Hello was wondering if someone could do this
p.60 p.61 p.62 p.63 p.64 p.65 p.66 p.67 p.68 p.69 p.70 p.71 p.72 p.73 p.74 p.75 p.76 p.77 p.78 p.79 p.80 Introduction: Evaluating Scholarly Sources In addition to evaluating primary and secondary sources, it is important for students to know how to identify a specific type of secondary source known as a scholarly source. A scholarly source is a valuable type of secondary source because of characteristics that include (but are not limited to) the following: 1. It is written by a person who is a credentialed expert in the field being discussed, typically with a Ph.D. from an accredited university. (They may also be collaboratively written by a group of such people.) 2. It draws upon other scholarly literature, meticulously citing which pieces are being referenced, and aims to build upon and engage in dialogue with the existing knowledge in that field. 3. It has been submitted to a journal dedicated to the field being discussed. 4. After the piece was submitted to the journal, the journal editor asked two or more other scholars to engage in a "blind peer review." These scholars were asked to review a version of the article that contained no identifying information about the author(s)--no names, no citations to their prior work, no references to their university, etc. 5. The scholars who conducted the blind peer review were asked to rigorously examine the author's paper for accuracy, for methodological soundness, for whether it made a valuable contribution to the field, etc. 6. The author may have been asked to make further revisions, based on the feedback of the blind peer reviewers, prior to publication. Overall, then, scholarly publications are regarded as highly credible secondary sources. They may not be perfect, and they should still be evaluated for credibility--but as long as they were published by a true scholarly journal that is recognized and valued by other scholars in the field, the quality level can be assumed to be quite high from the beginning. The Assignment: Evaluating Scholarly Sources Below, you will find four documents relevant to of U.S. media history for your perusal. All were written by a scholar--but not all are considered scholarly works: · Hains, 2008--Origins of the Girl Hero - Shirley Temple.pdf · The problem with separate toys for girls and boys - The Boston Globe.pdf · Thiel-Stern, Hains, and Mazzarella, 2011--Growing up white and female during the American Great Depression.pdf · Why Disney princesses and 'princess cul...re bad for girls - The Washington Post.pdf After reviewing these documents, please write a short essay (1 to 2 pages) that answers the following questions: · Which of these sources are scholarly, and how can you tell? · Which of these sources are not scholarly, and how can you tell? · Who do you believe is the intended audience for these sources? Is the intended audience the same or different across these sources? · Look at the citations used in one of the scholarly sources and how sources are credited in one of the non-scholarly sources. If you look closely, you will notice significant differences. · What kinds of sources do they rely on? · How do the sources compare? · What are the strengths and weaknesses of each author’s cited sources? · Overall, what do you feel are the strengths and weaknesses of these sources for a student or scholar interested in learning more about U.S. media history? Guidelines for writing this essay: · Structure your essay so that it reads well. It should have an introduction; a body that consists of several distinct paragraphs with topic sentences; and a conclusion. · The main body of your essay should do more than discuss the sources one by one or summarize their attributes. Please synthesize your thoughts and present an evaluation of these sources in relation to one another. · Please carefully proofread your essay for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax. · Double-space your essay. · Use APA style in-text citations when citing the four sources in your essay. · Include all four sources in a Works Cited list that is formatted in proper APA style. Rubric Scholarly Source Evaluation Scholarly Source Evaluation Criteria Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of Scholarly Sources Did the student correctly identify the scholarly sources from the samples provided? 15 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of Non-Scholarly Sources Did the student correctly identify the non-scholarly sources from the samples provided? 15 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentification of Target Audiences Did the student accurately evaluate the likely target audiences for the provided sources? 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvaluation of Author's Sources Did the student offer a strong evaluation of the sources used in the sources provided, comparing the merits of the different sources provided? This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvaluation of Sources' Value Did the student offer a strong evaluation of the sources' relative value to students and scholars in the U.S. media history field? This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Structure of Essay Is the essay well-structured, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion? Is it organized into paragraphs with topic sentences? Do the paragraphs flow well, without jumping abruptly from one idea to the next? This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Spelling, Grammar, Syntax Is the essay well-written, in standard written English, with proper spelling, grammar, and syntax? Is it polished and generally free of typographical errors? Has it been proofread? This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of APA Style Is the essay formatted correctly, using APA style for in-text citations and in the works cited list? Total Points: 150 The problem with separate toys for girls and boys - The Boston Globe The problem with separate toys for girls and boys What started our obsession with assigning gender to playthings, and how can parents combat it? By Rebecca Hains FEBRUARY 27, 2015 Magazine GREG MABLY “Boys and girls stop playing together at a much younger age than was developmentally typical until this recent gender segmentation,” says psychologist Lori Day. Girls’ toys. Boys’ toys. To many parents, the ubiquity of separate color-coded shopping aisles feels natural, reflecting a belief in innate gender differences and discrete interests. Recently, however, campaigns such as Let Toys Be Toys and No Gender December have made international headlines for championing desegregated toy aisles, recommending reorganization by theme or interest instead. Rather than believing dolls and crafts are for girls while trucks and science kits are for boys, “we think all toys are for all children,” explains Let Toys Be Toys campaigner Jo Jowers, who lives in England. President Obama waded into the matter in December, when at a Toys for Tots event he suggested a T-ball set was an ideal gift for girls. “I’m just trying to break down these gender stereotypes,” he said at the time. “Children use toys to try on new roles, experiment, and explore interests,” explains Susan Linn, executive director of the Boston-based Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and a psychologist at Harvard Medical School. “Rigidly gendered toy marketing tells kids who they should be, how they should behave, and what they should be interested in” — an unhealthily prescriptive situation. Recent research demonstrates today’s toys are divided by gender at historically unprecedented levels. “There are now far fewer non-gendered items available for children ADVERTISING Replay than in any prior era,” says Elizabeth Sweet, a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California at Davis — even fewer than 50 years ago, when gender discrimination was socially acceptable. How can this be? The answer lies in significant media industry changes during the 1980s, when the Federal Communications Commission’s television deregulation removed longstanding limitations on children’s advertising and widespread consumer adoption of cable allowed media owners to target more narrowly segmented audiences than ever before. As a result, marketers suddenly viewed children as a segmentable, highly lucrative demographic after largely ignoring them for 50 years. Perhaps it is unsurprising, then, that two of today’s most successful companies — Disney, whose Princess brand is the No. 2 licensed property in the United States and Canada, and LEGO, which recently surpassed Mattel as the world’s largest toy maker — were early adopters of the trend to meticulously segment the child market by gender in the late 1980s. The licensing success of Disney’s The Little Mermaid in 1989 prompted several additional princess film releases in quick succession, positioning Disney as a formidable power in the girl market. Likewise, in 1988, LEGO debuted its “Zack the LEGO Maniac” campaign, squarely positioning itself as a boy brand. A year later, LEGO began tailoring its minifigs’ historically gender-neutral faces to include lipstick and facial hair — clear gender markers. Traditionally genderneutral toys like building blocks now come in “boy” and “girl” versions. The ripple effects of these monumental 1980s-era marketing changes are evident today. Now, once classically gender-neutral toys are produced in “boy” and “girl” versions: Radio Flyer wagons, Tinkertoys, Mega Bloks, Fisher-Price stacking rings, and everything in between come in “pinkwashed’’ varieties, in hopes that families with children of each sex will buy twice the toys. Meanwhile, Disney Princess’s record-breaking profits prompted a proliferation of princess items from competitors, and Disney bought Marvel and Lucasfilm, the Star Wars creator, to compete for the boy market. Similarly, LEGO competes for girls’ purchasing power not through inclusivity but by offering separate, stereotypically girlish themes, like Disney Princess and LEGO Friends. What does this mean for today’s families? Lori Day, an educational consultant and psychologist in Newburyport and author of Her Next Chapter: How MotherDaughter Book Clubs Can Help Girls Navigate Malicious Media, Risky Relationships, Girl Gossip, and So Much More, argues that children’s play has been altered, with long-term consequences. “Boys and girls stop playing together at a much younger age than was developmentally typical until this recent gender segmentation,” she says. “The resulting rigidly stereotyped gender roles are unhealthy for both males and females, who are actually more alike than different.” Sweet concurs: “This kind of marketing has normalized the idea that boys and girls are fundamentally and markedly different from one another, and this very idea lies at the core of many of our social processes of inequality.” Parents can push back against these problems, however, by raising critically aware children. Jennifer Shewmaker, a psychology professor at Abilene Christian University in Abilene, LEGO’s Friends line has been criticized for featuring hair salons and shopping malls. Texas, and author of Sexualized Media Messages and Our Children: Teaching Kids to Be Smart Critics and Consumers, suggests: “When you see stereotyped advertisements, ask the child, ‘What do you think about the way that depicts girls and boys? Is that how the boys and girls in your life act?’ ” Carolyn Danckaert, cofounder of Washington, D.C.-based empowerment resource site A Mighty Girl, adds, “When parents explain that some people think only girls or only boys are good at something but their family disagrees, children can recognize stereotypes for what they are.” Not all parents share such concerns, of course. Jo Paoletti, an American studies professor at the University of Maryland in College Park and author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys From the Girls in America, attributes differing opinions to ongoing culture wars. “Adults who subscribe to more traditional, conservative gender roles see children’s