One of the primary goals of this course is to get you to
think more critically about the sexual socialization messages in the media
content you regularly consume. I
believe this competency is best gained through regular practice. Consequently, you are expected to make at
least two contributions to the blog each week, for a minimum semester total of
ten posts. At least one of your
posts each week must be a top-level post (explanation below), and you must
write a minimum of three responses to others’ posts (also explained below) over the course of the semester.
The weeks will run Friday-Thursday, as indicated below:
- Week 1: July 6 – July 12
- Week 2: July 13 – July 19
- Week 3: July 20 – July 26
- Week 4: July 27 – August 2
- Week 5: August 3 – August 9
Your blogging throughout the semester accounts for 10% of
your final grade. Ten percent of
that (i.e., one percent of your final grade) will be determined by your peers.
Guidelines for top-level posts
- Introduce media content. You may take one of two approaches to introduce your media content.
- Embed or link to the content you discuss. Provide a brief description of the content before beginning your analysis.
- It isn’t always possible to access media content. If you are unable to embed or link to the content you wish to analyze, you may describe that content instead. If you take this approach, you will need to write a lengthier description of the content than you would if you took Approach 1, since your readers will be relying solely on your description to understand your analysis.
- Reference at least one of the readings from class. Does this content exemplify one of the codes identified in one of our readings? Can you make predictions, grounded in scholarly work, about what sort of impact this content might have? Is there a trend you’ve noticed in the media (e.g., increasing levels of condom use, decreasing amounts male homophobia) that suggests that one or more of the findings in a reading from class no longer hold?
- Length is flexible. Top-level posts should be a minimum of two-three paragraphs, but you are welcome to write more if you wish.
- Snark is allowed. But only well-informed snark. Snark is not required, but if you think your blogging voice is snarky, go for it!
· Guidelines for
responses
- Provide an introduction to the topic of your response. You may also want to think of this as your thesis. For example, you might write something like, “Although I agree with Lila’s claim that ________, I think that Aubrey and Taylor’s (2009) findings suggest that it might also be useful to think about ______”; “I’d never really thought about _____ [topic of post] before, and it led me to realize that this is indeed a common theme in media content. After reading this, I noticed that this occurred in this week’s episode of ________” or “I think Thomas raised an interesting issue. However, I disagree with his argument, because it doesn’t seem to account for _______ as discussed in ___________ [reading].” In short, you are welcome to agree with some, all, or none of the initial post, as long as you do so in a way that is both respectful and informed.
- Use outside source(s). Your responses should be informed by at least one outside source, but in this context “outside source” can mean anything from a class reading to other media content you may have seen to a popular article you read on a related topic.
- Length is flexible. For responses, flexible does not mean “a minimum of 2-3 paragraphs”; flexible means “any length you think allows you to effectively respond to the top-level post.”
- Snark is not allowed. Please do not write snarky responses to others’ posts, since what you believe is good-natured snark may be interpreted as an attack by the original author.
Citations: For both types of post, be sure to cite your work using APA style. As a reminder, there are resources to assist you with APA style posted on the CTools site. You do not need to include a citation for any source to which you provide a link.
How I will evaluate
you: I am looking for evidence of thoughtful, critically informed
engagement with the media, the course readings, and your peers that conforms to
the guidelines listed above. I will not be evaluating individual posts or comments; instead, I will consider your contributions throughout the semester holistically.
How your peers will
evaluate you: One point (of ten) for your blogging this semester will be
based on your peers’ evaluations of your contributions to the blog. At the end of the semester, I will ask
each student to anonymously nominate three-to-five students who they think made the
most substantive contributions to the blog (more specific guidelines to follow). The three students who receive the most
nominations will receive 1 point, the three students who receive the next
highest number of nominations will receive .50 points, and the three students who receive the next highest number of nominations will receive .25 points.* The other students in the class (anyone not in this top 9) will
not earn any points from their peers, but they will still be eligible for the 9
points from me.
*I reserve the right to alter the number of students who are
awarded each of these point values in the event of a tie.
