NR 300C Week 3 typically asks you to choose: take the needs your assessment found, apply clear criteria such as size, seriousness, partner priority and feasibility, and justify the one problem your project will address. Your section may print the code as NR300C; it is the same course. Chamberlain publishes no syllabi outside Canvas. The placement here is our teaching judgment from the course's catalog description; your section's rubric decides what your week actually asks.
What NR 300C Week 3 asks for
A good community assessment usually turns up more needs than one student project can touch. Prioritization is the step that narrows them, and it is a skill in its own right. Faculty want to see the choice made with criteria, not instinct.
Common criteria include how many people the problem affects, how serious the consequences are, how much the partner cares about it, whether evidence-based approaches exist and whether a student project could make progress in the hours available.
The written product is often a short prioritization paper or a table with commentary, ending in a clear problem statement that the rest of the project will be built on.
The NR 300C Week 3 method, step by step
Five moves that make the choice of problem defensible.
-
List the candidate needs from Week 2
Three to five candidates is usually enough. Restate each in one line.
-
Pick four or five criteria and define them
Write a sentence defining each criterion so the scoring is transparent.
-
Score each candidate simply
A low, medium, high rating per criterion, or a one to three score, is enough. The aim is transparency, not precision.
-
Explain the result in words
A table shows the outcome; a paragraph explains why the top candidate won, including any judgment calls.
-
Write the final problem statement
Population, setting, problem and the evidence that it matters, in two or three sentences.
A layout and word budget for the prioritization paper
Sized for about 700 to 900 words plus a scoring table. The outline is our own; your rubric decides the format.
| Section | What belongs in it | Word target |
|---|---|---|
| Candidate needs | Three to five needs from the assessment, each in one line. | 80 to 120 |
| Criteria | Each criterion defined in a sentence. | 100 to 140 |
| Scoring table | Candidates against criteria. | table |
| Reasoning | Why the top candidate was chosen, including judgment calls. | 200 to 260 |
| Partner agreement | How the partner responded to the choice. | 60 to 90 |
| Problem statement | The final statement the project will address. | 80 to 110 |
Evidence craft for prioritization
Bring the numbers forward from Week 2. Prioritization depends on the size and seriousness of each need, so restate the key indicators with their sources and years.
Cite where interventions exist. If one criterion is whether evidence-based approaches exist, cite a source for each candidate that scores well on it.
Be honest about judgment. Scores are partly subjective. Saying where you made a judgment call, and why, strengthens the paper.
Five mistakes that cost points in this week's territory
- Choosing first and scoring later. Graders can tell when criteria were reverse-engineered.
- Undefined criteria. Feasibility means little until you define it.
- Ignoring the partner's priorities. A problem the partner does not care about is hard to deliver.
- Too many candidates. Eight or ten candidates make the table unreadable.
- A vague final statement. The problem statement should be specific enough to design an intervention around.
Before you submit
- Three to five candidate needs come from the assessment
- Each criterion is defined
- Scores are shown in a simple table
- Reasoning explains the choice and any judgment calls
- The partner's view of the choice is reported
- The final problem statement is specific and sourced
Prioritizing the NR 300C problem?
Send your community assessment, the partner's input and the rubric. A premium original draft returns in 24 to 48 hours with criteria defined, candidates scored and the chosen problem justified.