Lesson Report:
**Title: Propaganda in the Age of Social Media: Emotion, Identity, and the Video Reflection Journal**
This session combined course logistics with a substantive continuation of the unit on propaganda. Administratively, the instructor introduced and framed the upcoming video reflection journal assignment and adjusted the reading expectations due to a late posting. Substantively, the class revisited last week’s work on disinformation strategies, then developed it further by examining how the internet, social media, and emotional/identity-based “hooks� have transformed propaganda, culminating in a breakout activity that re-designed earlier disinformation campaigns as viral TikTok-style content.
—
### Attendance
– Students explicitly mentioned as absent: **3**
– Names mentioned as not present: **Daniek**, **Akali**, **Alihan**.
—
### Topics Covered (Chronological, with Detailed Description)
#### 1. Initial Administrative Notes & Adjusted Reading Expectations
– The instructor began with a brief personal/technical warning: if he “suddenly and randomly disappear[s],â€� it’s due to an ongoing issue (implied health/technical), but he believes it is currently under control.
– Apology and explanation regarding the readings:
– Readings on eCourse had only just been posted and were not available over the weekend, which the instructor acknowledged as his mistake.
– **Adjusted requirement before Wednesday:**
– Students are asked to read **only the introduction and conclusion** from each of the two assigned readings.
– Estimated total: **4–5 pages** over ~1.5 days.
– Recommendation:
– If students have time, they are strongly encouraged to read more, **especially the first reading (Bolsover)**.
– However, the **minimum expectation** is: introductions + conclusions for both readings by Wednesday.
#### 2. Recalibrated Video Reflection Journal Assignment: Purpose and Design
– Reference to the **syllabus**:
– Video reflection journals are one of the **largest components** of the course grade.
– No video journals have been assigned yet; a student (Natalia or Nazbikia) emailed about this (instructor had not yet responded; apology noted).
– Rationale for recalibration:
– Last semester, a similar assignment was run too frequently and was **overwhelming** both for students and for the instructor (grading load).
– This term’s approach: **space them out** more to avoid overload.
– **Core purpose / pedagogical rationale in the age of ChatGPT:**
– Instructor is searching for a “good, casual, interactive assignmentâ€� that retains academic value despite AI tools.
– Recognizes that when students are asked to **summarize readings or experiences**, many will default to AI-generated summaries.
– He acknowledges this technology as “goodâ€� and useful in many domains, but **not aligned** with his objective here.
– What he wants to know:
– What students are **personally getting out of the class**.
– Their own thinking about time spent together in class, the readings, and discussions.
– The assignment is therefore designed to:
– Encourage **casual, personal, reflective** engagement.
– Capture students’ **own thoughts, beliefs, understandings, and questions**, not polished AI-generated text.
– **Assignment format and content expectations:**
– Students must **record a video**:
– Approximate length: **3–5 minutes** (instructor “thinksâ€� that was what was in the syllabus).
– Content can cover, in any mix:
– The **readings**.
– The **topics** discussed in class.
– Specific **in-class activities** (e.g., group exercises, simulations).
– Follow-ups on **breakout room conversations** with classmates.
– Personal reflections:
– What they understand so far.
– Questions they still have.
– Connections to **personal experiences** consuming media or reading outside the course.
– Scope:
– “Anything and everything is fair gameâ€� as long as it is **directly relevant to course topics and readings**.
– The tone should be **casual** and **personal**, not a formal recitation.
– **Major constraint and grading risk:**
– The **only serious “wrongâ€� way** to do the assignment:
– **Reading from a script** in a way that is obvious on camera.
– If the instructor can clearly see/hear that the student is simply reading — e.g., “It was incredible reading about Bolsover’s feelings about Chinaâ€� in an overly scripted tone — they will **lose points**.
– Acceptable:
– Glancing at some **bullet points or notes** is fine.
– The instructor does *not* want an “orationâ€� of prewritten text.
– Emphasis:
– The **whole point** is authenticity and spontaneous reflection, not produced or AI-assisted prose.
– **Submission logistics (as stated in class):**
– **Deadline**: set for **next Friday**, “the day before Valentine’s Day,â€� referenced as **February 13**.
– (Note: the calendar/date alignment may need verification later.)
– Upload process:
– Record the video.
– Upload it to **YouTube, Google Drive, or any equivalent platform**.
– Post the **link** on eCourse before the deadline.
– The instructor emphasized that **detailed instructions** are available in the **syllabus** for any remaining formatting questions.
#### 3. Q&A on Video Journal Logistics and eCourse Setup
– **Student question (Imad):**
– Observed that there is currently **no slot on eCourse** for the academic/video journal.
– Asked if it would be updated.
– **Instructor response:**
– Confirmed: the eCourse slot will be **created/updated right after class**.
– Thanked the student for raising the issue.
– Instructor reiterated:
– Keep the video **casual**.
– Focus on **personal connection** to course content.
– The purpose is straightforward: the instructor wants to see what students themselves are thinking and learning.
#### 4. Transition: Linking Last Week’s Work to Today’s Focus
– Stated **goals for the day**:
1. Revisit and make a few **crucial final connections** to last week’s discussion of propaganda (they ran out of time previously).
2. Use that to deepen the discussion about:
– **Purposes of propaganda**.
– **How governments use propaganda** to accomplish specific goals, especially in the current media environment.
– Reminder of last week’s endpoint:
– Discussion on the **difference between propaganda 30 years ago** and **today**.
– Students had largely answered correctly; instructor offers a “second chanceâ€� to restate and refine those insights.
#### 5. Class Discussion: How Propaganda Has Changed in 30 Years
– Prompt: “What’s the main difference between how organizations and governments spread propaganda 30 years ago vs. today?â€�
– Student contributions (summarized and synthesized by instructor):
– **Shift in battleground (“war of mindsâ€� / hybrid conflict):**
– Modern propaganda is framed less as physical violence and more as **“war of mindsâ€�**, **cognitive/psychological conflict**, and **hybrid warfare**.
– The scope and **intensity on the mind** have increased.
– **Volume and overload:**
– Today’s environment is characterized by **massive information volume**:
– People are involuntarily exposed to far more material on a daily basis.
– This creates cognitive strain: needing to **process, evaluate, and be critical** of a constant stream of content.
– One student noted that **today’s propaganda is more confusing**:
– In earlier eras, you had fewer, more stable narratives.
– Now, a flood of conflicting information makes it difficult to decide what to believe.
– **Speed and scale of dissemination:**
– Point raised that a **single post can reach millions within hours** (e.g., references to high-profile document releases getting over a million reactions quickly).
– Compared to the pre-internet era, this represents a drastic increase in both **speed** and **scale**.
– **Technological drivers (social media, algorithms, internet):**
– When pushed to identify the specific innovation, students eventually converged on:
– **The internet** as the fundamental change.
– **Social media platforms** (TikTok, Instagram, etc.).
– **Algorithms** that prioritize and amplify engaging content.
– **Mobile devices** providing constant connectivity.
– **AI** and **influencers** as part of the new propaganda ecosystem.
– **Comparison with historical methods (Operation INFEKTION as example):**
– The instructor recalled last week’s discussion of **KGB’s Operation INFEKTION**:
– Information dissemination relied on **pamphlets**, **physical newspapers**, **broadcast TV**, and similar legacy media.
– These were, in their time, effective, but now appear **slow and cumbersome** — “moving at an elephant’s paceâ€� compared to the internet.
– **Access barriers** in older media:
– To place propaganda in newspapers or on TV, one needed:
– Gatekeepers (editors, producers).
– Access to printing/distribution infrastructure.
– Very different from today’s **near-frictionless ability** for anyone (including states) to publish content directly to a global audience.
– **Accessibility vs. educational level:**
– Natalia and others raised the issue of **educational level**:
– Lower education can restrict access to some technologies.
– But online resources and distance learning can also **increase educational accessibility** in many contexts.
– Instructor’s refinement:
– Overall global educational levels may have improved, but propaganda’s effectiveness now is **less dependent** on education level:
– Content is **highly accessible and easily digestible** (short videos, memes, etc.).
– You no longer need significant **education or literacy** to be deeply influenced; short visual formats do much of the work.
– Today’s environment allows propaganda to easily affect **all ages, all education levels**, across many walks of life.
– Synthesized instructor conclusion:
– The **internet and social media** are the primary structural shifts explaining why propaganda is:
– More prevalent.
– Faster.
– Scaled to a global audience.
– Formatted in ways that exploit the **psychology of attention** and **emotion**, not just rational reading.
#### 6. Case Study Recap: Russian–U.S.–Maduro Disinformation via Algerian Newspaper
– The instructor revisited one specific **group disinformation plan** from last week as an illustrative case:
– Scenario: Spread the false narrative that **Russia secretly aided the U.S. in exfiltrating Maduro from Venezuela**.
– Delivery channel: **An Algerian newspaper**.
– Logic for choosing Algeria:
– Algeria as a perceived **“grey zoneâ€�**: not strongly perceived as biased toward either side.
– Thus, Algerian media may appear **neutral/trustworthy** to outside observers.
– Key issue raised:
– For this disinformation to be **effective at scale**, many people need to:
– Encounter it.
– **Pay attention** to it (the “hookâ€�).
– Possibly share it.
– Instructor introduces a sample **headline** to focus the discussion:
> “Report: Russia aided U.S. in Maduro exfiltration.�
– Student reactions (largely from IR-informed perspective):
– Several students said they **would read** the article:
– One (with journalism background) described the headline as:
– **Provocative** and **attention-grabbing**.
– A “hookâ€� in journalistic terms.
– Involving two “big countries with high positionsâ€� (Russia and the U.S.), which naturally invites reader curiosity.
– Potentially “yellow press,â€� but possibly also true; hence, worth checking.
– Other students responded from **international relations / political science** logic:
– Noted that existing **evidence and official positions** (e.g., Russia condemning U.S. action, supporting Maduro) make the claim **logically dubious**.
– Therefore, they would **doubt** the content, but:
– Still read it to see:
– How the author tries to justify the claim.
– What evidence (if any) is given.
– How persuasive techniques are used.
– And then cross-check with other sources.
– Several mentioned that **as students trained in IR/political science**, they would:
– Approach such a headline **critically**.
– Seek evidence.
– Be skeptical but engaged.
– Instructor’s reframing and conclusion:
– Noted that asking a room of engaged IR students whether they would read the article biases the answer toward “yesâ€�; the class is unusually motivated and trained to be curious about such topics.
– He reformulated the question:
– What about more typical readers?
– E.g., an uncle casually scrolling his phone after work, a teenage cousin on Instagram, a tired parent late at night.
– He argues that for **many** such people, a dry, newspaper-style headline like:
> “Report: Russia aided U.S. in Maduro exfiltration�
– Would likely **not** sustain major attention.
– The story might **“die in the first few hoursâ€�**:
– It wouldn’t go viral.
– It wouldn’t break out beyond a small audience of policy-interested readers.
– Core insight:
– What drives **wide-scale attention and spread** is not primarily:
– Rational curiosity about complex international events.
– But rather:
– **Emotional engagement**.
– **Identity resonance** (who “weâ€� are vs. “theyâ€� are).
– This connects to his earlier metaphor from a previous week:
– The **“elephant vs. riderâ€�**:
– Elephant = emotional, automatic, identity-driven mind.
– Rider = rational, analytical mind.
– Propaganda and virality work mainly by capturing the **elephant**, not the rider.
– Therefore, to achieve real impact, such a story’s **presentation** (headline, hook) must carry **emotional weight** and tie into **identity-based concerns**, not just factual scandal.
#### 7. Short-Form Content, Clickbait, and Emotional/Identity Hooks
– Instructor shifted focus explicitly to **social media formats**:
– Asked students to think about:
– **Short-form content**: TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts.
– Particularly the **first 3–5 seconds** of such videos.
– Class exploration of **hooks**:
– Students identified:
– The presence of a strong **“hookâ€�** at the very beginning.
– This often takes the form of:
– A bold claim.
– A provocative line.
– Visual or textual **clickbait**.
– The instructor unpacked the concept of **clickbait**:
– Doesn’t have to be outright false.
– Often:
– **Exaggerated**, **sensational**, or **misleading** relative to the actual content.
– Uses **emotionally charged language**.
– Is oriented toward **maximizing attention and clicks**, not accuracy.
– Key attributes:
– Designed to provoke strong emotions:
– **Anger**, **outrage**, **fear**, sometimes **joy** or **shock**.
– Often uses **vague or incomplete information** to generate curiosity or anxiety.
– Discussion of emotional dynamics and engagement:
– Instructor highlighted:
– A **heightened emotional state** makes it more likely one will **click**, **watch**, or **share**.
– Engagement is often highest when emotions like **anger or outrage** are triggered.
– Example pattern mentioned:
– Popular reels in which a creator makes a claim:
– That is **almost correct** but slightly wrong.
– This **provokes** viewers who feel the urge to correct the mistake.
– Comments fill with “well, actually…â€� replies and debates.
– The minor inaccuracy is a deliberate **engagement tactic**.
– Identity dimension:
– Effective hooks often tap into:
– **Group identities**: national, ideological, generational, gender-based, etc.
– “People like usâ€� vs. “people like them.â€�
– Content that challenges or flatters a group identity can spur:
– Defensive anger.
– Pride.
– Fear for one’s in-group.
– This is also how modern propaganda **weaponizes identity**.
– Link back to propaganda:
– Modern propaganda mirrors these **attention-hacking techniques**:
– Short, punchy, emotionally charged content.
– Clear in-group/out-group cues.
– Designed more to **feel** right (or infuriating) than to **inform** accurately.
– The instructor noted that this is the direction the course is moving into, and that a deeper dive will continue **next week**.
#### 8. Breakout Activity: Re-Engineering Disinformation as a TikTok Hook
– Instructor set up a **new group task** building on last week’s work:
– **Scenario**:
– Students remain in the same **task forces** as the previous week (each had designed a disinformation campaign tied to a specific government and narrative).
– **New challenge**:
– Take the **same core piece of dis/misinformation**.
– **Reformat** it explicitly as a **TikTok** (or similar short-form) video.
– Focus on:
– The **first 3–5 seconds**:
– What is said?
– What is shown?
– Design it to **“roll the dice wellâ€�** for virality:
– Maximize the chance that it will be picked up by algorithms and reach **millions of views**.
– **Explicit instructions and constraints:**
– **Emotional weight**:
– The hook must carry a strong **emotional charge**.
– It does **not need to be accurate**.
– It must **pull the viewer in** and make them feel something intense:
– Anger, fear, anxiety, or even joy can be options.
– **Identity targeting**:
– Each group must clearly specify:
– **Which audience identity** they are targeting.
– E.g., a national group, a partisan group, a generation, a region, etc.
– Whether they aim to make that group **angry**, **afraid**, or otherwise emotionally activated.
– **How** the wording and imagery in the hook will achieve that.
– Example guidance:
– “If you’re trying to make a group angry, which group? Why are they angry?â€�
– “If you’re trying to make a group scared, which group? What are they afraid of?â€�
– **Output expectation for the 10-minute breakout:**
– By the end of the breakout (approx. 10 minutes; reconvene at :54):
– Have a **specific, concrete plan** for:
– The **exact wording** used in the first few seconds.
– Any **visuals** or staging ideas, if relevant.
– The **target audience** and **intended emotion**.
– **Breakout room logistics and minor confusion:**
– Instructor reconstructed breakout rooms based on previous session’s groupings, naming the participants.
– Some students (e.g., Helen) reported mismatches between remembered teammates and current room assignments.
– There was a short back-and-forth to:
– Confirm previous room compositions.
– Correct mistaken assignments (Helen temporarily placed in the wrong room, then reassigned).
– Subhan was newly placed into one of the existing rooms (Room 4).
– The instructor noted Zoom’s limitations in saving room configurations across sessions and had to rebuild by hand.
– The main **pedagogical aim** of the activity:
– Make students **apply theoretical insights** about:
– The internet’s role in propaganda.
– The emotional and identity-based mechanisms of virality.
– To **practical design** of a manipulative message — seeing from the inside how disinformation is engineered for maximum impact on modern platforms.
—
### Actionable Items
#### High Urgency: Course Logistics (Before/Immediately After Next Class)
– **Create/update eCourse submission slot** for the video reflection/academic journal assignment (as promised to Imad).
– **Verify and, if necessary, correct the stated due date** for the first video reflection journal:
– Instructor verbally said “next Friday, February 13, the day before Valentine’s Dayâ€� — check calendar alignment and adjust on eCourse/syllabus if needed.
– **Confirm that both readings are fully accessible on eCourse**, and explicitly restate in class / online:
– Minimum expectation: introductions + conclusions before Wednesday.
– Recommended: full reading, especially Bolsover, if time permits.
#### Short-Term Teaching Follow-Ups (Next 1–2 Classes)
– **Reinforce expectations for video journals**:
– Remind students:
– 3–5 minutes.
– Casual, unscripted reflection.
– Directly tied to course topics, readings, and in-class activities.
– Reiterate the **“no obvious script readingâ€�** rule and how that impacts grading.
– **Follow up on today’s breakout activity**:
– Have groups briefly **present or describe** their TikTok hook designs in a future class.
– Use their examples to:
– Analyze emotional and identity appeals.
– Connect explicitly to theories of propaganda, virality, and algorithmic amplification.
– **Deepen the discussion of “elephant vs. riderâ€� and identity-based propaganda**:
– Build directly on today’s insights about emotional hooks and short-form content.
– Connect with upcoming readings (especially Bolsover) about media ecosystems and propaganda techniques.
#### Medium-Term / Course-Design Considerations
– **Monitor student workload and grading load** for the video journals:
– Given last semester’s overload, check in mid-semester:
– Are the frequency and length manageable?
– Do any adjustments need to be made?
– **Systematize breakout room groupings**:
– If using recurring groups for multi-week activities, consider:
– Maintaining a stable list in a separate document.
– Using Zoom’s “pre-assignâ€� features if possible.
– Goal: reduce in-class time spent troubleshooting membership and prevent confusion like Helen’s misassignment.
– **Consider addressing AI use more explicitly in assignment guidelines**:
– Since the rationale is partially to avoid AI-written reflections:
– Clarify how AI tools may or may not be used (e.g., not for scripting or generating spoken content).
– Align this with departmental or university policy on AI if such a policy exists.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Reading Introductions & Conclusions for This Week’s Articles
You are catching up on this week’s readings so that you have at least a basic grasp of the main arguments before our next class discussion on propaganda, media, and the internet. This assignment is intentionally light (about 4–5 pages total) and is meant to prepare you for Wednesday’s class without overwhelming you.
Instructions:
1. **Locate the assigned readings for this week**
– Go to the course site and open the readings that were just posted.
– One of them is the *Bolsover* reading (referred to in class as “the Volsover readingâ€�); the other is the second reading listed for this week.
2. **Identify the Introduction and Conclusion sections for each reading**
– For each text, find the section clearly labeled “Introductionâ€� and the section clearly labeled “Conclusionâ€� (or the final substantive section if it is not formally labeled “Conclusionâ€�).
– You **are only required** to read these two sections for each reading for now. The total required reading should be around 4–5 pages.
3. **Read both Introductions and both Conclusions before Wednesday’s class**
– Minimum requirement:
– Introduction of Reading 1 (Bolsover).
– Conclusion of Reading 1 (Bolsover).
– Introduction of Reading 2.
– Conclusion of Reading 2.
– The instructor explicitly framed this as a concession for the late posting: do your best to complete these parts over “the next day and a halfâ€� before Wednesday.
4. **While you read, focus on the “big picture�**
For each reading, try to answer in your notes (brief bullet points are fine):
1. What is the author’s **main argument or question**?
2. What do they see as the **most important takeaway**?
3. How does this connect to what we’ve been discussing about:
– Propaganda 30 years ago vs. now.
– The role of **technology and the internet** in spreading propaganda.
– Emotional hooks, identity, and information overload in today’s media environment.
5. **Optional but strongly recommended: read more if you have time**
– The instructor “strongly recommend[ed] that you take a look at both of them, especially the first one, the Bolsover reading.â€�
– If your schedule allows, go beyond the introduction and conclusion and read the full Bolsover article first, then the other reading.
– This will give you a richer foundation for upcoming discussions of how governments use propaganda, and how algorithms, social media, and platforms shape what we see.
6. **Come prepared to use these readings in class**
– Bring your brief notes and any questions or confusions you have.
– Be ready to:
– Connect the readings to examples discussed in class (e.g., Operation Infection, social media propaganda, TikTok hooks).
– Reflect on how the authors’ arguments fit (or conflict) with your own experiences of consuming online content and propaganda-like messages.
—
ASSIGNMENT #2: Video Reflection Journal #1
You will record a short, casual video reflection (about 3–5 minutes) in which you talk in your own voice about what you are personally getting out of the course so far—our readings, topics, and in-class activities—without relying on AI-generated summaries or a written script. This assignment is meant to be interactive, low-pressure, and personal, and is one of the major components of your overall course grade.
Instructions:
1. **Understand the purpose and tone of the assignment**
– The goal is to show what **you** are thinking and feeling about the course material—**not** to produce a polished, formal mini-lecture.
– The instructor designed this specifically as a **casual, personal, interactive** assignment that can’t simply be outsourced to ChatGPT or another AI.
– Think of it as sitting down and explaining to your professor (and possibly your future self) how the course is landing with you so far.
2. **Choose a focus that is clearly connected to the course**
Pick one or two concrete things from the course so far as your main focus. For example, you might reflect on:
– Our discussions about the **difference between propaganda 30 years ago and today**, and how the **internet and social media** have changed the scale and speed of propaganda.
– The example of **Operation Infection** and how disinformation used to be spread through newspapers, TV, and pamphlets vs. today’s TikToks, reels, and algorithms.
– The class activity where your group designed **misinformation strategies** and then reworked them as **TikTok-style hooks** targeting specific emotions and identities.
– Your own habits of consuming short-form content (TikTok, Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts) and how they relate to what we discussed about **emotional hooks**, **clickbait**, and information overload.
– A particularly interesting **reading**, **conversation in a breakout room**, or **in-class debate** that has stayed in your mind.
Your topic is flexible, as long as:
– It is **directly relevant** to the topics and readings we have discussed so far.
– You are giving **your own personal thoughts and beliefs** about those topics.
3. **Plan your key points—but do NOT write a script**
– Jot down a few bullet points to organize your thoughts, for example:
– What you’re focusing on (e.g., “propaganda then vs. now,â€� “TikTok hooks and identity,â€� “Operation Infection and the internetâ€�).
– What you **understand so far** about that topic.
– What you **find confusing or questionable**, and any **questions** you want to raise.
– How this connects to **your own experience** (e.g., social media use, news consumption, your family’s media habits).
– You **may glance at bullet points** while you speak.
– You **must not**:
– Read from a fully written script.
– Recite AI-generated text.
– The instructor was explicit: *“The only way that you can get this wrong is if you read from a script… If it’s obvious that you’re just reading a script, you’re going to have points deducted.â€�*
4. **Record your video (3–5 minutes, casual style)**
– Length: aim for **about 3 minutes**, and stay within **3–5 minutes**.
– Set up your recording so that:
– Your **face is visible** and the lighting is adequate.
– Your **voice is clear** and easy to hear.
– Speak in a **natural, conversational tone**—it should sound like you are talking to a real person, not delivering a memorized monologue.
– In the video, try to include:
1. A **brief introduction**: your name and what you’re focusing on in this reflection.
2. A **short summary** (in your own words) of the reading(s), class discussion, or activity you’re responding to.
3. Your **personal reaction**:
– What makes sense to you?
– What surprised or bothered you?
– What questions did it raise?
4. At least one **connection to your own experience** outside class:
– For example, how you see propaganda in your own news feed, how your relatives talk about online information, or how you respond emotionally to clickbait or political content.
5. Any **remaining questions or doubts** you’d like to carry into future classes.
5. **Keep the content authentic and your own**
– Use your own language, even if it feels informal. “Casualâ€� and “personalâ€� are features, not bugs, in this assignment.
– You can absolutely mention that something is confusing to you or that you’re unsure about a concept; that is welcome.
– Do **not**:
– Have ChatGPT or any AI write your reflection and then read it.
– Try to sound “perfectâ€� or overly academic at the expense of honesty.
– The main serious way to lose points is to make it obvious that you’re reading a script instead of speaking freely.
6. **Upload your video to a hosting platform**
– You may use **YouTube (unlisted)**, **Google Drive**, or another platform that allows you to generate a **shareable link**.
– Check that:
– The **privacy settings** still allow your instructor to view the video (e.g., “Anyone with the link can viewâ€�).
– The link actually opens and plays the video from another device or browser (test it if possible).
7. **Submit your video link on the course site**
– Copy the shareable link to your video.
– Go to the **Video Reflection Journal #1** submission area on the course site.
– Paste your link in the designated field (and add any brief comment if the submission form asks for one).
– Confirm that your submission has been recorded.
8. **Observe the deadline**
– Submit your link **no later than next Friday**, **February 13** (the day before Valentine’s Day), as stated in class.
– Late submissions may affect your grade according to the course policy in the syllabus.
9. **If you need additional clarification**
– For any remaining questions about grading criteria or formatting, you may:
– Re-check the detailed description of the video reflection journals in the **syllabus**.
– Bring questions to class or contact the instructor before the deadline, especially if you are unsure about technical issues (e.g., how to upload or share the link).