Write a story about a person that contains WHAT, ANTAGONISM, CONFLICT and RESOLUTION. Show a character who wants something, pursues it versus Oppositions ( external, internal and transactional), and then Wins or Loses, or Fight to a draw. 1000 words, MLA format. No works cities, no help from outside sources, no footing noting. THIS MUST BE YOUR OWN COMPOSITION.
Day: February 28, 2020
Follow the template
The ppt is about the company
Do some research
Just list the references you used, the reference should be All scholarly articles, with references, government reports, large consulting houses reports or NGO reports. No news article. No industry magazines. Google scholar is a good source.
I have attached Instructions for the Assignment.
Purpose:
In this project, you will gain an understanding of the control function in a business setting. You will compare actual performance with standards, and measure the progress toward the organizational goals, addressing any deviations through corrective action.
Outcome:
Develop measures and assess outcomes against plans and standards to improve organizational effectiveness
Write an action plan reflecting on strategies that would be helpful if you were to speak up in your second story from the Tale of Two Stories exercise that you submitted. This is not about justifying your actions, but rather should focus on what you might want to do to speak up effectively if you were to face a similar situation in the future. Look at your story as a case that you might analyze for this class using the Decision-Making model from class.
The response can be two-three pages (or more, if needed). The response should focus on:
1. Be Attentive – Clarify the facts and issues involved
- What are the facts? Did you need more information?
- What assumptions were you making?
- What was the ethical conflict and how could you have defined your goal?
2. Be Intelligent – Identify the stakeholders
- Looking back, what were the goals of the key stakeholders? What sources of support might have existed?
3. Be Reasonable – Use the values of the ethical lenses
- How could you have used the 4 Lenses of the ELI to create a balanced response or made a more well-reasoned decision about what to do? Please apply the 3 questions from each of the lenses for this analysis. Note, they might not all arrive at the same answer, but you should try to integrate them into a final response as best you can.
4. Be Responsible – Communicate your final decision through an action plan
- What approach would have been effective? Dialogue? Adversarial? Questioning?
- What would be the most effective way for you to have spoken up in this situation or what would have made it more comfortable to communicate?
- What rationalizations did you need to be prepared for?
5. Be Reflective – Evaluate and reflect on the results
- What part of this decision-making model might have been most helpful for you to consider in this case? For example, did you rely too much on assumptions and keep quiet as a result? Was it difficult to consider others or see where they were coming from at the time? Was it difficult to make a decision or feel confident in your ethics? Or did you find it too difficult to act and not have an effective strategy for speaking up?
Your response may rely on some or all of these points, depending on your reflection on the experience. Your response must cover AT LEAST steps 1-4 of the 5 steps of the decision making model, shown in the analysis and plan. Which steps you focus on will depend on your story and the steps most relevant/necessary for developing a stronger plan of action. Each step you develop is worth a maximum of 10 points. The assignment as a whole is worth 40 points.
Step One:
Rewrite 3 loaded or biased phrases in a way that removes the offending inferences. Youll also need to follow each rewritten line with a sentence of your own explaining what the problem with the original line was. Heres a sample of a problem statement:
Dr. Steven Grant, a paleontologist and poor conversationalist, agreed with the findings.
This is biased text, as mentioning that Dr. Grant was a poor conversationalist can call into doubt his credibility without using any facts to back it up. Heres that same statement with the biased language removed:
Dr. Steven Grant, a paleontologist, agreed with the findings.
Step Two:
Using the above example as a guide, rewrite the following 3 lines of biased or loaded text to remove any bias or loaded effect.
Problem Sentences:
If you meet a nurse, tell her how important her job is.
Democrats fail 50% of the time.
Students performed better on the testeven those from foreign universities.
Step Three:
Submit your document. Your document should:
Be 12 pt, Times New Roman font, 1-inch margins, and double spaced.
Consist of at least 6 sentences (3 rewritten lines, and 3 lines explaining the original lines problems).
Minimum of 250 words with at least 2 peer review reference in 6th edition apa style.
Do you think that building a robust clinical coach (preceptor) in order to better support the new to practice nurses and increase retention of the young nurses.
Write an essay responding to the question “Is Online Education Better Than Classroom Education?” supporting your position with evidence from at least three sources from the textbook. documented in MLA or APA style. Use the principles of classical, Rogerian, or Toulmin argument to organize your essay. Include with your essay a formal outline and a cover letter identifying the audience, purpose, and rhetorical strategy (classical, Rogerian, or Toulmin) for the essay.
Submit your essay as an attachment in Word or RTF by the due date.
I included the assignment (word doc) and the class PowerPoints and additional info. Let me know if anything else is needed.
Wireshark Lab 1: http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~bhua/Kurose_Labs_v7.0/Wireshark_Intro_v7.0.pdf
Wireshark Lab 2:
http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~bhua/Kurose_Labs_v7.0/Wireshark_HTTP_v7.0.pdf
#1. Compare and contrast the traditional view of the law with the social science view of the law. Provide a brief description of each perspective. On which aspects of the law does each perspective focus? What assumptions does each view make about the law? In your view, what are the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective?
#2. Create a fictional society. Briefly describe its characteristics and cultural elements (e.g., how diverse it is, how big it is, what it places a high level of importance on, how religious its population is, its social structure, its type of government, etc.). Now design a legal system for your society that incorporates elements from one or more of the five major of law discussed in Chapter Three. Describe your societys legal system and explain why you included each element you describe.
Remember that a societys legal system is not only a part of a societys culture and structure but a reflection of it as well. This means that the characteristics of your fictional societys legal system should reflect its cultural and structural elements.
Guidelines/Instructions for Analytical Critique Assignment
Your assignment is to write a 3-4 page historical, analytical critique/review. It is due at noon on Blackboard on the date designated on your syllabus.
A review is not a book report or summary of the book. You are evaluating the work to show that you are reading and thinking critically about history. I am providing you with some guidelines for working on this assignment.
Part I: As you Read
As you read the book, you should consider a number of different things. I also recommend that you take notes as you are reading so you dont have to go back and search for things once you start to write. ALL of these should be addressed in your essay in some way, some more in-depth than others (for example, you could just barely mention style, but you absolutely must discuss sources, thesis, etc.)
a. Purpose/Thesis What is the authors purpose or intent of the book? Does he/she have a clear, central thesis statement/argument that you can identify and follow? (I will post material about writing/identifying a thesis.) [THIS THESIS IS SEPARATE FROM YOUR OWN THESIS ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENT.]
b. Interpretation Does the author provide clear and definite interpretations of history and evidence or does he/she expect the reader to do the interpreting? (interpretation is when the author explains what a fact or event means or how it should be understood) Are the authors interpretations logical and consistent? Or are they weak and inconsistent? Do the authors interpretations make things more clear for the reader or make them more difficult to understand?
c. Contextualization Does the author place their thesis/topic in the wider context/picture of history? Does he/she make connections with what else is going on during the period, location, event, etc.? Do these connections make things easier to comprehend the material or more difficult to understand? Or is the topic/thesis too narrowly focused?
d. Sources What kind of sources is the author using? (primary/secondary, narrative/analytical, government documents, popular writings, personal documents, etc.) Does the author do a good job of using those sources to support his/her argument? (you should also judge whether those sources are appropriate or not to the topic)
e. Bias/Agenda Is the author impartial or biased? (if so, what are they?) Is he/she providing the reader with objective observations and letting the reader decide or is he/she making biased/prejudiced points to serve a specific agenda? What is the authors agenda if he/she has one?
f. Critical Observation Does the author prove their point(s)? Has he/she answered all of your questions? Does the thesis/argument still stand at the end of the book or has it been lost in the course of the book?
g. Style Is the book well-written? Is it easy to read or confusing and complex? Does it flow naturally? Is it filled with jargon (technical language) making it difficult for a non-historian to understand?
h. Authors background What are the qualifications of this author? What makes them someone you should listen to and believe? What else have they written? Is this a new topic/area of interest for them? (requires a little outside research, dont just use what is on the back cover of the book [or Amazon] should be your ONLY outside source)
Part II: As you Write
As you begin to write your review, you should be focusing on several major points and elements.
a. Bibliographical citation ALL reviews should begin with a bibliographical citation. You will find
information about how to do this at the end of this handout. Historians use Chicago Manual of Style for all their citations.
b. Introduction You should have a brief introduction that lays out YOUR thesis of your review what you are hoping to state/argue about the book and your introduction MUST include the authors thesis for the book (either paraphrased or as a direct quote).
c. Profile/Summary of the book You should have a short paragraph that gives a summary of the book what it was about. Emphasis on SHORT (4 or 5 sentences at the most); it shouldnt be a detail by detail listing of the book.
d. Body You should discuss your observations (from the AS YOU READ section) in the body. I wont give you expectations regarding how to put these observations together or how many paragraphs, but it should be logical and well thought out. Remember that paragraphs are dividing different topics (even sub-topics) and each paragraph should have a mini-main idea. You can/should use quotes to support your points, but keep them short. (QUOTES SHOULDNT BE LONGER THAN ONE SENTENCE/LINE OF TEXT) You will have to cite any quotes or specific details you use (again, using Chicago Manual of Style as described below and in a handout on Blackboard).
e. Conclusion You should have a short paragraph that sums up your thesis/argument and major points of your review. Ideally, it should leave your reader with some ideas about whether they want to read the book or not.
NOTE: Your review should be well written, so make sure you proofread it for grammar, punctuation, spelling, and accuracy. I have read the book, so I will be checking your accuracy and thoroughness.
CITATIONS:
Bibliographic Citation example: (for Part II/a. above)
1st Authors name (last, first.)
2nd Title of book in italics make sure you capitalize all words except short prepositions and
conjunctions (in, and, to, etc.).
3rd Inside parenthesis City, State (unless it is a well-known big city like Boston or New York, then no
state necessary) then colon followed by name of publisher, comma and date published. Close parenthesis and period.
Footnote citations: (using the example above)
1st time you cite the document use the version seen in #1 above Authors name (first then last), Title in italics, City, State published: Publishing company: year in parenthesis followed by a colon, last the page number ending with a period.
2nd time you cite the document, you can shorten the citation to what you see in #2 above Authors last name followed by a comma, title in italics (can be shortened to main words) with a comma, and finally page number (or range if you are using something from more than one page) ending with a period.
FORMAT: 3-4 page paper – NO COVER PAGE
1 inch margins (left, right, top, bottom)
Double spaced (Times New Roman or Calibri 12 pt. font)
Heading: only your name & course:section number (ex. 1301:15) (DO NOT USE my name or the date) Title (centered can be creative or not)
Bibliographic citation of the book
Body
Footnotes (not endnotes)
Smith, John Doe. How to Write a History Essay: The Secrets to Getting an A. (Harlingen, TX: Rodriguez
Publishing House, 2016).
1. John Doe Smith, How to Write a History Essay: The Secrets to Getting an A, (Harlingen, TX: Rodriguez
Publishing House, 2016): 440.
2. Smith, How to Write a History Essay, 45253.
