Sociology homework help
Sociology homework help. Intro to Communications Theory –Spring 2020 – Dr. S. Bhuiyan
Paper is due on April 24
Theory Application Paper
Description: The theory application paper is a 9-10-page paper that gives the student the
opportunity to apply one of the theories covered in this course to a real-life situation or media
program.
Outline
Cover page
Introduction (1/2 page)
Purpose:
Summary of theory:
Summary of the case:
Background Research (1 page)
It is “Ok” to continue from the previous page. No need to break page)
Theoretical Framework (3 pages)
Background (1 page) – Background on the theory (theorist, main premises etc.)
Literature Review (2 pages) – How the theory has been used to explain “things in the
past” (journal articles with studies that used the theory in the past).
Research Question(s) (1/2 page)
RQ1:
PartIII: DueFri,3/29
The Case (Summary of the case to be analyzed) (1 page)
Analysis (2 pages)
Claim
Theory premise
Application
Summary
References (10 references)
✓ The final paper is due Monday April 1, 2019
✓
Turn in the previous section (in the same paper, not as a separate file) even if it is not revised. The idea is for us to see the entire paper
coming to life gradually.
✓
Earlier submissions are encouraged. The droboxes are open, so help yourself.
THE RUNNING HEAD WORDS GO HERE 2
General Guidelines
□ Font: Times News Roman
□ Font Size: 12
□ Margins: 1” top, bottom, left, right
□ Style: APA style
□ Platform> Microsoft Office, preferably. You can download for free here. Use your SSU
username and password: https://www.office.com/
□ Write in the third person (no I, You, We).
□ Add page numbers and running head on top left
□ First-level header: centered
Introduction (first-level header)
□ Second-level header: flushed to left
Literature Review (first-level header)
The Agenda-Setting Theory (second-level header)
Review of How the Theory Has Been Used (second-level header)
THE RUNNING HEAD WORDS GO HERE 3
{Cover Page}
Running Head: AGENDA SETTING IN CNN’S COVERAGE OF THE TEXAS’ SHOOTING
The running head
will show next to the
page number.
Using Agenda Setting in the News Coverage of the Texas’ Shooting
Adriana Bastos
Savannah State University
THE RUNNING HEAD WORDS GO HERE 4
me explain
et to
L the paper
you Introduction (1/2 page)
Remember to write it as a paper (use paragraphs, not bullet points.
The bullet points below are just used to outline the paper)
The purpose of this theory application paper is to use X theory ______ to ______ issue _______.
Summarize the theory (remember to cite using APA style)
Summarize the problem (remember, the problem will be discussed in detail)
Background
1. What is the theory trying to explain? Remember, theory helps us understand how things
work.
2. What is the problem? Why is it relevant to study this issue? Explain in detail.
o Remember to support your argument with statistics, facts, and premises.
Use our friend APA style, as usual.
o In this section, remember to address the problem in the general sense. For
example, if you are using the agenda-setting to discuss bias on Fox News, in this
section, talk about “bias” in the United States; bias in the world; bias in the media.
Always move from the general to the specific. Don’t focus on “Fox News” just
yet. We will do that later in the analysis.
o Use the diagram below to understand how your ideas should flow from beginning
to end.
Introduction Background Literature Research Case Study Analysis Conclusion
• Purpose • Problem in Review Question • Summary of • Your • Brief summary
• Summary of detail • Theory • Main the case argument, your from beggining
theory and background question(your (movie, music, contribution, to end and
problem • How theory curiosity, your whatever you your final thoughts
has been used study) are analyzing) explanation.
Figure 1. A Brief Overview of the Paper from Beginning to End
Theoretical Framework
Theoretical Background (theorist, theory background, theoretical premises, and definitions).
In other words, this section is all about the theory.
Literature Review (how other researchers used this theory to explain different dynamics
in communication. You can organize this section categorical or chronologically).
Categorically: group similar studies together. For example, of the eight studies, four
talked about agenda setting in newspapers and four about agenda setting in online
news. So, you talk about them categorically – one section for agenda setting and
newspapers and another section for agenda setting and online news.
THE RUNNING HEAD WORDS GO HERE 5
Chronologically: talk about the studies keeping the time in perspective. Eight of the
studies were published in the 90s and the others in 2000. So, keep time into perspective.
1. Number of articles: 8 journal articles (studies)
2. Write it as a paper, not a paragraph for each theory.
3. Relate one study to the other. Use good transitions. Tell a story of how this
study has been around explaining how things work.
.
Research Questions
RQ1: Examples of questions. Your theory should give you “clues” of what questions to ask.
1. How differently do CNN and Fox news frame Donald Trump?
2. How is racism portrayed in (X) movie?
The Case
Summarize the case to be analyzed (movie, music video, speech etc.)
Analysis
I learned this “trick” with one of the best theorists I know who taught me at Howard University
and I never forgot it. The secret of a strong theoretical argument is the combination of claim
(your point in the third person “there is racism in the world”, followed by a theoretical premise
(according go Blummer (1969), language is the base of human interaction… Followed by an
example (use the movie, song etc. you are analyzing) and a conclusion (combination of your
claim, theory, example and a final thought).
For each analysis you make, be sure to have a claim (your point, your thesis), supported
by the theory and examples to support your point. For each point you want to make, be
sure to have all these points.
Claim
Theory premise
Application
Conclusion
Do it again… Plan to make 3-6 major points. The page limit is 2, so budget it accordingly.
Conclusion (Final thoughts)
References (at least 10) – 8 must be journal articles
THE RUNNING HEAD WORDS GO HERE 6
Theory Application “helpful” Sheet
Theory Premise Issues/Dynamics Unit of Analysis (Examples)
Humans act toward people, things, and Racism, stereotypes, Analysis of movies with crossevents on the basis of the meanings they peer pressure, cultural cultural dynamics
assign to them. Once people define a meanings, cultural signs interpretations (Bend it Like
Symbolic situation as real, it has very real Beckham, Nell, 7 seconds final
Interactionism consequences. Without language there deliberations, The Help, Crash
would be no thought, no sense of self, and among many others).
no socializing presence of society within
the individual. Cartoons, TV shows etc.
Rhetoric is the art of discovering all Political speeches Speech in movies (7 Seconds
available means of persuasion. A speaker etc.; The Great Debater etc.)
supports that probability of a message by Speeches in movies
Aristotle’s logical, ethical, and emotional proofs. Political Speeches
Rhetoric Accurate audience analysis results in the
effective invention; arrangement; style; Speech in TV Shows etc.
delivery; and, presumably, memory.
The significant visual sign systems of a Messages and subliminal Analyses of logos, images,
culture affirm the status quo by messages that perpetuate symbols, posters, advertising,
suggesting that the world as it is today is dominant social values postcards, music videos.
natural, inevitable, and eternal. (skinny women in
Mythmakers do this by co-opting neutral beauty-product
Semiotics denotative signs to become signifiers commercials etc.)
without historical grounding in secondorder connotative semiotic systems. Messages and subliminal Beyonce’s “Formation” Video
messages of resistance or any other.
(when messages are used
to challenge the status Get Out and many others
quo
The mass media function to maintain the Anti-minority content in Analysis of racism
ideology of those who already have the media (news, music,
power. Corporately controlled media movies, TV shows, soap Analysis of lack of diverse
Cultural Studies provide the dominant discourse of the operas etc.) content (gender, race, age,
day that frames interpretation of events. place of origin, religion etc.)
Critics should seek not only to interpret
culture, but to change it. Media audiences
do have the capacity to resist hegemony.
Television hasbecome society’s The danger of TV Analysis of violence in
storyteller. Heavy television viewers see serving as societal movies, music, children’s
a vast quantity of dramatic violence, “footprint” shows.
which cultivates an exaggerated belief in
Cultivation a mean and scary world. Mainstreaming The use of violence in Analysis of violence-focused
Theory and resonance are two of the processes TV programming content in a particular network
that create a homogeneous and fearful (analysis of all 25 shows in the
populace. current season etc.)
THE RUNNING HEAD WORDS GO HERE 7
Theory Premise Issues/Dynamics Unit of Analysis
The media tell us (1) what to think about Coverage (or lack of) of Coverage of a particular issue
and (2) how to think about it. The first issues in the news on a network
process (agenda setting) transfers the
Agenda-Setting salience of items on their news agenda to Comparison of coverage
Theory our agenda. The second process
(framing) transfers the salience of Analysis of news, newspapers,
selected attributes to prominence among magazines etc.
the pictures in our heads.
Framing (‘how’ an issue is
covered (angle)
Standpoint
Theory
Man-made language aids in defining, Gender discrimination and
depreciating, and excluding women. Gender discrimination exclusion in music, movies,
Muted Group Because men have primarily shaped TV shows, children’s films
Theory language, women frequently struggle to etc.
make their voices heard in the public
sphere. As women cease to be muted, Analysis of a movie with
men will no longer maintain their corporate gender
position of dominance in society. discrimination
Our textbook has 34 theories that we could not possibly cover in this summer class (I wish we could
Other have
☺
). If you see another theory in the book that interests you, feel free to use it. Theory must come
from our textbook.
Online Collaborative Learning Activities:
The Perceptions of Culturally Diverse Graduate Students
from participating in online collaborative activities, and challenges they encountered in such
environment.
Review of Related Literature
Individuals from different cultures engage in, as well as expect different communication
practices and behaviors during interactions in learning or work environments. Understanding
intercultural communication involves studying links between culture and communication.
Vygotsky’s (1978) constructivist theory identifies personal and cultural backgrounds of learners
as essential factors that influence ways in which students learn and acquire knowledge. Watson,
Ho, and Raman (1994) defined culture as “the beliefs, value systems, norms, mores, myths, and
structural elements of a given organization, tribe, or society” (p. 46). In this study, we considered
culture as one of the major factors that influence diverse students’ experiences in collaborative
processes, communications, and attitudes or behaviors in collaborative group online learning (Shi,
Frederiksen, & Muis, 2013), and we investigated the culturally diverse students’ perceptions of
online collaborative learning activities (Werstsch, 1998; Zhu, 2009).
Several studies have explored the relationships between cultural backgrounds of students
and their learning experiences in online collaborative learning environments in the following
categories: (1) cultural differences as related to online group processes (e.g., Anakwe &
Christensen, 1999; Thompson & Ku, 2005); (2) how linguistic and cultural backgrounds of the
collaborative partners affect their actions, behaviors, and engagement in the online collaborative
environment (e.g., Kim & Bonk, 2002; Lim & Liu, 2006; Oetzel, 2001); and (3) the differences in
the motivation of the students to work within an online collaborative learning environment (Wang,
2007).
Halverson & Tirmizi, (2008) stated that cultural differences can benefit or disrupt “intragroup dynamics” (p. 12). They identified the main benefits as the sharing of culturally diverse
knowledge and the preparation of students for working in culturally heterogeneous settings.
Among the major challenges of cultural differences were the need to coordinate clearly different,
culture-specific perceptions of group processes and approaches to communication. Another study
by Tapanes, Smith, and White (2009) that investigated students’ perceptions of online course
found that students with a collectivist cultural background were less motivated to participate in an
asynchronous learning network than students with an individualist cultural background.
A similar study by Fogg, Carlson-Sabelli, Carlson, and Giddens (2013) showed that
African American students tended to be more like assimilators in online learning environments in
contrast to students of other races. Correa and Jeong (2011) examined the differentiated uses of
online participatory technologies among diverse racial and ethnic groups of college students
(African Americans, Caucasians, and other racial/ethnic students). The results from their study
showed that African Americans students valued the technological tools as instruments to help them
connect with online communities and share their identities to augment their voices, while
Caucasian students did not value the tools in this way. The findings also indicated that African
Americans emphasized the idea of self-expression (the ability to express their inner thought and
culture to other students) in contrast to Caucasian students who aimed more at instrumental reasons
like promoting their work.
Online Learning Journal – Volume 21 Issue 4 – December 2017 8
Online Collaborative Learning Activities:
The Perceptions of Culturally Diverse Graduate Students
Several studies (Gunawardena, 2014; Kim & Bonk, 2002; Lim & Liu, 2006; Uzuner, 2009)
reported that the following forms of communication create problems for racially and culturally
diverse students collaborating online: (1) inability to understand specific cultural references in
online discussions; (2) lack of non-linguistic cues; (3) difficulties expressing disagreement; (4)
communicative constraints resulting in less substantive postings; and (5) mismatched
communication patterns (i.e., use of short, content-driven contributions as opposed to long,
relationship-driven contributions or vice versa).
A study by Popov, Biemans, Brinkman, Kuznetsov, and Mulder (2013) examined facilitation
of computer-supported collaborative learning in mixed -versus-same culture dyads. A total of 130
university students worked in dyads on a topic concerned with intercultural communication. The
researchers used a 2 x 2 factorial design to examine the effects of using collaboration scripts on
students’ online collaborative behavior and the quality of their discussions. Results indicated that
students who worked in culturally mixed dyads showed a higher frequency of seeking input and social
interaction than the students in the other types of dyads. Students from the same culture showed a lower
frequency of planning activity than same-culture dyads working without the script. Overall, the sameculture dyads displayed a higher frequency of contributing activity and higher quality of online
discussion than the mixed-culture dyads. The study recommended that further collaboration in
culturally mixed groups needs more facilitation.
A study by Du, Zhou, Xu, and Lei (2016) explored the perspectives of African American
female students’ experiences of online collaborative learning. The study was conducted at a
university in the southeastern part of the United States using qualitative semi-structured interviews
with nine African American female students in an online instructional design course. The findings
from the study indicated that the perceptions of African American females towards online
collaborative learning revolved around peer support, group member and identity formation, and
challenges of frustration as they respond to different levels of peer participation and interaction.
Similarly, Ke and Kwak (2013) investigated online learning across ethnicity and age groups using
mixed-method analysis with 28 students in an online course via content analysis to include online
interaction, structural equation modeling, and interviews. Results from qualitative analysis of
students’ transcripts by Ke and Kwak (2013) did not show significant benefit or disadvantage
related to the quality and quantity of online interaction of minority students. However, quantitative
results found that minority students had preference for student-to-instructor interactions. Yücel
and Usluel (2016) investigated the processes of knowledge building, interaction, and participation
of students in an online collaborative learning environment, and the relations among them. The
participants were 145 prospective teachers using multiple data sources (log records and content
analysis of knowledge postings). Results from Yücel and Usluel’s study indicated that there was a
significant relationship between the use of opinion building, expressing forms, and knowledge
creation by the students. The results also showed that courses offered in online collaborative
knowledge building environments contributed to students’ expression, opinion building, quality of
interaction, and participation.
Thus, results from several studies (e.g., Kim & Bonk, 2002; Zhao & McDougall, 2008; Zhu,
2009) have indicated that cultural factors play an important role in how students gain and share
knowledge in online collaborative learning activities. However, they failed to recognize the perceptions
of students from culturally diverse backgrounds related to online collaborative learning activities and
the influence it had on their academic performance (Vatrapu & Suthers, 2010; Weinberger et al., 2007).
Additionally, only very few empirical studies have been conducted
Online Learning Journal – Volume 21 Issue 4 – December 2017 9
Online Collaborative Learning Activities:
The Perceptions of Culturally Diverse Graduate Students
about culturally diverse students’ perceptions on online collaborative learning activities (Shi et al.,
2013). Therefore, this study will fill the gaps of knowledge regarding culturally diverse students’
perceptions of cross-cultural online collaborative learning activities.
Theoretical Framework
This study draws on Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism theory, and Watson, Ho, and
Raman’s (1994) theory of culture as the theoretical frameworks to advance our understanding
about the perceptions of minority graduate students on online collaborative learning activities.
Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism, which is based on his theories about language, thought,
and their mediation by society, recognizes the importance of personal and cultural backgrounds of
learners as major factors that influence ways in which students acquire knowledge (Vygotsky,
1978; Zhu, 2009). Vygotsky’s (1978) work suggests that knowledge is first constructed in a social
context and is then appropriated by individuals (Eggan & Kauchak, 2004). According to social
constructivists, the process of sharing individual perspectives called collaborative elaboration
results in learners constructing understanding together that would not be possible alone (Meter &
Stevens, 2000). We also adopted Watson, Ho, and Raman’s (1994) definition of culture as “the
beliefs, value systems, norms, mores, myths, and structural elements of a given organization, tribe,
or society” (p. 46).
Building on the work of Vygotsky (1978) and Watson, Ho, and Raman’s (1994) theory of
culture, several contemporary researchers have established a relationship between the cultural
backgrounds of students and their participation, behaviors, and engagement in the online
collaborative environments (e.g., Kim & Bonk, 2002; Lim & Liu, 2006; Oetzel, 2001). Thus, in
assessing the quality of the online interactions, cultural factors that are known to play a role in
what students share, expand upon, and gain from a collaborative learning process should also be
considered (e.g., Kim & Bonk, 2002; Zhao & McDougall, 2008; Zhu, 2009). However, many
social and cultural factors have yet to be taken into account in the study of online collaborative
learning (Vatrapu & Suthers, 2010; Weinberger et al., 2007). Very little research has empirically
examined the quality of online discussions involving students with different cultural backgrounds.
In this study, therefore, we considered culture as one of the major factors that influence diverse
students’ experiences in collaborative processes, communications, attitudes, or behaviors in
collaborative group online learning (Shi, Frederiksen, & Muis, 2013), and we investigated the
perceptions of culturally diverse students regarding online collaborative learning activities
(Werstsch, 1998; Zhu, 2009).
Methods
This study employed qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews, focus
group interviews, and a non-participant observation to understand the perceptions of culturally
diverse graduate students about online collaborative learning activities. It also examined the
challenges the participants encounter in such environment. The following three research questions
guided the study:
(1) How do culturally diverse students describe their perceptions and experiences in
online collaborative learning activities?
(2) How do culturally diverse students describe their learning preferences
toward online collaborative learning activities?