Week 3 Discussion 1
This exercise is designed to help you with integrating sources into your own writing. This will help you as you prepare to write your six-source and multiple-source essays.
Here’s what you’ll do:
Review the following short paragraph on a hypothetical paper about cybersecurity and the Internet of Things. Note that the writer has made some errors in his integration of Shindell as a source.
Identify at least two errors, and describe what the errors are in one or two sentences. (Note: You don’t have to re-write the paragraph. Just describe what the errors are—e.g., “One error can be found in the first sentence, where the writer includes the title of the article instead of the author’s name…”)
One potential method of hacking into a hospital’s records is through a wearable device. Often, wearable devices are used by health care institutions to monitor blood pressure or other health conditions. However, such devices expose vulnerabilities in the system. (Shindell, 2018) argues that hackers increasingly integrate malware to infect such devices and then use them as foundations upon which to attack the health care institution’s IT systems. Specifically, Shindell, 2018, maintains that ransomware is especially pernicious. “During an attack, victims will typically encounter a screen giving them directions for paying a ransom to retrieve their data…” “More than half of hospitals surveyed were hit with ransomware in the previous 12 months.”
This discussion will help you develop the skills you need to synthesize several sources together. Here’s what you’ll need to do:
Step #1: Read any three (3) of the five articles listed below on the movie CODA (2021).
Amanda Morris, New York Times Review: “Representation or Stereotype? Deaf Viewers are torn over ‘CODA.'”
Ann Hornaday, Washington Post Review: “The movie ‘CODA’ reminds us that cliches sometimes work–and brilliantly.”
Richard Brody, New York Post Review: “‘CODA’ is a Feel-Bad, Feel-Good Movie.”
Owen Glieberman, Variety Review, “Sian Heder’s Family Drama Kicks Off Sundance on a Note of Enthralling Emotion.”
Tomris Laffly, Ebert Review, “CODA.”
Step #2: Review the worksheet on using a synthesis matrix featured in this week’s Content. (In the attachments)
Step #3: Complete a synthesis matrix for the three articles you’ve read. This includes: (In the attachments)
Identify at least three (3) main ideas or topics covered by the reviews (e.g., plot, actors, bias, etc.)
Take notes on what the critics write about these main ideas (e.g., “Critic 1 praises the plot as interesting…” and “Critic 2 finds the plot too contrived…”)
Jotting down quotes that support your observations (e.g., “Critic 3 writes, ‘The story has movie-goers at the edge of their seats the whole three hours…”)
Step #4: Identify at least two key issues or questions that are particularly problematic or controversial or striking or worthy of exploring. These would be issues/questions that can be supported by at least two of the articles. They may be points on which the critics agree or disagree, issues that weren’t adequately addressed, or ideas that are explored in the reviews (e.g., “What did the critics think about the actors’ performances?” or “Discussion of bias in the movie’s portrayal of deaf culture”). Ask yourself, what ideas/issues that are shared among the articles might be interesting to pursue further? Using specific quotations and transitional phrases, discuss how the reviewers’ opinions are similar, or different.
Step #5: Explain how these issues are played out in the reviews (1-2 sentences). What are the critics’ positions on these issues? What was stated/not stated? What other questions does this issue introduce? (For example, for “Why didn’t the critics recognize the cinematography?” you might write about how one critic barely mentioned the cinematography, while another stated how it was overrated, focusing more on the acting.) In a paragraph, discuss how reviewers approached topics and themes in the films. You can use specific quotes and cite the reviews in text using APA guidelines.
Note that a sample response to this discussion, based on three reviews of Danny Boyle’s _Steve Jobs_, appears in the Content for this week.
Week 3 Discussion 1