Below appears the text of the assignment sheet for the Internal Proposal (IP), adapted for online presentation. This version is to be considered authoritative, superseding any previously published information regarding the IP.
Following from the Collaborative Project Planning Document and after the groups formed from its results have decided upon projects to pursue, the IP each group submits will lay out that group's plan for pursuing the project, offering it for instructor review and approval and establishing guidelines by which work leading up to the External Analytical Report (EAR) will be conducted. Both individual and collaborative submissions will be required in the process of developing the IP; the individual components are two progress reports, while the collaborative is the completed IP. Details concerning each appear below.
Progress Reports
Progress reports on the work individuals and their groups conduct on the IP help to ensure that the work is pursued diligently and that group members are appropriately rewarded for their contributions to the success of the group. Each should take the form of a standard memorandum, addressed to (and responsive to the readerly needs of) the instructor and no more than one page in length. The first should have "IP Progress Report 1" as its subject line and is due before the beginning of class time on 16 February 2015; the second should have "IP Progress Report 2" as its subject line and should be submitted before the beginning of class time on 23 February 2015. Each is to be submitted via D2L dropbox as a .doc, .docx, or .rtf file, and each will be taken as a 10-point daily assignment.
The content of each report should consist of three paragraphs:
The first is a detailed account of the work conducted on the IP; IP Progress Report 1 should discuss work completed since the assignment sheet was issued, while IP Progress Report 2 should discuss work completed since completion of IP Progress Report 1.
The second is a detailed plan of action to be taken before the next submission related to the IP, whether IP Progress Report 2 (for IP Progress Report 1) or the completed IP (for IP Progress Report 2).
The third is a brief summary of what works well in the group, what works poorly, and any corrections that need to be made. If a group member is not contributing appropriately, this needs to be noted to the instructor. (The contents of specific progress reports will not be shared with other students.)
A copy of the grading rubric that will be appended to each IP Progress Report when it is returned to the student appears below. Scoring of each IP Progress Report will be determined according to the following criteria:
Format (3 points)
Does the memorandum display appropriate type-face, interlinear and inter-paragraph spacing, and captioning and transmittal information as indicated in the course textbook? Does it conform to the length and distribution requirements expressed above? Is it submitted in one of the requested file formats?
Content (5 points)
Does the memorandum contain the requested information and distribution, as noted above? Is that content sufficient to address the needs of the reader (i.e., allowing the instructor to oversee collaboration and to ensure appropriate assessment of the completed IP)? Is the required subject line in place?
Mechanics (2 points)
Does the memorandum adhere to the conventions of academic American English expressed in the course textbook and discussed during class time? Does it observe diction, register, and tone reasonably appropriate to professional discourse, such as can be reasonably expected of students in an upper-division English class?
Note that the progress reports are individual assignments; students are each expected to submit their own original work. Note also that while outside reference is not necessarily expected in the progress reports, any outside material must be appropriately attested; failure to do so will be investigated as provided for in course, program, department, College, and University policy and may have a detrimental effect on student grades.
Completed IP
The completed IP should lay out, clearly and convincingly, a plan for study leading to the completion of the EAR. (A useful way to think of it is as suggesting how a specific feasibility study will be carried out.) It should take the form of an extended memorandum (conforming to type-face, interlinear and inter-paragraph spacing, and captioning and transmittal information standards of typical memoranda but with length determined by content) addressed to and responsive to the readerly needs of the instructor. All group members should be listed as authors; the required subject line is "IP." It is to be submitted via D2L dropbox as a single .doc, .docx, or .rtf file before the beginning of class time on 2 March 2015. It is a 100-point major assignment; normally, one grade will be issued to all group members.
Per the course packet (pgs. 31-33), the IP should consist of multiple sections with some content items specified. Information in the course packet is in force for this assignment unless otherwise noted below:
Introduction (unlabeled)- Provide an overview of the contents of the IP, following the six common moves noted in the course packet for the introduction. Be sure that among the information provided is an identification of the person or agency to whom the EAR will be addressed.
Client Analysis and Problem Description- Open this section with the description of the proposed client in terms of professional identity, needs, and interests. (This needs to include consideration of client demographic and psychographic data; consider how the constructed social categories to which the client belongs will affect identity, needs, and interests, and how to address them.) Some indication of the group's connection to the client will be helpful. Follow with a description of the problem to be solved (or area to improve, as the case may be), including its nature, causes, and likely effects if allowed to continue. Data supporting the assertions made herein will be immensely helpful. Note that the expressed heading is requested, rather than that listed in the course packet.
Research Plan- Follow the guidelines expressed in the course packet. Keep in mind that the research should reveal a solution to the problem; the IP should not focus on one and only one possible solution. Note also the following regarding citation formats:
The citation format asserted for the IP will also be used for the EAR.
If a citation format is not expressed, that assumed to be in force for the IP and subsequent EAR will be that of the Modern Language Association of America.
An appropriate justification of the citation format being used is required.
Project Schedule- Follow the guidelines expressed in the course packet for "Time Schedule with Milestones." A written description is required in addition to the Gantt or other graphic scheduling chart. The chart must be appropriately and clearly labeled. Note that the expressed heading is requested, rather than that listed in the course packet.
Software for developing a Gantt chart can be found here, per student recommendation
Member Responsibilities and Qualifications- Follow the guidelines expressed in the course packet for "Qualifications and Responsibilities." For each group member, express the responsibilities assigned that member, followed by the qualifications that suit the member to those responsibilities. Specific details will be helpful. Note that the expressed heading is requested, rather than that listed in the course packet.
Project Management Procedures- Follow the guidelines expressed in the course packet under the relevant heading. Note that Google Docs is greatly preferred; using it and adding the instructor to those able to comment upon the document can also be helpful for group consultations and in the event of member malingering. Conflict resolution techniques from Chapter 3 of the course textbook may be deployed herein.
Risk Management Plan- Follow the guidelines expressed in the course packet under the relevant heading.
Resource Needs and Project Costs- Follow the guidelines expressed in the course packet under the relevant heading.
Conclusion- Information about possible expected solutions will do well in this section; while a single solution ought not to be presumed, a selection of them to investigate (with explanations of why they initially appear viable) is worth considering. Cost/benefit analysis is another option. Note that the page number of the textbook reference articulated in the course packet appears to be a holdover from earlier textbook editions.
A copy of the grading rubric that will be appended to the completed IP when it is returned to the group appears below. Scoring of the IP will be determined according to the following criteria:
Format (30 points)
Does the IP display appropriate type-face, interlinear and inter-paragraph spacing, and captioning and transmittal information as indicated in the course textbook and above directions? Does it conform to the distribution requirements expressed above? Is it submitted in one of the requested file formats?
Are the required sections labeled appropriately? Do the labels call sufficient attention to themselves to facilitate easy navigation without being obnoxious, offensive, or distracting?
Are any necessary subsections labeled appropriately and in a way that indicates their relative subordination to higher-level sections?
Content (50 points)
Does the IP contain the appropriate transmission information, including authors, recipient, and subject line?
Does the IP contain each of the sections listed above? Does each section contain the requested materials?
Is the required graphic in place? Is it labeled appropriately?
Mechanics (20 points)
Does the IP adhere to the conventions of academic American English expressed in the course textbook and discussed during class time? Does it observe diction, register, and tone reasonably appropriate to professional discourse, such as can be reasonably expected of students in an upper-division English class?
Note that the completed IP is a collaborative assignment; one member from the group should submit on behalf of the group its own original work. Note also that outside reference is likely to occur in the completed IP, and any outside material must be appropriately attested; failure to do so will be investigated as provided for in course, program, department, College, and University policy and may have a detrimental effect on student grades.
Copies of the grading rubrics are here.
Examples of previous project topics can be found here, here, here, and here. (The last list may still be building, and there may be redundancy among lists.) Note that duplication of topics is not generally encouraged, although expansions and refinements of earlier projects may be considered if information about them can be found.
A sample of student IP work is available here.
A sample of a (successful) proposal similar to the IP is available here. It is included as a demonstration of how such projects can manifest in workplace situations.
Information may be forthcoming. Check back for updates.