Thanks for the advice everyone . I was fairly sure I didn't have to claim them but it's good to have confirmation of that.

Bluebell,
I have also gone for option 2 (it made more sense to me) and have no idea how I'm going to approach it yet. I want to start writing the TMA within the next couple of days but I'm not sure where to start. This is so different to E111.

Let me know how you get on.

CFB

Well, I have never stopped reading and taking notes up to now but I am still no further forward, I've got to the stage where I understand discourses and the contrasts but it's sifting through the amount of ideas/course information and breaking some of it down to link it all together.

I'm not clear yet whether you should pick one or two issues and get stuck into them or briefly include as many examples as possible????

Maybe previous U212 students might help me make sense of it?????

I feel as though I am in limbo at the moment with a mountain of information !!!!!

I know it doesn't help you but I'm sort of relieved that I'm not the only one having difficulty with this one. Like you I really do understand the whole discourse thing but have no idea how to put it all together in my own words. I've spend the last couple of days moaning at my husband that I can't do it with him telling me I can (bless him).

If there are any past U212'ers out there willing to share some ideas it would be really really really appreciated I just need some help to get me started and then I will be fine (I hope LOL).

Chocolate fudge brownie
Don't worry you are not struggling with this on your own

I am getting a better idea and have made notes on most parts from the suggested approach in the study guide.

What I am unsure of is the first part in explaining what a discourse is.
I have a very clear understanding about that, and I understand how it is the central theme to understanding a social constructivist approach.

BUT........ what is really confusing me is when describing a discourse [and considering the importance of social construction] I am finding that I am writing more about how the social constructionist approach affects the way children are viewed and treated.

Obviously we are only contrasting two discourses [which I fully understand now] so........ do I just concentrate more on ie romantic discourse and Puritan etc..... or do I give equal consideration to the SC approach??????????

I have a tutorial next Sat but really don't want to wait that long. How have you read it? Maybe seeing another's understanding might clarify things for me.

I'm not sure what you are asking, but don't mind helping if I can - with this or any of U212...

There are four discourses (a discourse being a sort of 'school of thought' if you will):

1) Puritan - Thomas Hobbes
2) Romantic - Jean Jacque Rousseau
3) Tabular Rasa - John Locke
4) That children are active meaning makers/participants in their own lives (more modern discourse, that one) - Lev Vygotsky (amongst others)

You will find that the discourses are interwoven throughout the course either directly or indirectly. I have included key people in the list above - hope that helps too. You will meet them in the course too.

Bluebell,
I personally don't think we can write about any of the discourses without including the social constructionist approach. From what I've read my understanding is that Social constructionists use discourses to explain how people view things and how they will behave. This is just my opinion and I may be way off course so the input of others is gratefully received.

The following comment came from someones tutorial notes but it does show how important both are "Using a social constructionist approach allows people to recognize that children who commit serious crimes like murder can be sent through two different discourses". I hope this all makes sense.

Well I don't know if I'm on the right track but I sure am glad that TMA1 only carries a 7% weighting. I will be very glad when it's written and sent as I usually start to understand what's expected of me after the first set of tutor comments.

Good luck
CFB

Thanks for the offer of help Medusa

Thanks Medusa very useful reminder and good to know I've got those people in linking to each discourse I'm contrasting.

I finally got my head round it last night, I went step by step through the guidelines, and realise I was trying to fit in a critical analysis and couldn't see where to fit it in, but having read it very carefully, I see they are not actually asking for that until TMA02.

I have now managed to complete the assignment ready for a first draft which I will do this evening, Then will leave it until I've had my tutorial next Sat.

Hope everyone is enjoying the course so far.
I've done tma 01 now, but might change it after tommorrows tutorial!

Just wondered if other people find the study questions useful? I find doing these after each unit really helps to focus on the key issues of the unit and helps me to tie in evidence and examples to explain the key points. This way my understanding is being tested!

There's one Q on chapet 1 though that i can't get my head around.
It is based on the video with the Evian and Peugegot adverts..

' What can studying the ways children are represented in popular media tell us about discourses of childhood'?

I can see which discourses the adverts / films are drawing upon and all the ideas of innocence etc , but can't seem to answer the question!

Can anyone enlighten me and explain what the question is getting at in simple terms please.

Thanks

Chlo X

Please!!! Can anyone enlighten me?

Not too sure on this one either Chloe
I wonder i it means that the adverts are trying to persuade us to see the 'innocence in need of protection' to compare child innocence with the care needed for the car?

And the Evian one trying to link children with the purity of water.

These are idealistic views of children but all Very appealing, so are they trying to convince us that their 'car'is also appealing and needs a special kind of person to take care of it to Love and protect it to get the best out of it?

Might be totally on the wrong note here so just a suggestion.

As you know SC express the need to know where the knowledge has come from and for what puropse it will be used in, so in examining these adverts they would suggest these children have been 'idolised' in order to sell a product [the advertising comapay's benfiting from these ideas]?????

I think it's trying to get you to think about the discourses in relation to the way children are portrayed; that the prevailing view in the west (or the North as they insist on calling it in U212 and nearly drove me mad!!) is that childhood is a time of innocence; the children in the adverts are all portrayals of innocence; even the NSPCC adverts (baby portrayed as drug addict, little girl portrayed as prostitute etc) show a corruption of the innocence of childhood.

Hope that helps... just my rambling thoughts.

One snippet from revision notes that you might find helpful:

"The Romantic discourse views children as innocent, as vulnerable and in need of protection. Their state, childhood, should be sheltered and protected and children should be left out of adult worries and the problems of the adult world. The latter corrupts their innocence (Rousseau)."

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner; was giving the question some thought first...

Thanks madusa
makes a lot more sense to me now

Well have finally finished firt Tma [just got reference page to put together then on to reading for the next one.
How is everyone else doing. Wasn't too bad once I got the hang of it and I think having a break from studying took a bit of getting back into the swing of it again.

Hi Bluebell. I have just about finished. I'm just tweaking it a bit and should be ready to send it in a couple of days. I really struggled at first but once I started writing I couldn't stop. Not sure if it's any good but I'm happy with it. Good luck.

Thanks Medusa,

yes, you have made things clearer.