10 minute Podcast script on Protest song
Social Studies
GRADE 12 PROTEST SONG ASSIGNMENT
OBJECTIVE: Understand the concepts and themes of history through song/video
In a podcast you will analyse a song from the list below. The podcast should not be more than
15 minutes (includes playing clips from the song) and not shorter than 8 minutes.
Podcast must include:
- An analysis of the song as it relates to liberalism. This should make up a third of
your work because you need to play clips from the song, and explain what that
means. As is the case with any source analysis this year, your objective is to explain
the links to liberalism, and the perspective of the song as it relates to liberalism.
a. Analyse this through the DEAR v DERL lens
i. DEAR: Dictatorship, Elitism, Arbitrary Justice, Repression
ii. DERL: Democracy, Equality, Rule of Law, Liberty
b. Highlight issues around purpose – why was this song written and what is the artist
trying to express at that time.
You will be marked based on a source analysis rubric for analysis of
source here.
Song selected for discussion within podcast:
The Sex Pistols – God Save the Queen - Answer the following question:
To what extent does the song inform our understanding of social studies? Here I
want you to explain concepts that the song discusses and how it deepens our
understanding of issues we have learned about in this course (rule of law, dissent, or
poverty just for a few examples)
To do this effectively, you will need to do the following:
a. Provide the historical context of this song – if we take a song like OHIO
by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, the context is the Vietnam War, but
there are also issues around counter-culture, dissent, the Draft, and other
concepts that need to be explained.
b. You should then analyse that evidence and explain how the song raises
awareness to these issues. How does it make use of this context to help
deepen and understanding of the issue you identified.
c. Develop a line of argumentation that allows you to explain why the song
is effective, or not effective in informing our understanding of an issue. To
do this, you have to explain how this song adds to the narrative around
the theme(s) you identified.
d. You will also have to analyse the reception of this song as part of this
narrative. What were criticisms associated with this song, or what was the
reception. For example, the Chicks released a song called “Not Ready to
Make Nice” which came after massive fallout from their lead singer
criticizing George W. Bush and war in Iraq. That narrative is important
to helping us understand the complexity of the issue that the song is
highlighting.
e. Refer to an IP or Ideological Perspective of the song and it’s Relation to
liberalism! The IP for this song that MUST be discussed within the script
is: Rule of Law. This should be discussed as the sex pistols refer to the
English monarchy as a “fascist regime”
f. Solely refer to the sex pistols and the song “god save the queen” in your
argumentation
g. This podcast should be told through the lens of a college radio station’s
weekly political podcast that is politically central.
ANALYSIS OF SONG (6 marks)
General Criteria: Analyzes the song to demonstrate an understanding of perspective(s) reflected in the song
General Criteria:
• Establishes a position • Develops one or more arguments based on logic and reason • Establishes a relationship between position taken, argumentation, and the perspective presented in the movie.
6 EXCELLENT: The analysis of the song is insightful and sophisticated; a comprehensive understanding of
the perspective(s) is demonstrated.
4 – 5 PROFICIENT: The analysis of the song is capable and adept; a sound understanding of the perspective(s)
is demonstrated.
3 SATISFACTORY: The analysis of the song is conventional and straightforward; a generalized
understanding of the perspective(s) is demonstrated.
2 LIMITED: The analysis of the song is incomplete and lacks depth; a confused understanding of the
perspective(s) is demonstrated.
1 POOR: The analysis of the song is illogical, tangential, and/or the song is simply copied; a minimal
understanding of the perspective(s) is demonstrated.
INS Insufficient is a special category. It is not an indicator of quality. It is assigned to responses that do not
contain a discernible attempt to address the assignment or responses that are too brief to assess in one or
more scoring categories.
COMMENTS:
ARGUMENTATION (8 marks)
8 EXCELLENT: The position established is convincingly supported by judiciously chosen and
developed argument(s). The argumentation is consistent and compelling, demonstrating an insightful
understanding of the assignment. The relationship between the position taken, argumentation, and
the perspective presented in the source is perceptively developed.
6 – 7 PROFICIENT: The position established is persuasively supported by purposely chosen and
developed argument(s). The argumentation is logical and capably developed, demonstrating a sound
understanding of the assignment. The relationship between the position taken, argumentation, and
the perspective presented in the source is clearly developed.
5 SATISFACTORY: The position established is generally supported by appropriately chosen and
developed argument(s). The argumentation is straightforward and conventional, demonstrating an
adequate understanding of the assignment. The relationship between the position taken,
argumentation, and the perspective presented in the source is generally developed.
3 – 4 LIMITED: The position established is confusing and largely unrelated to the argument(s). The
argumentation is repetitive, contradictory, simplistic, and based on uninformed belief. The
relationship between the position taken, argumentation, and the perspective presented in the source
is superficially developed.
1 – 2 POOR: The position established has little or no relationship to the source or argument(s). The
argumentation is irrelevant and illogical. The relationship between the position taken,
argumentation, and the perspective presented in the source is minimally developed.
INS INSUFFICIENT
COMMENTS:
EVIDENCE (8 marks)
General Criteria:
• is relevant and accurate
• reflects depth and/or breadth
Note: Evidence from social studies may include a theoretical, historical, contemporary, and/or current events discussion.
8 EXCELLENT: Evidence is sophisticated and deliberately chosen. The relative absence of error is
impressive. A thorough and comprehensive discussion of evidence reveals an insightful
understanding of social studies knowledge and its application to the assignment.
6 – 7 PROFICIENT: Evidence is specific and purposeful. Evidence may contain some minor errors. A
capable and adept discussion of evidence reveals a solid understanding of social studies knowledge
and its application to the assignment.
5 SATISFACTORY: Evidence is conventional and straightforward. The evidence may contain minor
errors and a mixture of relevant and extraneous information. A generalized and basic discussion
reveals an acceptable understanding of social studies knowledge and its application to the
assignment.
3 – 4 LIMITED: Evidence is potentially relevant but is unfocused and incompletely developed. The
evidence contains inaccuracies and extraneous detail. The discussion reveals a superficial and
confused understanding of social studies knowledge and its application to the assignment.
1 – 2 POOR: Evidence is irrelevant and inaccurate. The evidence contains major and revealing errors. A
minimal or scant discussion reveals a lack of understanding of social studies knowledge and its
application to the assignment.
INS INSUFFICIENT
COMMENTS:
COMMUNICATION (8 marks)
8 EXCELLENT: The presentation is fluent, skillfully structured, and judiciously organized. Control of
syntax, mechanics, and grammar is sophisticated. Vocabulary is precise and deliberately chosen. The
relative absence of error is impressive.
6 – 7 PROFICIENT: The presentation is clear and purposefully organized. Control of syntax, mechanics,
and grammar is capable. Vocabulary is appropriate and specific. Minor errors in language do not
impede communication.
5 SATISFACTORY: The presentation is straightforward and functionally organized. Control of
syntax, mechanics, and grammar is adequate. Vocabulary is conventional and generalized. There
may be occasional lapses in control and minor errors; however, the communication remains
generally clear.
3 – 4 LIMITED: The presentation is awkward and lacks organization. Control of syntax, mechanics, and
grammar is inconsistent. Vocabulary is imprecise, simplistic, and inappropriate. Errors obscure the
clarity of communication.
1 – 2 POOR: The presentation is unclear and disorganized. Control of syntax, mechanics, and grammar is
lacking. Vocabulary is overgeneralized and inaccurate. Jarring errors impede communication.
INS INSUFFICIENT
COMMENTS:
SCORE:
/ 30
GENERAL COMMENTS:
