Notes
on: Williams, N(2004)How to Get a 2:1 in Media,
Communication and Cultural Studies, London:
Sage Publications
Ltd.
Dave Harris
Generally
clear on the values of
academic life, but uncritical, and tries to
rationalize them, eg the emphasis
on critical understanding. Gets close to
making the case for a deep approach
including syllabus independence, but there is
no specific mention of it. The
book simply condemns instrumental students,
despite admitting that the author
chose the title to sell the book(2).
Warns against the risk of getting too
critical, and urges calculation(8).
Offers
the basic techniques of
organization and some simple advice, such as
considering the audience, planning
work, getting help and so on.
Develops
a reflexive loop between
the actual subject matter and the process of
learning, in that good
communications appears in both. Good on the
basics for communication, the usual
irritating lists, for example on audience
expectations. All very bland and
shouldy. Emphasizes the need to please the
tutor(coyly)(61). Presentational skills are
important in assessment. There is the
usual circularity though, as an example to'use good information' (63). Advocates
bite-size chunks of information,
a piece of signposts and connectives(there is a banal list of them on 66).
This section seems to assume a
strategic orientation. The author's own
examples of chunks of information are
awful -- bitty encyclopaedia type answers to
questions like'What is Foucault's account of
discourse...
Foucault sees all human activity as discourse'
(67). There is a hint of a
discussion aboujt hte structure of knowledge
on 68. The section on plain English leads to a
simple
journalistic exercise(almost
like algorithms), use shorter words, an active
voice and
denominalization(71). Students are
advised to overcome the relativism that awaits
by'choosing
what you find useful'.
The
peculiarities of the essay form are
defended as'core' (74). Practical tips for writing
include brainstorming, invisible writing(75).
Then the advice is to plan and organize,
including breaking down sections. There are
some tips on
introductions. Reports are explained and
advice is given on various structuring
principles including a very simple'dialectic' (78).[There
is a
slippage from journalism to academic writing
here and there -- the bad side of
the reflexive link?]. References and
bibliographies are discussed, justified
and explained -- they represent standard
academic values, apparently. The basic
examples of Harvard are explained(Sage
variant)
too -- at least some attempt is made to
explain.
Spoken
presentations are discussed,
including the need to simulate eye-contact and
to vary communication. There are
some basic tips about answering questions, and
a reminder about structure and
signposting. Section ends with some suggested
action, including the need
to edit on one's feet. Visual aids are
discussed. Working in groups
leads to the old Belbin stuff on various kinds
of roles, such as leader and
organizer. Individual presentations contain a
warning against jokes and
popularity contests -- presenters need to know
the topic and the audience, and
should be there to point out problems.
Section
on Web design contains the
usual material about the need for minimal
content and interactivity. There are
basic reminders on how to do links and the
need to remember other users will be
following different routes. There is some
advice about how to cut and paste and
make electronic notes.
The
substantive content[needed
to spin out this thin stuff] consists
of one chapter of 50 key ideas in the relevant
subject -- about a paragraph on
each, including class(100
-1) and
discourse (110 - 1)[who
is this for
exactly?]. We are warned this is not a
substitute for detailed reading but only
a starting point or reminder, and that the
reader needs to be critical and
creative[the usual warnings to try and
cover against plagiarism?]. Section ends by
admitting that concepts and
definitions are ambiguous, and the reader is
once more invited to decide for
themselves when short definitions like this
are effective.
Chapter
five, which follows, is on
key thinkers, with some additional reading.
There is a hopeless intertextual and
scholastic element -- try Bakhtin on 138.
Shameless
bullet point stuff on Foucault(148)
--
four key bullets to be precise.
Chapter
six is on grading and
assessment. There are some examples of
criteria on 170 -- his? Each identified
skill then has a subsection, for example on
developing
better critical abilities. University
assessment is good for you, but you need to
be aware of how it works to get the best
returns. It is important to know the
learning outcomes, for example[assumes
they
are universally used]. You need to know the
criteria, but tutors often see
them as guidelines rather than rules[requirements of presentation is the
example here]. Nevertheless
presentation is important, including structure
and the effective use of
typefaces! Students need to read it in the
most general sense, including cross
editing. They also need to get creative:(a) find connections;(b)
break
conventions or rules and challenge. Deep
understanding gets its first mention
(177). There is a recognition of different
approaches and complexity of the
task. This section refers back to the
knowledge structure material, via a
demonstration of how questions lead to further
questions. Example is OK if
rather brief(177-8), but tends to show
the professional academics' way to proceed
rather than the student's [a
demonstration rather than a set of principles,
which risks circularity--
be critical, do it like this, this is
being critical]. The section offers the basics
on argument, the need to be
objective and to refer to the available facts.
Other advice includes avoiding
emotional appeals and not pushing to extremes
(179).
Advice
for exams includes the need
to revise first, to take good notes, and
progressively refine techniques. There
are some hints on how to use academic
categories such as theoretical
perspectives, and how to do practical
applications. On the day, brainstorming
or mind mapping is the recommended technique[why?]. Choose an approach to answer
the question. Analyze the content of
past papers. Typical academic words like'analyze' described in a table(183). Students are recommended to
attempt to answer the requisite
number of questions, [and the'rubber
ruler
convention' explained --it is easier to get
the first 40%]. With multi-choice tests,
it is possible to guess
especially if they are designed poorly. The dissertation
should be treated as
a long essay: there is some basic advice on
how to choose a topic, a
supervisor and an audience, and a basic
structure on 190. The literature review
is well explained on 191. Actual research and
methods is treated in a very basic
way, with pros and cons and tips in the form
of bullets and tables. It
addresses reservations about research as
repetitive(200).
Students
are urged to avoid
plagiarism, which attracts heavy condemnation
--'unethical,
immoral, unscholarly, cowardly and
stupid' (201). There is no attempt to
understand the practice here, although
there is some acknowledgement of the
ambiguities.
The
last chapter is on
trouble-shooting or Frequently Asked
Questions. It has an irritating tabular
form, and is almost an index.