Muddiest Point and Peer FeedbackFeedback and guidance are an integral part of any successful plan. Accessing the expertise, experience, and ideas

Muddiest Point and Peer Feedback

Feedback and guidance are an integral part of any successful plan. Accessing the expertise, experience, and ideas of others allows us to fully examine topics and plans to ensure no stone is left unturned. 

For this Discussion, you will utilize the expertise of your colleagues to assist you in developing your Personal Legislative Agenda. You will construct 1-2 questions regarding any areas of concerns or guidance for colleague support and suggestion.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources. 


WEEKLY RESOURCES

To Prepare:

· Begin work on the Personal Legislative Agenda. 

· Consider questions or concerns you have about the plan.

By Day 3 of Week 6

Post a response detailing the following: 

Construct one to two (1–2) questions for your colleagues detailing any questions or concerns you may have regarding the Personal Legislative Agenda. Your questions should clearly describe areas you may need clarification and/or guidance for the continuation of your work on the Personal Legislative Agenda.

image1.jpeg

Share This Post

Email
WhatsApp
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Reddit

Order a Similar Paper and get 15% Discount on your First Order

Related Questions

  Questions Discussion Board: Instructions Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you the complexity of quantitative statistical

  Questions Discussion Board: Instructions Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you the complexity of quantitative statistical analysis. Instructions: For this discussion, please complete the following: Review the assigned chapters in Polit and Beck (2017): i.e., chapters 18-20. Identify five different facts or pieces of information that

***CASE STUDIES ATTACHED*** You should respond to both discussions separately–with constructive literature material- extending, refuting/correcting, or

***CASE STUDIES ATTACHED*** You should respond to both discussions separately–with constructive literature material- extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts.  Minimum 150 words each reply with references under each reply.  Incorporate a minimum of 2 current (published within the last five years) scholarly journal articles or primary legal