Transcript of Sara Scores a Documentary Film
Ok. I’m going to start by going to the MinerWriter website, and log in with my UTEP name and password. And then I go up to rubrics and I have a choice of the different assignments that the students will submit. I’m going to go to the documentary film project rubric. And then I have a choice of several student names. These are the students I will be grading. Let’s choose Emma Butler.
And what happens here is that a rubric will come up. I’ll go to “get papers,” downloads the paper.
So what I’m going to be looking for in this documentary is purpose. The students have to be persuasive and present an argument with advocacy. And that’s worth 35 points, so that’s going to be a really important thing to be looking for. I’m also going to be looking for how they use their research, the quality of it, how it’s integrated, whether is relevant or not. I’m going to be looking at the ethos, or the credibility, that the students present through their research and through their own presentation. The pathos and the kind of emotional appeals that they use. And, logos, or the logic and structure of the argument. I’m going to be looking at the use of multimedia, and this is where the students creativity really comes into play and how well they piece everything together. Editing and timing, worth 15 points, I’m going to be looking at that and seeing how well they put everything together and if things rush by you too much or are too slow. And finally, I’m going to be looking at the credits. They have to include a fair use statement and a complete citation of all contributors and sources. So this will be really important as well.
So now I’m going to go and watch the film. It’s a little bit loud, so I’ll turn it down just a little bit. Let’s start at the very beginning. Still a little too loud, here we go. Maybe move it down over here. That sounds better, let’s see.
As a young kid I used be call faggot and things like that as a young kid before I even knew what the word faggot meant, but then it progressed to where I grew up and I’d see the things like going to clubs. I remember one incident where I was going to a club and it was freezing cold. A truck came by me and they would ask me something and they would through a bucket of ice cold water on me passing by.
Sara: Wow. That’s some good ethos and pathos right at the beginning there.
In country that prides itself on equality and freedom, many people in the nation still face a great deal of fear and limitation when it comes to self-expression and equality. Discrimination in today’s society is not as uncommon as many people believe it to be. Whether victimization occurs at the workplace, school, public places or even at home, discrimination is a prevailing and ongoing issue in all part of the United States. Oftentimes this discrimination will escalate into hate crimes.
Hate crimes motivated by discrimination are aggressive expressions of prejudice against a person or group because of a defining characteristic such as ethnicity, race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. These crimes can be any sort of crime including arson, harassment, vandalism, robbery, threats, rape, torture, and murder. Even though it is often believed that most hate crimes are committed by strangers, parents, siblings, co-workers, and peers have often been believed to commit such crimes.
Sara: wow. Good images
At this point, I’m wondering if the video was made by the students, and if it is, it is very creative. I’m also liking the images and the speaking. They go well together. They are also helping with the pathos, logic, and ethos of the arguments, so let’s continue here:
“Three general theories help explain the motivations behind hate crimes: prejudice, peer dynamics, and thrill seeking. Prejudice can express core values and beliefs. Gender and sexual orientation discrimination may stem from prejudice that arise from a desire to maintain clear, consistent male and female gender role and boundaries between the two. Prejudice can also be rooted in fear which can arise from the idea that a certain belief or value is being threatened which could be perceived as an attack against one’s own identity. As a result, some people may act out instantly and violently rather than take the time to learn about what they are afraid.”
“Peer pressure is an ongoing issue today that is the root of many violent or rash actions that some people may not normally commit. By committing a hate crime, someone may hope to fulfill their peers’ expectations, prove something about themselves to their peers, or conform to their beliefs to find such acceptance, even if that person does not fully agree with their actions.”
“The thrill seeking theory is considerably self-explanatory. Thrill seeking behavior expresses boredom and/or the desire to experience a rush and excitement.”
“Anger and aggression play a major role in any hate crime. If one does not work towards finding a way to overcome their negativity, prejudice, fear, or overwhelming need for recognition then it can develop into extreme hatred and anger.”
Many times when someone is extremely angry their thoughts and judgments can become impaired which would then lead them to act out in an impulsive, careless, and violent manner.
Interview: “You have to be careful because people aren’t playing with rocks, or, you know, they aren’t going to beat you up anymore, people are playing with guns and knives now, you know.”
“Hate crimes are attacks on a person’s identity. Because a biased crime is motivated by hatred and anger, oftentimes a biased crime can be more brutal and severe than an un-biased crime. Even though the physical effects of a hate crime will generally not last much longer than they would for a crime that is not based on hate, the psychological effects can last much longer. These effects can last longer because the crime is more personal. Victims of hate crimes based on discrimination are often left feeling unable to express themselves and their true identity openly with confidence for fear of being attacked again.”
Sara: “At this point, I realize that the video and some of the still images are student-produced and I think that’s a really creative use of multimedia. They are also mixing things together well in a good organization. And it seems they have done some good research with the three theories and so forth. I’m starting to think this is going to turn out to be a really strong documentary.”
To prevent the spread of hate motivated crimes will take a nation-wide effort with full community involvement and commitment to the cause. Raising awareness to the issue and the seriousness is the first step to gain support. It is important to understand the nature of hate crimes and discrimination to find the most efficient way toward prevention. This education should start in the school systems. Teaching tolerance to young students will help them to accept others for who they really are as they grow up and later when they have children of their own they will raise their children to be tolerant as well. Creating more outreach programs such as the Human Rights Campaign, Youth and Campus Outreach program and starting campaigns like those started by the “Not in Our Town” Programs can provide information, resources and support for those who want to learn about the issue and help in the prevention efforts.
State and national legislation should also continue to address the issue to demonstrate that hate based crimes will not be accepted by the government or society. With the cooperation and commitment of the entire community, hate crimes based on discrimination may one day be just an issue of the past.
Sara: What I saw at the end there was some really clear advocacy and ways that I can get involved even as an audience member. I’m seeing purpose. They had a clear argument and advocacy, I liked the way they began and ended with the interview with the person who experienced discrimination-based hate crime. They did give some thanks at the end there of the actors that they used and the man they interviewed, but I didn’t see a fair use statement and I didn’t see any credits either.
I’m going to go to the rubric now. What I usually like to do is start with the credits because this is the most objective part of the grading. It’s either there or it’s not. In this case, I’m looking at my choices here, and it is missing the fair use statement, so it can’t be anything a C or higher. It has to be a D or an F. Now, they didn’t give contributors citation to all the contributors or sources. In fact, they left out sources. We don’t know where they got all the good information that they used in the documentary. But they did give some credit to the man they interviewed and they gave some credit to the actors in the film, so I’m going to rate that a D.
Next, I’m going to go to the top actually and look at purpose. I felt that they established an effective persuasive purpose and advocacy. I think they deserve the A in this category. It was a very clear and specific argument against hate-based crimes. And they mentioned some different policy changes that could happen especially at the school level and as well at the level of the law. They also gave some information about organizations where audience members could go to get more information to become more aware themselves. I’m going to go ahead and give them an A in this section.
And I’m gonna go back down now to use of multimedia. This stood out to me very much while reviewing. I noticed that they did a really good job of not only using secondary sources but they also provided a film and that was really creative. Innovative scripting, creativity, fair and effective use of existing film images and sound: I think they also deserve an A in this category.
Next, I’m gonna look at editing and timing. And I felt that the timing here was really good as well. They didn’t linger too long on one thing, but they didn’t rush by not giving me enough time to digest the information. I also felt there was some advanced editing going on here. They weren’t just jumping from one image to another. They were transitioning very nicely between things. I think this category also deserves an A.
Now we are going to go up here and I had a little bit of a problem with their ethos throughout. And the ethos is closely tied to their research. I think it was clear that they had some good information that they were working with but they never gave credit for that in the documentary or afterward. I really think that the documentary’s arguments and evidence are adequate for the ethos and their credibility here. And the interview definitely helped them as well. So they are definitely higher than a D. I would give a C in the category of ethos.
The quality of research, and again, we’re not really sure where the research came from but it was integrated well, and it was certainly relevant. I think in this case—and it seemed to make sense—so I would give it a B in this category. It makes a sufficient contribution to the advocacy. It’s not quite the A.
And with the pathos, I felt that this area also deserved an A. I think they did a really good job of appealing to our values and beliefs. I think that that interview really helped a lot with the pathos. But also the images they chose and the video that they used.
And finally we have logic, and this is the overall argumentative and organizational structure. I would rate this a B. I think they did a good job of organizing everything. I think they made a lot of logical sense. I was a little concerned with the personal story about Eli Ramirez that he had seemed to become more tolerant, but at the same time his religious ideas kind of changed a little bit. I wasn’t quite sure how that was being used. So the personal stories at the end with Malcolm Trail and Eli Ramirez, I wasn’t quite sure how that was fitting in. So, that kind of harmed the logos just a little bit. Not getting an A but getting a B.
So, I’m going to just double check I filled everything out the way that I feel, and I’m gonna just double check that this is really fair. The total that they are ending up with here is a 181.7 which is a low A. And I think this definitely deserved an overall score of an A.
Now I’m going to write some comments to the students just to let them know about the grades that I chose here. And let them know what they were doing well also areas where their argument could have been a little more clear or more effective.
I’ll start out:
This was an interesting documentary advocating for a very important issue. I do think this is an important issue at this time. The argument and advocacy are clear and supported well…[typing] I really liked that creative use, and it was a creative use of multimedia. I also thought that the interview provided ethos and pathos to the argument. However, this is where I give them a little bit of bad news…because source information was not cited or referring to in the documentary, the overall ethos of the documentary suffered. The organization and timing was effective, but sources or the information were not cited and the fair use statement was not included. And this way they know why they got that D in that area.
I’m just gonna re-read that and make sure that I included everything so they understand why they were graded the way they were. And then I’m gonna just going to say “good work!” I really thought this was a strong documentary overall and very effective on the viewer.
I’ve double checked it and made sure that I don’t have any typos. And now, I’m going to save this for later.
What happens is that as I’m going through, you’ll notice that her name is now missing. As I enter all the grades, they will disappear one by one, and then regenerate, and then I will be able to send it to the student.