Archives: Assignments

Capstone purpose

Produce a rigorous knowledge product for a defined audience and submit the full evidence trail showing how it was developed, tested, revised, and ethically reviewed.

Portfolio components

1. Proposal: problem, audience, contribution, format, milestones, and definition of done.
2. Strategic reading dossier: source map, authority evaluation, and reading trail.
3. Knowledge bank: at least 20 traceable source notes and three synthesis memos.
4. Argument and theory file: claim-evidence map, counterarguments, theory provenance, fit, limits, and alternatives.
5. Knowledge product: polished final artifact appropriate to its audience.
6. Audience test: feedback from at least two readers or users and a revision matrix.
7. Integrity dossier: citations, permissions or consent where relevant, AI-use disclosure, risk/accessibility review, and correction pathway.
8. Reflective audit: 1,500–2,000 words explaining decisions, failures, revisions, limits, and next development.

Assessment rubric — 100 points

• Problem significance and contribution: 15.
• Source quality, range, and traceability: 15.
• Argument, evidence, and counterargument: 20.
• Theory provenance, application, and restraint: 15.
• Audience fit, clarity, and product quality: 15.
• Revision, resilience, and documented process: 10.
• Integrity, accessibility, and professional presentation: 10.

Completion standard

A minimum score of 70 is required. Major citation fabrication, plagiarism, unsafe handling of data, or absence of the evidence trail requires revision before completion. Submit one master PDF plus editable/source files and any media artefacts.

Purpose

Demonstrate responsible theory use by tracing provenance, applying two rival explanations to one phenomenon, and making an evidence-based judgement.

Required components

1. Phenomenon brief: define the case, research question, context, and evidence corpus.
2. Two provenance cards: origin, foundational problem, authors, concepts, mechanism, assumptions, scope, critiques, and translation issues.
3. Concept-to-evidence map: show how each theoretical concept is operationalized and supported.
4. Comparison matrix: evaluate both explanations using identical criteria.
5. Discriminating evidence: identify evidence that would favour one explanation over the other.
6. Judgement: 1,200–1,500 words selecting, integrating, or suspending judgement with limitations.

Assessment rubric

• Accuracy and traceability of theory provenance: 20 points.
• Conceptual clarity and operationalization: 20 points.
• Quality of evidence and comparative analysis: 25 points.
• Strength and restraint of final judgement: 25 points.
• Presentation, citation, and academic integrity: 10 points.

Submission: one PDF report and supporting matrix/source file. Cite all concepts and empirical claims using a consistent style.

Purpose

Convert the principles of intellectual resilience into a tested personal operating system for sustained knowledge production.

Required components

1. Blockage diagnostic: analyse one current stalled project and distinguish knowledge, structure, emotional, workload, and health-related causes.
2. Failure log: document at least three attempts, results, lessons, and next experiments.
3. Feedback matrix: obtain feedback on a short work sample, classify every comment, and record revision decisions.
4. Two-week rhythm: schedule deep work, shallow work, recovery, buffers, and a minimum viable practice.
5. Evidence: provide calendar extracts, revision before/after examples, or other verifiable artefacts.
6. Reflection: 800–1,000 words evaluating what worked, what failed, and what will change.

Assessment rubric

• Diagnostic accuracy and evidence: 25 points.
• Quality of experiments and revision decisions: 25 points.
• Feasibility and safety of the operating rhythm: 20 points.
• Integration of course concepts: 20 points.
• Clarity, traceability, and professional presentation: 10 points.

Submission: one PDF portfolio plus supporting files. Protect personal privacy; disclose only information relevant to the learning task.

Purpose

Design and deliver a ten-minute evidence-based presentation for a defined audience.

Required submission

1. Audience–Purpose Canvas and core message.
2. Seven-part storyboard with timing.
3. Six to ten accessible slides with source labels.
4. Speaker notes and evidence list.
5. A ten-minute video or live-delivery recording.
6. Rehearsal log, peer feedback, and revision record.
7. 250-word reflection on uncertainty, ethics, and audience care.

Rubric — 100 points

• Audience fit and core message: 20
• Argument, evidence, and explanation: 25
• Structure and time discipline: 15
• Visual clarity and accessibility: 15
• Delivery and question handling: 15
• Ethics, attribution, and reflective revision: 10

Passing score: 70.

Purpose

Transform a focused intellectual problem into a defensible manuscript plan and demonstrate the plan through one polished model section.

Required submission

1. Problem statement and contribution statement.
2. Primary audience and intended format.
3. Argument map: thesis, supporting claims, evidence, assumptions, counterargument, limitations.
4. Chapter architecture with questions, claims, section functions, evidence, and word targets.
5. Evidence-gap and research-action table.
6. A 1,000–1,500 word model section with citations.
7. Reverse outline and revision note.

Rubric — 100 points

• Problem, scope, and contribution: 20
• Argument and evidence coherence: 25
• Manuscript architecture: 20
• Model-section quality: 20
• Traceability, citation, and revision judgement: 15

Passing score: 70. One revision is permitted.

Purpose

Build and demonstrate a minimum viable knowledge bank that turns reading into traceable, connected, and reusable intellectual material.

Required components

1. At least 15 verified source records.
2. At least 30 atomic notes using clearly labelled note types.
3. At least three knowledge maps with explicit relationship labels.
4. One project space organised around a defined question.
5. One 750-word synthesis memo.
6. A source-to-claim traceability table.
7. Naming, tagging, status, backup, and maintenance rules.
8. Results of six retrieval tests, including time required.

Submission

Submit one PDF report plus an export or screenshots demonstrating the system. Remove private or confidential information before submission.

Rubric — 100 points

• Provenance and citation integrity: 25
• Architecture and retrieval quality: 20
• Connections and knowledge mapping: 20
• Synthesis memo quality: 20
• Maintenance, portability, and presentation: 15

Passing score: 70/100. One revision is permitted after feedback.

Integrity requirements

Do not fabricate sources, quotations, page numbers, or retrieval results. Disclose AI assistance and verify all generated bibliographic information against original sources.

Purpose

This assignment demonstrates that you can transform strategic reading into a traceable analytical product. You will examine one primary book and place it in conversation with at least two reliable comparative sources.

Required submission

Submit a single PDF of 1,000–1,500 words, excluding references and appendices. It must contain:

1. Reading question and selection rationale: explain why the book was chosen and how it relates to your intended knowledge product.
2. 40% Book Scan: summarise context, structure, provisional thesis, source base, and reading route.
3. Argument reconstruction: state the central and supporting claims fairly in your own words.
4. Information and theory analysis: explain how evidence and concepts function in the argument.
5. Comparative synthesis: compare the primary book with at least two credible sources addressing the same question.
6. Critical evaluation: identify strengths, limitations, assumptions, and boundaries without caricaturing the author.
7. Knowledge-production opening: formulate one new question or contribution made possible by your reading.

Required appendices

• Reading Intention Card
• Book Selection Scorecard
• Argument–Information–Theory Matrix
• Knowledge map with labelled relationships

Evidence and citation requirements

• Use page-level citations for quotations, paraphrases, and source-specific claims.
• Clearly distinguish quotation, paraphrase, summary, and your interpretation.
• Include a complete reference list in one recognised citation style.
• Do not invent bibliographic details, quotations, page numbers, or evidence.
• If AI tools are used, attach a short disclosure explaining the tool, purpose, output checked, and revisions made. AI output cannot replace direct reading of the assigned sources.

Assessment rubric — 100 points

• Accuracy and fairness of argument reconstruction: 20
• Quality, relevance, and traceability of evidence: 20
• Identification and explanation of theory: 15
• Comparative synthesis and knowledge mapping: 20
• Critical judgement and awareness of limitations: 15
• Structure, language, citation, and academic integrity: 10

Passing score: 70/100. A submission below the passing score may be revised once after feedback.

Submission checklist

• PDF opens correctly and contains the required sections.
• Word count is within range.
• All four appendices are included.
• Every source-specific claim is traceable.
• The new question is specific and intellectually meaningful.