Module POL2087 for 2018/9
- Overview
- Aims and Learning Outcomes
- Module Content
- Indicative Reading List
- Assessment
Undergraduate Module Descriptor
POL2087: Digital Media and Politics
This module descriptor refers to the 2018/9 academic year.
How this Module is Assessed
In the tables below, you will see reference to 'ILO's. An ILO is an Intended Learning Outcome - see Aims and Learning Outcomes for details of the ILOs for this module.
Formative Assessment
A formative assessment is designed to give you feedback on your understanding of the module content but it will not count towards your mark for the module.
| Form of assessment | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|
| Class group presentation | 20 minutes | 1-7 | Verbal comments |
Summative Assessment
A summative assessment counts towards your mark for the module. The table below tells you what percentage of your mark will come from which type of assessment.
| Coursework | Written exams | Practical exams |
|---|---|---|
| 50 | 50 |
...and this table provides further details on the summative assessments for this module.
| Form of assessment | % of credit | Size of the assessment (eg length / duration) | ILOs assessed | Feedback method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Essay | 50 | 3500 | 1-7 | Written comments |
| Written exam | 50 | 90 minutes | 1-7 | Written comments |
| 0 |
Re-assessment
Re-assessment takes place when the summative assessment has not been completed by the original deadline, and the student has been allowed to refer or defer it to a later date (this only happens following certain criteria and is always subject to exam board approval). For obvious reasons, re-assessments cannot be the same as the original assessment and so these alternatives are set. In cases where the form of assessment is the same, the content will nevertheless be different.
| Original form of assessment | Form of re-assessment | ILOs re-assessed | Timescale for re-assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Essay | Essay (3500 words) | 1-7 | August/September reassessment |
| Written exam | Written exam (90 mins) | 1-7 | August/September reassessment |
Indicative Reading List
This reading list is indicative - i.e. it provides an idea of texts that may be useful to you on this module, but it is not considered to be a confirmed or compulsory reading list for this module.
Munger, K. (2017). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39(3), 629-649.
Theocharis, Y., Barberá, P., Fazekas, Z., Popa, S. A., & Parnet, O. (2016). A bad workman blames his tweets: the consequences of citizens' uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. Journal of communication, 66(6), 1007-1031.
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Ladwig, P. (2013). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, online first.
Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172-1190.
Freelon, D., & Karpf, D. (2015). Of big birds and bayonets: Hybrid Twitter interactivity in the 2012 presidential debates. Information, Communication & Society, 18(4), 390-406.
Milner, R. M. (2013). Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication, 7, 34.
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Forthcoming in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign.
Ercan, S. E., Hendriks, C. M., & Dryzek, J. (2018). Public deliberation in an era of communicative plenty. Policy & Politics.
Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2017). I do not believe you: how providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 1-17.
Shah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Lassen, D. S., Van Thomme, J., Bialik, K., ... & Pevehouse, J. C. (2016). Dual screening during presidential debates: Political nonverbals and the volume and valence of online expression. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(14), 1816-1843.
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2018). Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 US presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35(2), 155-177.
Maireder, A., & Schlögl, S. (2014). 24 hours of an# outcry: The networked publics of a socio-political debate. European Journal of Communication, 29(6), 687-702.
Highfield, T., & Bruns, A. (2015). Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere. In The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 78-95). Routledge.
