Infecting Students with the Research Bug

By Raluca Cozma
AEJMC Committee on Teaching
Kansas State University
cozma@ksu.edu

 

 

(Article courtesy of AEJMC News, March 2019 issue)

I’ve been fortunate to work at institutions that allowed me to play to my strengths and teach courses on topics that I am passionate about. That freedom made teaching easy, fun and rewarding.

Of those subjects dear to me, however, one in particular I tended to avoid in my early teaching career, due to stories I heard about how challenging it can be to make mass communication students relate to the material and inspire them to love research as much as we do. After having taught research methods with great success in the recent years, I can say I was wrong in assuming that our majors shun research and statistics. Here are some approaches I think helped.

First, as I started preparing my syllabus and lectures, I remembered what it was like being a student and a budding journalist. I put myself in the students’ shoes and tried to look at research and the scientific method from their perspective. Before choosing academia, I always wanted to be a journalist. It was a research methods course taught by an inspiring mentor that helped me see that journalism and social science have quite a bit in common.

Just as in reporting courses I emphasize to my students that they are not working on news articles or packages (or other clinical terms) but rather on stories, in the research methods course I tell them that they are not working on research papers but are actually telling important stories, using information gathering techniques similar to those employed in their journalistic pursuits. We have an entire conversation where we draw parallels between journalism and scientific research. The two endeavors are guided by kindred goals and governed by similar ethical principles, for instance. Once they see the similarities, students engage with research as less of an onerous foreign language and more as a new form of storytelling, one that allows them to take a balcony perspective on issues, analyze their profession critically, and make generalizations or even predictions.

In one of the highlights of this semester, a former student stopped by my office to tell me about a research idea she had based on an Army promotional video she had watched earlier that day. She excitedly talked about how her brain had switched and research ideas came to her on a regular basis, just like story ideas did before. Every question now had the potential of being a research question. She had caught the research bug.

Second, I remembered one of the common traps that new instructors fall into, and that is to mistake the familiar for the obvious. In an interpretation of George Bernard Shaw’s famous aphorism on teaching, those who “do” and have a lot of expertise on a subject, can often struggle to teach it well. Just because we are closely acquainted with a topic or concept, that doesn’t mean our audience works with the same set of assumptions. Especially with more technical material, it is important to gauge the existing knowledge level of our students and break new concepts down into their simplest and most relatable components.

Third, I provide three types of examples to help students assimilate concepts better. First, every time I introduce a new method, I provide examples of work (class research papers or theses) from previous students. Seeing research conducted by peers reduces the intimidation factor. Then, just like in writing and reporting courses, I bring examples from the best in the field. I look for studies on topics that are relevant to the millennial generation, because an exciting topic can make reading highly technical content more enjoyable and relatable. Third, I provide examples from my own work. I talk about the ideation process behind some of my favorite studies, challenges and successes. For the methods that I have not personally employed in my own research, I invite scholars to have as guest speakers. Students respond well to first-person accounts, and a researcher’s enthusiasm about a pet project is more likely to rub off on them.

Fourth, I incorporate multimedia as much as possible into my lectures. From short clips (such as of the focus-group scene in the Mad Men series or explanation videos from the Pew Research Center) to comic strips from Piled Higher and Deeper, to funny memes on “correlation is not causation,” these spoonfuls of sugar help the medicine go down and humanize what sometimes can feel like dry or detached material.

Finally, when we get to the statistics part of the semester, I have students approach data analysis as a game. After working hard to gather their data, I tell them that they now can use clever tools to solve the puzzle and finally get to the part where they create new knowledge. For each statistical test, I do an in-class tutorial where students follow along step by step, followed by an in-class exercise, followed by a home assignment that practices the same test. I make recorded step-by-step tutorials available to them and emphasize that it is important that they understand the process rather than memorize it and that they  know where to look for resources when in doubt. The final exam is a take-home as well, where I allow students access to references, as long as they know how to use and interpret them. I tell them that even seasoned researchers have to jog their memory on occasion, if several years have passed since they used a specific method or test. Once students understand that, they are less intimidated by the process and approach datasets like kids in a candy store. For extra credit, they attend and critique on-campus research presentations.

If you teach research methods and have other tips to share, please let me know at cozma@ksu.edu or flag me down at the AEJMC conference in Toronto.

<Teaching Corner

Learning to Teach, Finally

By Mary T. Rogus
AEJMC Standing Committee on Teaching
Ohio University
rogus@ohio.edu

 

 

(Article courtesy of AEJMC News, January 2019 issue)

When I first walked into a classroom at Ohio University with 20 years of television news experience, I was, like many of us who come to academe after a professional career, fairly confident I could teach students to write, report and produce for television. Heck, that’s what I had been doing every day as an executive producer, hadn’t I? After my first couple of quarters, I was a little panicked. I had good evaluations because of my professional “creds” and great war stories, but the students’ work didn’t show they got it.

I went to colleagues and got some good advice about overcoming the “expert syndrome” of forgetting that students don’t know those things that had become second nature to me, and they don’t learn from my war stories. With that insight and lots of trial and error, I got the hang of it.

But now, in my 21st year of teaching, I’m finally learning how to teach, by learning how students learn.

I want to use this space to share some of my aha moments after completing the first half of a year-long teaching academy that Ohio University provides for a dozen professors every year. I hope they will encourage you to do what I should have done    20 years ago — seek out pedagogy research and resources. (If you were smart enough to do that when you first started or    had a great teaching seminar as part of your graduate program — I’m sure you can find something else in this newsletter to read!)

One of the most valuable resources has been How Learning Works: 7 Researched-Based Principles for Smart Teaching (Ambrose, et al, 2010). We’re up to number 5 and the margins of my book are full of notes on changes I can make in my courses using the research-based strategies the authors present. Here are three which I found especially useful.

“Principle: Students’ prior knowledge can help or hinder learning” (Ambrose, et al, pg. 13).  Many of us teach skills classes that are sequenced to build on previous classes. Ambrose, et al cite research that found students must be able to connect new knowledge to some prior knowledge or experience in order to learn. The point that struck me was, we can’t assume students are making those connections automatically. We have to activate their prior knowledge and make sure it is sufficient and accurate, before building on it.

That idea of activation made me think of a struggle our newscast practicum students have with proper television news scripting. Although they learn and practice it in the requisite class, students still make lots of scripting mistakes which lead to errors when the newscasts go to air. It may be that they are not able to activate that prior knowledge with just a review lecture. We will try hands-on scripting exercises during our training workshops before they start producing newscasts, and also will emphasize in the requisite class why proper scripting is so important beyond a good grade.

“Principle: To develop mastery, students must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned” (Ambrose, et al, pg. 95). At first read this principle seemed obvious to me, and probably to anyone who teaches skills classes. We teach AP Style, information gathering, interviewing, narrative formats, etc., before we have students write a complete story. Then the authors used the example of the component skills required for case study analysis.

I use the same basic steps for my ethics students which they described as component skills—define the problem, identify stakeholders and your ethical obligation to each, choose relevant values/codes for guidance and make a decision. I never thought about those steps to reaching a decision as individual skills that I should have students practice. That could explain why students struggle with their written case study assignments even though we go through multiple practice cases in class. Next time I teach this class, I will focus on developing each component skill before they have to integrate them into a full decision-making assignment.

“Principle: Goal-directed practice coupled with targeted feedback are critical to learning” (Ambrose, et al, pg. 125). It was the key features of “goal-directed” practice that I found enlightening: “(a) focuses on a specific goal or criterion for performance, (b) targets an appropriate level of challenge relative to students’ current performance, and (c) is of sufficient quantity and frequency to meet performance criteria” (Ambrose, et al, pg. 127).

As I thought about how this applies to the newscast practicum semester mentioned above, I realized that while the experience of producing a live television newscast four days a week was very real-world, we were not maximizing student learning. Students rotate through different jobs every day, and with the exception of reporting, they typically get two to four rotations on most jobs. My co-instructor and I critique everything from day one of live newscasts and grade based on all aspects of the rubrics for every job.

We’ve discussed making some changes in how we focus our feedback and grading—for example, during the first two to three weeks emphasizing more basic skills such as deadlines, and proper scripting. Then weeks three to five dig into conversational and transitional writing, storytelling, and more sophisticated producing. The final five weeks would focus on the complete product. We also will have students repeat their job rotations for two weeks in a row, rather than wait until each student does every job once, hoping that without a 2-4 week gap between rotations they benefit from immediate frequency. It will be interesting to see how disrupting our well-oiled machine, and focusing on research-based learning techniques, works for the students.

Reference:  Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., Norman, M. (2010) How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Teaching Corner

CONTACT: Jennifer Greer, University of Alabama, AEJMC 2017-18 President | August 22, 2018

As members of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) concluded their conference in Washington, D.C., earlier this month, the group that organized the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va., came to the nation’s capital to mark the one-year anniversary of that deadly event. The AEJMC board urges educators openly discuss coverage of these and similar rallies in their classes and to be thoughtful in their approach to preparing future journalists to report on hate speech.

Hate speech is a grey area in media law, and its exact definition is widely debated. AEJMC supports free speech and acknowledges that hate speech generally is protected by the First Amendment. We maintain, however, that free speech does not offer a pass to incite violence against marginalized people. Speech that encourages violence has a silencing effect on groups that include people of color, those with disabilities, people from sexual and gender minority groups, people practicing marginalized religions and refugees. In the face of the violence surrounding hate speech, victims weigh their need to be protected from being targeted against their need to be heard – and often choose silence.

Media professionals and the educators who teach future media professionals have important roles in countering these silences. AEJMC urges its members, both professional and academic, to remember these best practices in covering hate speech:

• Seek out silenced people and give them a voice. Don’t overlook them because they are not obvious in the public sphere. However, not all marginalized groups are silenced, and journalists should seek to fairly portray voices of those who remain underrepresented and stereotyped in news coverage.
• Avoid quoting inflammatory sources that promote hate speech. Coverage of racist organizations and actions can legitimize and institutionalize extremist discourse.
• Include appropriate context in coverage of extremist groups to help consumers of news to understand the origins and factors behind the values these groups are espousing. The more journalists who disseminate historical context, the more powerful and useful the discussion and the story will be.
• Use the groups’ names rather than an obscuring catchphrase, such as “alt-right.,” “white nationalists” or “protest groups.” Groups that endorse hate based on race-for example, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) or White Aryan Resistance (WAR)-should be referred to by name and identified as white supremacist groups. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Associated Press and Poynter Institute provide guidelines on these labels.
• Be mindful of subtle examples of hate speech and marginalization and work to understand the cultures of marginalized groups. Journalists, above all, should recognize their own biases.

We believe in comprehensive education of students, and as such, we urge educators preparing media professionals to reach audiences in the current social, political, economic and cultural environments to:

• Encourage historical research on hate speech and marginalized groups. Asking students to compare historical eras with current events and analyze how the past informs the present is a powerful critical thinking exercise. Studying language used to describe marginalized groups over time offers insights into social views.
• Assign seminal readings focusing on free speech and hate speech in Western societies. Encourage students to use these texts to inform debates about free speech, hate speech and speech that may be offensive.
• Expose students to media coverage of victimized groups and/or hate groups that places both in context and gives voice to all marginalized publics. Encourage students to seek out balanced coverage and to be able to defend why they have defined it as such.
• Explore the range and complexity of issues that marginalized populations face and why underlying issues that surround these groups may not always be newsworthy and why these issues may shift in different environments.

We encourage journalists and other media practitioners to strengthen their guidelines for coverage of hate speech to ensure that marginalized voices are heard and that adequate context is provided. Journalism and mass communication educators must provide opportunities for students to develop the knowledge, skills and abilities to most effectively communicate about hate speech and its ramifications on our society.

<<PACS

Call for Communications Booknotes Quarterly Journal Book Reviewers

AEJMC members are invited to contribute to Communications Booknotes Quarterly Journal (CBQ), a Taylor & Francis publication.

Reviewers from a variety of backgrounds and interests are sought to contribute to upcoming issues. The journal seeks contributions from emerging researchers and advanced graduate students, as well as from seasoned scholars. Essays are also sought that comment about contemporary topics relevant to books, media and related global issues.

CBQ is an annotated review on all aspects of mediated communication designed for an audience of scholars and librarians in the United States and around the world. Subject areas of interest include, but are not limited to: advertising, public relations, strategic communications, journalism, telecommunications, gender, global media, media theories, media economics, media regulation and policy, media ethics, risk communication, ethnicity/race and media, media communication history, critical/cultural studies of media, popular culture, social media, books and publishing, media and society, visual communication, gender and representation, and media management.

Review essays range between 850 to 1,000 words. Some titles available now include:

• Kentucky’s Rebel Press: Pro-Confederate Media and the Secession Crisis
• The News Untold: Community Journalism and the Failure to Confront Poverty in Appalacia
• United Blacks in a Raceless Nation: Blackness, Afro-Cuban Culture, and Mestizaje in the Prose and Poetry of Nicolás Guillén
• Reading Smell in Eighteenth-Century Fiction
• The Phantom Unmasked: America’s First Superhero
• Reading as Collective Action: Texts as Tactics
• It’s Just the Normal Noises: Marcus, Guralnick, No Depression, and the Mystery of Americana Music
• Ishiro Honda: A Life in Film, from Godzilla to Kurosawa
• An Empire of Print: The New York Publishing Trade
• Across the Waves: How the United States and France Shaped the International Age of Radio
• Becoming the Story: War Correspondents Since 9/11
• Media Localism: The Polices of Place
• Risk Communication and Miscommunication: Case Studies in Science, Technology, Engineering, Government, and Community Organizations
• Trump and the Media
• After the Fact: The Erosion of Truth and the Inevitable Rise of Donald Trump
• Books are Weapons: The Polish Opposition Press and the Overthrow of Communism
• Treadbare: Class and Crime in Urban Alaska
• Reading African American Autobiography: Twenty-First-Century Contexts and Criticism

If you are interested in one of the titles above, or others on our list, contact Meta G. Carstarphen at mcarstarphen@ou.edu and cc: CBQ Associate Editor Margarita Tapia at margarita.tapia@ou.edu and put “CBQ Review” in the subject line.

You will receive detailed guidelines and a review copy of the selected title. Review drafts are generally due 4 to 6 weeks after assignment.

Final reviews are published with a credit line and a brief bio, and your work will be registered with your unique digital (ORCID) number.

 

Calls and Nominations