Shorr H PLTW EDD 2025-26-Per 5

More details about making a good slideshow will be discussed as we get closer to this date.

You'll be presenting your problem statement to the class along with at least 3 lines of supporting evidence.

Each group will have 5 minutes to present and there will be 3 minutes for questions.

Each member should speak.

Google slides don't have to be elaborate. Five or six slides will do:
Slide 1: Group Name and Team Member Names (group name doesn't have to be what I called you--you get to choose your own)
Slide 2: Problem Statement. This will be the only wall of text allowed in a presentation.
Slide 3: Supporting Evidence #1: use bullet points and only write the key ideas. Do not read word for word from the slide.
Slide 4: Supporting Evidence #2: use bullet points and only write the key ideas. Do not read word for word from the slide.
Slide 5: Supporting Evidence #3: use bullet points and only write the key ideas. Do not read word for word from the slide.
(and if you have more than 3 solid pieces of evidence, continue the above pattern for the rest)

Submit your google slides--Only 1 per group.

Due Tuesday 9/23 end of class  -- Only one person per group should submit it. Everyone else mark it complete once a member has submitted.


You'll make a single google doc for your project portfolio. I'll show you how to use headers and other styles to make generating a table of contents super easy. 


This is general description for a 5 on Element A: 
The problem is clearly and objectively identified and defined with considerable
depth, and it is well elaborated with specific detail; the justification of
the problem highlights the concerns of many primary stakeholders and is based on comprehensive,
timely, and consistently credible sources; it offers consistently objective
detail from which multiple measurable design requirements can be determined.


Example Commentary:
1. Would have been full credit if the problem statement were included. A wealth of research is provided to justify that bad posture is a problem. Although only 2 attack paths were included (health & safety and economic), the abundance of relevant citations for each makes up for not finding a 3rd path. Bibliography is complete and superscript citations are included for every statement drawn from a source.

2. A full credit paper if the following corrections were addressed: Remove the hyperbole in several sections. The evidence is persuasive without exaggeration (e.g. "Defective sunglass companies will find a way to cut corners in every aspect of their product."). Some citations are unclear--did NASA say the reflected light issue from snow also extends to water and sand? If not, that's an assertion without evidence. It's easy to show that water reflects light, but it should be sourced. General simplification of some awkward language construct (e.g. "The problem we have when it comes to sunglasses and eye protection in general is how poorly made modern day sunglasses are, due to the risks that come with wearing them." could have been "Some modern day sunglasses are poorly made and fail to sufficiently protect against sun damage to the eyes."). Be direct.

3. A full credit paper with some minor flaws: A few awkward sentence structures and a bit of exaggeration in the final graph interpretation in section III. 

4. A good example of how market research can be used to justify a problem. I have my comments directly in the pdf. I believe it earned an A- or B+. I had warned them prior that they should disambiguate some of the data in order to better support the problem but they never did. The problem statement also made an assertion that wasn't supported by the evidence (that the new player base was being turned away).

Summary: Start with your problem statement and then spend a couple paragraphs elaborating on it. Support your problem statement with lines of evidence and cite all your sources. Do so in narrative form.