MDIA1090: Media Culture & Everyday Life
1
SUMMARY of INFORMATION
Title: Assessment 3 – Literature Review
Weighting: 40%
Length: 2000-2500 words (submission must be in this range, excluding list of references)
Submission requirements: Submit via Turnitin link, in Moodle, by the due date and time.
Due: 28th April 2025 @ 9am (Monday morning of what would be Week 11)
Task Overview
In this assignment, you will conduct a literature review exploring research that applies a bottom-up
perspective to contemporary media controversy. Your task is to identify and synthesize academic
research articles that challenge dominant discourses about media, demonstrating how people actively
use, shape, and negotiate media rather than being passive subjects of its influence. This literature
review will help you develop key academic skills, including:
• How to find and evaluate disciplinary-specific academic research
• How to synthesize and compare scholarly arguments
• How to construct an evidence-based argument in academic writing
Research Questions (Choose One)
You must choose one of the following questions to guide your literature review:
1. Should social media be banned for minors?
2. Do media algorithms control what we see?
3. Can professional communicators manage being "cancelled"?
Your response must be guided by academic research that applies a bottom-up perspective to the issue.
You are expected to critically engage with your selected research and synthesize the findings in order
to develop an argument that reflects an informed understanding of the topic.
What You Need to Do
1. Locate four academic journal articles from peer-reviewed media studies journals that support
a bottom-up perspective on your chosen question.
2. Analyze and synthesize these articles—do they share similar findings? Do they disagree? What
patterns emerge?
3. Develop your own argument based on your review of the research. Clearly state:
"What I want to argue is… Based on the research I found… That… (your core claim)."
4. Avoid summarizing articles one by one—instead, organize your literature review by themes
and key debates.
MDIA1090: Media Culture & Everyday Life
2
5. Use the UNSW Harvard referencing guide (https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/harvard- referencing) and ensure all sources are cited appropriately.
Assessment Criteria
Your literature review will be assessed based on the following criteria:
1. Understanding & Application of the Bottom-Up Perspective
o Demonstrates a strong understanding of how the bottom-up approach in media studies
challenges deterministic top-down perspectives.
o Engages critically with academic research and uses it effectively to reframe dominant
media narratives.
2. Research & Selection of Academic Sources
o Identifies and critically engages with at least four peer-reviewed journal articles from
the discipline of media studies.
o Uses appropriate disciplinary databases and evaluates source credibility.
3. Synthesis & Argument Development
o Effectively compares and contrasts research findings, identifies patterns and/or
contradictions, and forms a clear argument (e.g., “What I want to argue is…”).
o Avoids simple summary—instead, research is woven together to develop a cohesive
treatment of the controversy.
4. Academic Writing & Structure
o Well-organized, clear argumentation, and logical structure.
o Integrates evidence smoothly, with proper Harvard in-text referencing
(https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/harvard-referencing).
MDIA1090: Media Culture & Everyday Life
3
Criteria Fail (<50) Pass (50-64) Credit (65-74) Distinction
(75-84)
High
Distinction
(85-100)
Understanding &
Application of
the Bottom-Up
Perspective
Fails to
demonstrate an
understanding of
the concept.
Discussion is
irrelevant,
vague, or
incorrect. Little
to no
engagement
with academic
research.
Demonstrates
limited
understandin g of the
bottom-up
perspective.
Engagement
with research
is minimal or
superficial,
with notable
misunderstan dings.
Demonstrates
basic
understanding
but may rely
more on
description
than critical
engagement.
Some concepts
may be
misapplied or
misunderstood.
Demonstrat es strong
understandi ng, with
well- developed
engagement
with
research
and a clear
challenge to
dominant
media
narratives.
Some minor
gaps in
depth.
Demonstrates
exceptional depth in
understanding and
applying the bottom- up perspective.
Engages critically
with research and
reframes dominant
narratives in a
sophisticated way.
Research &
Selection of
Academic
Sources
Fails to use
appropriate
academic
sources or
does not
engage
critically
with
research.
Uses fewer than
four sources, or
sources may be
not all from
media studies
or lacking
relevance.
Uses three or
four academic
sources, but
analysis may
be surface- level or
descriptive
rather than
critical.
Uses four
strong
academic
sources,
with
mostly
effective
engageme nt and
some
critical
analysis.
Identifies and
effectively engages
with four peer- reviewed journal
articles from media
studies. Sources are
highly relevant and
critically analyzed.
Synthesis &
Argument
Development
No synthesis of
research— simply
summarizes
articles
individually. No
clear argument.
Lacks clear
synthesis— sources are
discussed
separately
with little
connection
between
them.
Argument is
unclear or
weak.
Some synthesis
of sources, but
may rely on
summary over
analysis.
Argument is
present but
underdevelope d.
Synthesizes
research
effectively,
showing
connections
between
sources.
Argument is
strong but
could be
more
refined.
Sophisticated
synthesis of
research
findings,
identifying
clear patterns
and
contradictions.
Argument is
highly original,
clearly
articulated,
and
compelling.
Academic Writing
& Structure
Writing is
incoherent,
unstructured
or
undeveloped. Referencing
is missing or
incorrect.
Work
suspected of
plagiarism or
collusion will
not pass.
Writing is
unclear or
poorly
structured,
making the
argument
hard to
follow.
Referencing is
inconsistent
or contains
errors.
Writing is
readable but
may lack
flow or
coherence.
Referencing
is mostly
correct but
may have
inconsistenci es.
Writing is
clear and
well- organized,
with only
minor
structural
issues.
Harvard
referencin g is
strong,
with only
minor
errors.
Writing is
exceptionally
clear, well- structured, and
analytical.
Arguments flow
logically, with
smooth transitions.
Harvard
referencing is
flawless.
MDIA1090: Media Culture & Everyday Life
4
Submission Guidelines
• Word Count: 2000 words (+/-10% excluding references)
• Formatting: 12pt font, double-spaced, standard margins. Use UNSW Harvard in-text
referencing (https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/harvard-referencing).
• Submission: Upload to Moodle as a Word document (.docx) before the deadline.
• Plagiarism Policy: All work must be your own. Plagiarized work (including work generated
through AI Chatbots) or collusion will not pass.
Final Advice
• Synthesize, don’t summarize! Connect research findings into themes and arguments, rather
than listing them separately.
• Make a strong argument—don’t just describe the research, but explain how it changes how we
think about the controversy.
• Use UNSW Harvard referencing correctly (https://www.student.unsw.edu.au/harvard- referencing) and cite all sources.
• Ask for help if needed! Your tutors are here to assist you in understanding the task.
Looking forward to reading your literature reviews! �
51作业君版权所有
