Project Summary

Fully exploring the course themes of decision architecture and mapping, this project asks students to map a campus issue @ Purdue. “Mapping” here means the purposeful selection, arrangement, and presentation of information in a usable, primarily visual format for a specific audience. This project seeks to position the creative and constructive work of professional writers as important and necessary. “Mapping” here is not to be understood as the passive mirroring of “reality,” but the active creation of meanings and knowledges. In concert with a primary theme of this course, mapping of this sort productively combines theory and practice in requiring students to frame and define both their audience and their object in specific ways (theorize) in planning and composing their map (practice). Additionally, this project stresses document design and primary research in the form of observations, interviews, and, perhaps, surveys, as well as secondary research.

Examples will be provided and discussed in class, but several are available online @:

 

Deliverables

Proposal

Students will compose a 500 word proposal document in order to inform the instructor and gain approval for their map. The proposal should be polished, professional, and persuasive, and it should address the following:

  • campus issue to be mapped
  • audience/users (specific and local)
  • document type (the design features of the map)
  • purpose of the map (specific and achievable)
  • necessary primary and secondary research
  • relevance and importance of the map

With this document, students will need to persuade the instructor that their map will be relevant, that it will meet the goals of the assignment, and that it is feasible given the context and constraints of the course.

Proposal Due: 2/10 (post to blog and select category as "Project Proposal")

Analysis Document

Building on the proposal document, this deliverable asks students to review other “maps” or representations associated with their issue. Students will locate and analyze at least two visually oriented documents which address the same or a similar subject. Students should produce a polished and professional document (750-1000 words) that analyzes the following elements in terms of the documents’ strengths or weaknesses:

  • purpose of the documents
  • approach/design of the documents
  • audience of the documents
  • rhetorical situation of the documents

This deliverable should allow students to more accurately gauge the context of their own map, as well as consider what they want to do, why they want to do it, and who they want to use it.

Analysis Due: 2/17 (post to blog and select category as "Analysis Document")

Progress Report

Students should post a blog that informs the instructor of progress they have made towards completing their rough draft. This report should include a discussion of primary and secondary research done, design decisions made, and portions of the map completed. This report should be between 250 – 300 words.

Report Due: 2/21 (post to blog and select category as "Progress Report")

Rough Draft

Students will complete a draft of their map for an online workshop. Students will post an electronic version (most likely a pdf file) as an attachment to their blog (and categorize appropriately). In addition to posting their map, students will compose a 100 – 150 word description of their map, including its subject, audience, purpose, and rhetorical situation.

Good drafts are rough in terms of polish and fullness, but all major components of the map should be present. That is, to count as “drafts,” maps must be in need of revision, not completion. In terms of the workshop, students should review and comment upon at least two drafts. Critiques should be constructive, specific, and designed to help fellow students improve their maps. Comments like “this is cool” or “this sucks” are equally unconstructive and unhelpful, and are not sufficient in and of themselves. Students will also receive feedback from the instructor at this stage.

Draft Due: 2/27 (post to blog and select category as "Draft"). Comments Due: 3/1

Final Draft

Students will submit a final, polished draft of their map both electronically (as a pdf file emailed to the instructor) and in hard copy (as it would appear in actual use) in a manila envelope. The instructor will make allowances for practical constraints with respect to the physical production of maps, but a reasonable attempt should be made to produce the document as intended. Students can negotiate this with the instructor on an individual basis. Additional grading guidelines are provided below.

Final Draft Due: 3/6

Presentation

Near the end of the project, students will be asked to briefly share their final draft with their fellow students in a semi-formal presentation. Students should discuss the rhetorical situation, audience, and purpose of their map. Students should also reflect on the relative strengths and weaknesses of their map. The ability to clearly articulate and honestly assess work done is an important component of professional communication. Additionally, students should consider the use of handouts and/or a presentation software.

Presentations on 3/4 or 3/6

Project Assessment

Related but distinct from the presentation, this two page (single-spaced) documents requires students to reflect on their map and their process. Students will discuss how their map fit the rhetorical situation, addressed the audience, and achieved its purpose. Students will also reflect on their composing process, focusing on what practices they found productive and what practices they would alter next time (i.e., how they would do differently). Students should conclude their project assessment with a general discussion of “lessons learned” with the respect the course at large. Incorporating in-class work, course readings, and online discussions is a good way to fully flesh out this part of the project assessment.

Project Assessment Due: 3/18 (post to blog and select category as "Project Assessment")

Grade Breakdown

The Mapping Project accounts for 30% of the total course grade. Individual components of the project are worth the following:

  • Proposal – 10%
  • Analysis – 20%
  • Progress Report – 5%
  • Draft/Workshop – 10%
  • Final Draft – 40%
  • Presentation – 10%
  • Project Assessment – 5%
  • Total – 100%

Grade Guidelines

Proposals

  • proposal is a coherent document rather than a series of disconnected components
  • proposal is composed in third person in order to address the map, its rhetorical situation, audience, and purpose (as opposed to the student’s process)
  • proposal is composed in present tense, focusing on the map’s design and function (as opposed to future tense and thus what the map might do)
  • proposal thoroughly demonstrates the clear purpose, specific audience, and concrete rhetorical situation of the map
  • document is of a professional quality and appropriate for a professional context

Maps

  • map creates a unique and helpful perspective with respect to the issue or space, and is useful for the audience in creating meaning and knowledge about the subject
  • map is visually appealing and accessible
  • design of the map appropriate to audience, purpose and rhetorical situation
  • map is complete, polished, and free of mistakes that hurt its usefulness, accessibility, and credibility

Presentations

  • audience of presentation is informed of the map’s audience, purpose, and rhetorical situation, and how the map addresses these
  • student presenter reflects on relative strengths and weaknesses of map
  • presentation is creative, sophisticated, and engaging
    • avoid simply listing all components of the mapping project
    • create a presentation that shows the audience how all elements of the project worked in concert
    • like all good professional communication, presentations that work to merely convey information will not be successful
  • delivery is professional and evidences preparation

Project Assessment

  • addresses design decisions made by the student
  • insightfully discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the map’s design and the designer’s process
  • provides documentation (specific and concrete examples and evidence) that would be necessary in a professional setting
  • document of a professional quality and appropriate for a professional context

Portions of this project and its guidelines adopted from Jeremy Tirrell @ Purdue University

 

 

‹ Professional Writing @ PurdueupInterview Report ›