Part 1 public policy
Question A – What is the purpose of discussion questions for an
online course? Do the requirements for length and engagement
with other students support this purpose?
Question B – According to Van Bramer and Bastin, “a
progressive paper is one that students write one section at a
time: as they add each new section, they go back and revise the
previous parts based on actionable feedback from the
instructor” (2013, J. Chem. Educ., 90 (6), p. 745). How do the
assignments in PAD 510 exemplify a progressive paper?
Part 2
Business statistics
"Business Improvement" Please respond to the following:
Note: Online students, please select one of the two subjects to
discuss.
Select one (1) project from the working or educational
environment of your choice and specify the main work process
(e.g., suppliers and customers involved, work flow, etc.) of the
project that you have selected. Next, suggest at least two (2)
actions that a manager can take in order to improve the work
process of the project in question. Provide a rationale for your
response.
Use the Internet or Strayer Library to research a global business
or an organization of your choice. Next, analyze the overall
effect of global competition on the business or the organization
that you researched. Suggest one (1) strategy that the business
leader can use in order to improve business competition and
efficiency. Provide a rationale for your response.

2. Project III: Annotated Bibliography
Assignment:
Produce an evaluative annotated bibliography that collects,
summarizes, and explains relevant secondary sources available
on your narrowed topic (there will also be an in-class research
presentation, five minutes in length). Many of the sources
collected will be scholarly. The annotated bibliography will 1)
summarize the source; 2) explain its rhetorical context (the
journal and its audience, the purpose of the article, the
conversation/debate it references, its genre conventions, its
organization, the evidence it marshals in support of its
argument, and/or its disciplinary assumptions and values); and
3) articulate the ways the source helps you understand your
research topic in all of its complexity.
Requirements:
The bibliography should contain 4 or more sources, each with a
correct citation, a paragraph telling the reader the main
argument and main points of the article, a description of the
rhetorical context (the journal and its audience, the purpose of
the article, the conversation/debate it references, its genre
conventions, its organization, the evidence it marshals in
support of its argument, and/or its disciplinary assumptions and
values), and a couple of sentences talking about why you choose
this article, about what it helps you understand about your
research topic. See example on reverse.
Process:
1. Develop a narrowed research topic and focused research
question
2. Find articles using library databases pertinent to your topic
(Proquest and Academic Search Complete)
3. Adapt research topic based on early findings
4. Read, evaluate, summarize, interpret, and describe sources
5. Draft citations for peer review
6. Present research to class
7. Revise incorporating feedback from peers

3. 8. Submit final draft of your annotated bibliography
Grading:
Annotated bibliographies will be evaluated on how relevant the
sources are to each other and to the narrowed topic at hand.
They will also be evaluated on the degree to which they fully
engage these sources in the paragraphs that summarize and
explain it.
Timeline:
Monday, April. 3: draft of essay due in class
Monday, April 8: final draft due on Canvas by 11:59pm
Sample Annotation:
Downs, Doug and Elizabeth Wardle. “Teaching about Writing,
Righting Misconceptions:
(Re)Envisioning ‘First Year Composition’ as ‘Introduction to
Writing Studies.’” College
Composition and Communication 58.4 (2007): 552-585. Web.
10 Feb. 2011.
In this article, Doug Downs and Elizabeth Wardle propose a
new model for first-year writing classes. They argue that these
classes should take writing studies as their content and that

4. doing so will benefit not only students but the discipline itself.
They contend that the topic of the writing class should be a
study of writing; students should read and discuss and research
issues involving “writing, rhetoric, language and literacy”
(553). They cite research that shows that students are not
transferring the lessons they learn in first-year writing classes
to other writing situations (in other classes), and believe that it
is because these first-year writing lessons don’t necessarily
apply to other situations (556-557); they contend that a better
strategy would be to teach “realistic and useful conception of
writing - perhaps the most significant of which is that writing is
neither basic nor universal but content- and context-contingent
and irreducibly complex” (557-558), a strategy that requires
students study and write about writing rather than about other
topics. They trace the success of their own pilot “writing about
writing” courses, providing case studies that show that the
curriculum works for underprepared students as well as honors
students (564-573).
The article is aimed at writing teachers and perhaps faculty
who make curriculum decisions for first-year composition. The
articles wants to convince this audience to adopt the proposed
curriculum and does this by drawing on research that calls into
question the efficacy of the curriculum of most first-year
writing programs. It also addresses debates about the low status
of the discipline in the academy, arguing that the proposed
curriculum will help remedy this low status. The writers also
directly address critics of the new curriculum, arguing against
their objections one by one. The article is arranged first to
argue for the curriculum using already-published and accepted
research, then to describe in detail the proposed curriculum,
then to report on case studies of classes that taught the new
curriculum, and then to argue against critic’s objections. The
article does not directly follow the social science model
(literature review, describe experiment, data from experiment,
discuss conclusions based on data), but it does loosely follow
this model and is tightly structured with subheadings. The

5. writers refer to themselves by their last names or by “we,”
especially in the case study portion of the article and at the
beginning of a section when they outline what they will do in
that section. They also quote heavily form their students’ own
writing as proof that students did learn important lessons in the
new curriculum – showing that the article values first-hand
experience of teachers (this is the largest section in the article
at nearly 9 pages in length). This article is incredibly useful in
my study of what skills students can take with them from their
first-year writing classes. It provides a discussion of why
students can’t transfer many of the lessons they learn in learn in
many first-year writing to their other classes (academic
discourse is not one thing) and it helps me understand how
rhetorical knowledge and an appreciation of the complexity of
writing is something they can take with them. The case study
examples, in particular, are useful in helping me see what
students learned that will be helpful to them later.
Topic is relationship
And you can use the technology how can effect that