Assignments | Media and Materiality

This seminar is based on a portfolio model of research, where you write throughout the term and revise your work at the end. It also includes a brief presentation and a facilitation of seminar discussion. Below is a description of the assignments and how they will be assessed. Please note that the requirements are subject to minor changes as the seminar progresses. If I do make a change to any of the assignments, then I will notify you in writing and well in advance.

The portfolio is essential for passing the course. Failure to submit at least five response papers will result in a failing N grade (calculated as a 0 for your GPA). Please also note: I do not post marks outside my office, and I do not use plagiarism detection software.

Portfolio (three marks, each 25% of final grade)

I am asking you to develop a portfolio of seven response papers over the course of the seminar. Each response paper should:

Be somewhere between 450- and 500-words-long,
Use a citation style of your choice (MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard),
Engage with two works by different authors,
Be polished and focused, with concise treatments of critical theory,
Avoid frequent quotation and instead use clearly deliberate selections of textual evidence,
Briefly explain the relevance of the two works in your own words (including a short summary of key arguments, where necessary),
Refrain from much comparison between the two selected works (e.g., “While X argues, Y asserts…”),
Instead of comparison, stress why the differences or overlaps between the two selected works matter (e.g., the social or cultural implications of their differences, the common assumptions motivating their arguments, the effects of shared logics or definitions, or the tendencies of similar styles and methodologies),
Where applicable, articulate the two assigned works with a keyword, which allows you to concentrate on particular dimensions of the authors’ writing,
Not make an original argument or claim, but rather stage a conversation between the two works and, where helpful, include some important questions that emerge from their dialogue (consider these questions futures lines of inquiry for you or others),
Be submitted electronically, prior to the seminar meeting dedicated to the two texts at hand (only one paper may be submitted each week), and
Be revised at least once, with track changes (or the like) enabled for our mutual reference.

Six of these seven response papers should be about assigned texts. I will assess three of them during the middle of term (between 18 October and 25 October; 25% of your final grade) and three more during the last week of classes (between 29 November and 2 December; 25% of your final grade).

Your seventh response paper is due by 19 December. It should address a specific gap in the course outline by identifying two authors who were not included but whose work contributes to our discussions. For this particular paper, I recommend selecting one publication (or excerpt) by each of your two authors. This way, you don’t tackle too much for a short response. Of course, this particular paper requires research beyond the assigned reading. However, throughout the seminar I will dedicate time to discussing gaps in the course material.

Since we have twelve seminar meetings but only six response papers due between 13 September and 29 November, you do not need to write a paper for each seminar meeting. However, I encourage you to take careful notes as you read and bring these notes with you to meetings.

By 19 December, you should submit revised drafts of your first six response papers, together with your seventh response paper and a brief statement (250-500 words) defining both “media” and “materiality” with parenthetical references to authors we’ve read this term. Together, your brief statement and seven response papers will comprise the final iteration of your portfolio (25% of your final grade). For the brief statement, you may want to read a few entries in Raymond Williams’s Keywords as well as entries in projects inspired by Williams (e.g., Keywords for American Cultural Studies, New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society, and The Chicago School of Media Theory’s keywords project).

I will assess your response papers, with feedback, according to this rubric:

90-100 = A+: Papers in this range are especially sophisticated and perceptive pieces of work that make an original contribution to scholarly thinking about a particular topic. With elaboration, they could be published in an academic journal.
85-89 = A: Papers in this range are perceptive and original, but may require substantial revision for public circulation. They could act as core material for a conference presentation.
80-84 = A-: Papers in this range are adequate at the graduate level with regard to the research, presentation, and quality of content.
77-79 = B+: Papers in this range have significant flaws in some areas, but they still meet graduate standards.
73-76 = B: Papers in this range are marginally acceptable at the graduate level.

Throughout the term, I encourage you to meet with me outside of seminar to discuss your writing and portfolio.

Presentation (15% of final grade)

I am also asking you to give a brief presentation during the term. Your presentation should:

Provide a brief interpretation (no more than three minutes) of an assigned reading, including how it approaches media and materiality, together with your response to the reading (e.g., its assumptions, where it’s persuasive, and what questions it raises),
Include one (and only one) question you have for the seminar about the text at hand (we will write this question on the board for reference throughout the seminar), and
Not include slides (to reduce your workload but also treat the seminar more like a conversation).

The presentations will usually occur at the beginning of seminar meetings. At the start of the term, I’ll ask you to sign up for a date and text. Presentations will be assessed according to this rubric:

90-100 = A+: Presentations in this range are incredibly compelling and even memorable. They prompt others to ask questions, and they spark conversation about a concrete topic emerging from the texts at hand. They do not visibly rely much (if at all) on reading a prepared text. Their structure is tangible and easy to follow.
85-89 = A: Presentations in this range demonstrate what was learned from the reading and provide clear evidence of that learning. They prompt others to ask questions, and they spark conversation about a concrete topic emerging from the seminar. They do not visibly rely much (if at all) on reading a prepared text. Their structure is tangible and easy to follow.
80-84 = A-: Presentations in this range demonstrate what was learned from the reading and provide recognizable evidence of that learning. They prompt others to ask questions. They do not visibly rely much (if at all) on reading a prepared text. Their structure is tangible and easy to follow.
77-79 = B+: Presentations in this range demonstrate what was learned from the reading and provide recognizable evidence of that learning. They do not visibly rely much (if at all) on reading a prepared text.
73-76 = B: Presentations in this range demonstrate what was learned from the reading and provide recognizable evidence of that learning.

You will receive the mark for your presentation, with feedback, during the week you conduct it.

Facilitation (10% of final grade)

Finally, I’m asking you to facilitate a seminar discussion with me. Your facilitation should include:

Your active role in conversation about all texts at hand, prompting and addressing questions to keep the discussion going,
Frequent attention to the text at hand, pointing people to specific remarks and arguments in the works we’re studying,
Building upon the presentation(s) given by others during the seminar meeting, and
Taking notes and the like on the board or via the projector, if you wish.

You should not facilitate on the same day you present. At the start of the seminar, I’ll ask you to sign up for a date. Presentations will be assessed according to this rubric:

90-100 = A+: Facilitations in this range prompt others to ask questions, and they maintain conversation about concrete topics emerging from the texts at hand. They are anchored in the texts at hand, and they rely as much on listening as they do on speaking. They document the conversation (e.g., on the board) as it emerges.
85-89 = A: Facilitations in this range prompt others to ask questions, and they maintain conversation about concrete topics emerging from the texts at hand. They are anchored in the texts at hand, and they rely as much on listening as they do on speaking.
80-84 = A-: Facilitations in this range prompt others to ask questions, and they maintain conversation about concrete topics emerging from the texts at hand. They address the texts at hand, and they rely as much on listening as they do on speaking.
77-79 = B+: Facilitations in this range prompt others to ask questions, and they maintain conversation about general topics emerging from the texts at hand. They address the texts at hand.
73-76 = B: Facilitations in this range prompt others to ask questions. They address the texts at hand.

You will receive the mark for your facilitation, with feedback, during the week you conduct it.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about any aspect of these assignments.