Example Of Responses And How They Are Graded

Example Of Responses And How They Are Graded What Are The Difference

What are the differences between advocacy and scientific theories? High quality: Advocacy theories are theories that are presented with a thesis and then evidence is collected and formed into a well-structured argument to support the thesis. Scientific theories are theories that begin with a question, that is then formed into a hypothesis and is tested to determine whether or not that theory is true. Why is this a high-quality response? The students addressed the differences concisely in two sentences, using their own words and providing an example.

Medium quality: An advocacy theory first presents a thesis position, then assembles evidence in an argument to support that thesis. A scientific theory presents a set of explanatory propositions that are speculations about the phenomenon that furthermore require testing to determine their value. In a comparison between the two, they differ in terms of purpose, treatment of evidence, and criteria for judging quality. For example, scholars who use advocacy theories look for evidence to support their position so as to maximize the strength of their argument. In comparison, scholars who use scientific theories do the opposite, and instead are less concerned with winning an argument than with refining their explanations so that they better fit the patterns within the phenomenon itself. Why is this a medium quality response? The student understood what each effect meant. However, the response was not succinct.

Low quality: Advocacy theories are those which present a thesis first, then assemble evidence to support that thesis. Why is this a low quality response? Student did not completely answer the question. Students that don't use own words as much as expected or are not succinct are also considered low quality.

Paper For Above instruction

Advocacy and scientific theories serve distinct roles within the realm of scholarly inquiry, particularly in media effects research. The primary differences hinge on their purposes, methodologies, and criteria for assessing validity. An advocacy theory typically begins with a specific position or thesis that the researcher aims to support through evidence. The process involves collecting relevant data to bolster the initial claim, often for persuasive purposes or policy advocacy. Conversely, scientific theories originate from posing a research question or observational puzzle, leading to the formation of hypotheses that are empirically tested. Scientific theories seek to explain phenomena through testable propositions and are evaluated based on their empirical support, predictive power, and ability to withstand falsification. The motivation behind advocacy theories is often to promote a particular viewpoint, while scientific theories aim to explain rather than advocate.

The design of research studies also reflects these differences. Advocacy-oriented research may utilize qualitative or quantitative evidence strategically selected to support a predetermined stance. Scientific research employs systematic methods, experimental designs, or rigorous observational studies to test hypotheses objectively. Regarding knowledge building, advocacy theories often aim to reinforce existing beliefs or influence policy, whereas scientific theories contribute to cumulative knowledge through falsifiable predictions and replication. The nature of findings differs as well; advocacy findings tend to be presented as supportive evidence for a specific position, while scientific findings are evaluated based on their consistency with the theory and reproducibility.

The role of theory in media effects scholarship is foundational, providing frameworks for understanding how media influence audiences. Theories guide the formulation of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies. While theories are frequently used, their application varies; robust theories underpin systematic research, allowing scholars to make predictions about media impact. Theories are essential for advancing understanding because they integrate empirical findings into coherent explanations, thus enabling the field to progress beyond mere description towards explanation and prediction.

Conceptualizations of media effects encompass various dimensions, including behavioral, attitudinal, cognitive, and emotional changes. These effects can be immediate or delayed, uniform or heterogeneous across individuals and contexts. Similarly, media influence can be conceptualized as passive or active, direct or mediated, moderate or transformative. Understanding these conceptualizations helps clarify the mechanisms and potency of media impact, informing both theory and practice.

To advance their conceptual development, theoreticians can modify theories by incorporating new variables, considering context-specific factors, or integrating insights from related disciplines. Refinements may involve articulating more precise causal pathways, developing hybrid models, or expanding scope to include new media forms and audiences. Such adaptations aim to enhance explanatory power, address anomalies, and improve predictive accuracy, thereby strengthening the utility and robustness of media effects theories.

Introducing a theory through an empirical pattern focus emphasizes the repeated, observable phenomena that support the theory, fostering credibility through data. Conversely, a speculation focus involves proposing hypotheses or mechanisms based on theoretical reasoning, which may lack immediate empirical evidence. Both approaches serve to develop and test theories; empirical focus provides grounding in observed data, while speculation encourages theoretical development and exploration of new ideas. The choice depends on research goals and the maturity of the theory.

References

• McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw-Hill.
• Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173-199.
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
• McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–350). Random House.
• Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press.
• Baumgartner, J. C. (2008). Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Routledge.
• Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication. Princeton University Press.
• McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.