Case study presentation schedule

Preparation: Presentations are on the given date. Prior to the date, everyone reads all the sections (if a section is >1 page you can skim). Those presenting read their whole section (even if longer than a page) and also finds some outside sources to tell us about the issue; with your partner you'll identify one or more relevant specific case (hence "case study") that isn't in the reading, to tell us about (or, go substantially more in-depth into a case that's merely mentioned in the book). To prepare for the presentation, you'll identify the stakeholders (people affected) in your case(s), and the particular choice or action that was made (or that could have been made) that you want to analyse, and you'll talk to your partner about the five "workable" ethical theories and what an analysis under each might look like, and how any of it ties into our general theme of citizenship. You can in general flip a little forward or backward in the book from your assigned section to find other similar issues, including some where the book has performed the kind of ethical analysis you'll need to do here.

Content: We've all read the section, so a quick summary is fine (to remind us) but shouldn't take up much time. Some readings include a specific incident, but all presentations should include at least one relevant specific case (hence "case study") to tell us about, that isn't in the reading. Some personal experience is fine, but it should not dominate the presentation or be the primary case discussed. Probably no video unless it's extremely important to the case (and also very short), but pictures are good. The presentation should spend significant time on ethical analysis of the choices or actions, and should explicitly reference ethical frameworks and/or aspects of citizenship to support your arguments.

Logistics: Each presentation should be about six minutes (plus a couple minutes for questions and feedback). The division doesn't have to be 50% but both people should speak. Visual aids (e.g. slides) are permitted but not required; if you will have any technical needs you should talk to me before the class to double-check and/or transfer files or whatever. Your last slide (if you do slides) or a separate piece of paper should list the sources you used for anything you present as fact. (Wikipedia is a great place to learn about stuff and you're welcome to use it and similar sites, but it should not be the source of record for any citable facts.)

Rubric: This is the rubric I plan to use, and may help you plan your presentation. In general I will start by assigning the same score to both partners in a group, but if I have reason to assign separate scores I can do that too. This is a 10-point analytic rubric, and most items are either yes or no (what computer scientists call "boolean"); some items have a breakdown for full vs partial credit.

Content:

Summary of section is brief. 1/0
Presents case study using outside material. 2/1/0

✓: Clear and complete recounting of relevant story; substantial content is from outside reading; source is mentioned and references are listed (either in final slide or in email after class).
✓−: Story is presented and relevant but: outside content is minimal; or important details are omitted; or source is not mentioned; or reference list is not given.

Addresses question of ethics/citizenship. 2/1/0

✓: Identifies clear issue raised by case that leads to a challenging decision, explains who is involved, how they're affected, and draws clear conclusion based on ethical reasoning and/or citizenship.
✓−: Relevant issue is raised and attempt is made at ethical reasoning (e.g. one of the ethical frameworks is mentioned) but effects of decision are unclear and/or conclusion is not well-founded.

Form:

Both partners speak with reasonable balance. 1/0
Evidence of plan/practice re who says what. 1/0
Prepared with notes (or memorisation); tech (if any) is ready to go. 1/0

You don't have to memorise your speech, but that means you should probably have notes in front of you.
If you have slides (not required), work out in advance how you'll be displaying them without taking multiple minutes to get them loaded up on the screen (e.g. load from flash drive, project from laptop, get them on the classroom computer before class, whatever). We don't have much time to change over between presentations!

Speaking is fluid without directly reading from notes or slides. 1/0

Checking notes is totally fine, and encouraged!
If you have (short) exact quotes from a source, those are fine to read; also if you are quoting percentages or other statistics, it's good to refer to your notes to get them right.
Tip: Avoid using full sentences in your presentation notes or on your slides (if any). If they have full sentences, you'll tend to read them, but if not, you'll speak more naturally and in your own words.

Time management 1/0

Aim for 6 minutes; a little over or a little under is fine.
Tip: Practice your talk, with your partner, out loud, and time it!

Strikes (i.e. things not to do!):

In the course of the presentation, present notably false or irrelevant information. (each) −1

Section 3 (12:30) Batch 1

The order below is the order that the presentations will run on each class day. Days with <5 talks will have other class stuff going on after the presentations. You and your partner should bring at least a "rough draft" version of your second talk to class on 25 Sep, because we'll be talking about how to refine them and you'll spend some time workshopping it.

Thu 20 Sep (6)

3.8.1 Identity theft — Abby, Garrett
3.8.2 False reviews — Christian, William B
3.4.4 Political activism via social media — Will W, Zach
3.5.2 Self-censorship — Kylie, Matt
5.4.4 Social network analysis — Brandon, Katelyn
7.4.5 Political cyberattacks — Brady, Gabrielle

Tue 25 Sep (3)

5.2.3 Natural right to privacy — Mackenzie, Noah
5.3.6 Implanted chips — Collin, Destiny
10.3.4 Monitoring employees — Daniel, Josh

Section 3 (12:30) Batch 2

Thu 27 Sep (5)

4.7.4 Software patents — Garrett, Zach
4.10 Creative Commons — Kylie, Will W
6.5.2 FISA — Katelyn, Noah
6.9.3 Real ID — Christian, Mike W
6.11.4 Airport scanners — Josh, Mackenzie

Tue 2 Oct (2)

4.6.6 Megaupload — Brandon, William B
10.5.6 Net neutrality — Daniel, Matt

Thu 4 Oct (3)

7.5 Online voting — Brady, Mike W
8.2.1 Disenfranchised voters — Abby, Destiny
8.4.7 DRE voting — Collin, Gabrielle

Section 4 (2:00) Batch 1

Thu 20 Sep (6)

5.2.3 Natural right to privacy — Estela, Tallesha
5.3.6 Implanted chips — Alicia, Marisa
5.4.4 Social network analysis — Peyton, Tjyshawn
6.3.5 CCTV — Grady, Malik
3.8.1 Identity theft — Braden, Kai
3.8.2 False reviews — Kaitlyn, Sally

Tue 25 Sep (3)

4.5.2-3 DMCA and SDMI — Lindsay, Molly
4.6.6 Megaupload — Alex, Ian
7.4.5 Political cyberattacks — Julianna, Meghan

Thu 27 Sep (1)

8.2.1 Disenfranchised voters — David B, William T

Section 4 (2:00) Batch 2

Thu 27 Sep cont'd (5)

7.5 Online voting — Dylan, Julianna
8.4.7 DRE voting — Malik, Sally
3.4.4 Political activism via social media — Kaitlyn, Marisa
6.9.3 Real ID — Alex, Tjyshawn
6.11.4 Airport scanners — Braden, Molly

Tue 2 Oct (3)

3.5.2 Self-censorship — Estela, Lindsay
6.5.2 FISA — Ian, William T
10.3.4 Monitoring employees — David B, Tallesha

Thu 4 Oct (3)

4.7.4 Software patents — Meghan, Peyton
4.10 Creative Commons — Alicia, Kai
10.5.6 Net neutrality — Dylan, Grady