User talk:Sophiestirlinguni

Annotated Bibliography

Dwyer, T. (2010). Media convergence. Buckinghamshire England: Open University Press, pp.1-24.

In this introduction chapter, Dwyer describes the evaluations he will make of media convergence and his understanding of the concept in the book. In this chapter Dwyer discusses and introduces a series of topics that relate to media convergence. He looks at studying media convergence, mediatizing and cultural change, industrial convergence, technological convergence, regulatory convergence, industry consolidation - media convergence and democracy, web 2.0 and network convergence, the internet advertising and search business. He concludes with a description of what will be explored in each chapter of the book. His overall argument in this chapter is that there is unprecedented structural transformations occurring throughout the media and communications industries, suggesting that they are no longer dominated by the traditional broadcasting or publishing industries. His research focuses on the idea that media convergence is a process embedded within the networked informational economy, and is therefore a part of a much broader set of societal discourses which he discusses later in the book. He also aims to argue is tracking how the rhetorics of convergence needs to be critically assessed against fragmented, historically contingent developments in media and communications industries, audience, policy and regulation. Dwyer in his chapter descriptions lists the approaches he will take such as analysing models and social networking sites. I find Dwyers research very interesting and a good approach when considering media convergence, in terms of research for my collaborative essay I am unsure whether Dwyers work will be overly helpful as it covers a broad spectrum.

Sophiestirlinguni (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments
It was interesting reading this annotated bibliography, as I have read little from Dwyer and more from his contemporaries. You definitely give a well structured analysis of this chapter and an effective presentation of the author's arguments. From this it seems that Dwyer's views and conclusions on media convergence studies align more with Henry Jenkins' school of thought. The idea that traditional broadcasting and publishing is becoming a thing of the past and that the blogging and independent publishing is overtaking in the sphere of spreadable information is central to Jenkins' view that the individual is active in the spread of information. Furthermore Jenkins believes from this that the distribution of power has spread to the people due to media convergence creating "knowledge" as the new currency for power, which you bring up in your analysis of Dwyer's belief that media convergence is a process embedded within the networked informational economy. However at this point in my research I am more convinced by the theory among media theorists that in order for power to be given to the people there needs to be a real shift in capitalist dynamics, as a monopoly of large media companies and technology corporations still control the landscape, scope and motion of technology and media. What are your opinions on the true nature of power dynamics within the networked informational economy? RossTheSnake (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this annotated bibliography, and I agree with your views, I also think that you have a really interesting depiction of the authors work here. I agree that for our essay topic, we will need to use Dwyer's work sparingly (if at all) as it does cover all sorts of different sub-topics of convergence, however as our essay question is associated with Henry Jenkins, what part of Dwyer's work do you think we can effectively use to back up our points about Henry Jenkins? Marshallcam (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK: DISCUSSION, ENGAGEMENT, CONTRIBS

 * Engagement on discussion pages of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for contribs. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level (although it ought to be noted that this work is at the lowermost end of this descriptor):
 * Very Poor. Often, contributions of this standard are quite brief, are structured poorly and are not spell-checked. They are often irrelevant, and offer little engagement with the concerns of the module or the assignment brief. Contributions of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be of a very poor standard and as a result it will be difficult for the reader or fellow collaborators to engage with the discussion.

Students should be engaging at least once a day, for the duration of the project. The following points illustrate how this engagement is evaluated.


 * This was clearly not the case here –you only logged a handful of contribs (6 in total) over a 3 separate days period. However, when you did engage, these seemed to be genuine contributions in terms of moving the project forward.

Evidence from contribs to both editing and discussion of content (i.e. volume and breadth of editorial activity as evidenced through ‘contribs’). These are primarily considered for quality rather than quantity, but as a broad guideline: o	Each item on a contribs list that are 3000+ characters are deemed “considerable” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 2000+ characters are deemed “significant” o	Each item on a contribs list that are 1000+ characters are deemed “substantial” o	Items on a contribs list that are <1000 characters are important, and are considered in the round when evaluating contribs as a whole because of their aggregate value


 * All contribs registered as being under 1000 characters, apart from one that could be classed as “siginificant”. However, this came the day before submission, so really is a case of too little too late. It probably only just saved this element from failure.

•	Engagement with and learning from the community on Discussion Pages o	Evidence of peer-assisted learning and collaboration o	Evidence of reading, sharing, and application of research to the essay o	Evidence of peer-review of others’ work


 * Little evidence.

•	Reflexive, creative and well-managed use of Discussion Pages o	Clear delegation of tasks o	Clearly labelled sections and subsections o	Contributions are all signed


 * There is some evidence of this.

•	Civility. Your conduct is a key component of any collaboration, especially in the context of an online knowledge-building community. Please respect others, as well as observe the rules for civility on wiki projects. All contribs are moderated.


 * You conducted yourself well.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback on Wiki Exercise Portfolio
Posts and comments on other people’s work, of this standard, roughly corresponds to the following grade descriptor. Depending on where your actual mark is in relation to the making criteria as outlined in the relevant documentation, it should give you an idea of strengths and weaknesses within the achieved grade band overall:


 * Posts of this standard do not address the assignment requirements. They offer little to no engagement with the concerns of the module. They are poorly written and comments are often extremely brief or missing. Entries of this grade may have been subject to admin warnings or take-down notices for copyright infringement. The wiki markup formatting will be more or less non-existent.


 * The key point to take away from the above descriptor is that you have number of entries missing from your portfolio. Ex #3 and #4 are both missing, which is a shame, as you seem to have had an early grasp of the exercises, the platform, and the project work. I think in order to engage with the wiki exercises a bit more, it might be useful for you to look at the assessment details and criteria in the module handbook more carefully to get more of an idea of how to hit those targets.


 * In addition, making more use of the wiki functionality and markup would have gone a long way to improving fluidity and functionality of posts. I suspect that, if you become more familiar and proficient with the platform, that this would have made a considerable difference.


 * Re: responses to other people’s posts – none undertaken. This would effectively halve your mark.

General:
 * Reading and research: Some evidence shown in Ex#2.


 * Argument and analysis: fair, but difficult to judge because of too few submissons.


 * Presentation: as above.

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)