Mass Media and Sustainability: Using the U.N. Global Goal to Transform Your Teaching
Lesson plan for an undergraduate introductory Digital Media and Journalism course (~50 students lecture).
🔁This content is yours to use. Download it, remix it, adapt it, share it—make it work for your community.
After reading the lesson plan, please refer to the bottom of the lesson plan for self-reflection questions to assist with your next steps!
I. WHAT / HOW / WHY
WHAT
Students critically evaluate the role of U.S. mass media—including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), television news, newspapers, radio, and social media platforms—in promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions, using the First Amendment and U.N. Global Goal 16 as analytical frameworks. Students assess whether contemporary media systems support democratic values such as access to information, institutional accountability, and inclusive participation.
HOW
Students engage in structured democratic inquiry through discussion, polling, collaborative analysis, and written reflection. They define what role media should play in democracy, evaluate media performance using Global Goal 16 criteria, analyze concrete examples using live polling software, identify systemic challenges, and propose potential reforms or policy solutions. Their future reflection assignment will synthesize their thinking with evidence-based reasoning and specific media examples.
WHY
Media systems are foundational to democratic society, informed citizenship, and achieving Global Goal 16’s aim of building peaceful, justice, and accountable institutions. By evaluating media through the lens of Global Goal 16, students move beyond description to critical analysis of how communication systems support or undermine justice institutions. Students reorient their common perceptions of media: not only asking what media is, but what media ought to be. The lesson builds civic literacy and critical media evaluation skills essential for democratic participation.
II. Objectives
Students will be able to:
Define Global Goal 16 in their own words.
Explain how media systems relate to democratic institutions and sustainability.
Evaluate how well media promotes peace, justice, and institutional accountability in contemporary society.
Become more critical voters themselves AND support policies and reforms to improve the media system along these lines.
III. Key Inquiry Question (Adapted for UN Global Goal 16)
What should the role of media be in ensuring peace, justice, and strong institutions in contemporary society?
How well does mass media fulfill that role in your view?
Students will consider what “fake news” means and what it looks like across different mediums.
IV. Lesson Activities and Methodology
Initial Discussion: Students engage in a live class discussion about what the role of media should be in a democratic society and then evaluate how well the media is meeting that goal.
Live Polling Component: During class, the instructor includes a live polling component, Poll Everywhere, which allows students to rate the ability of mass media to promote, following from UN Global Goal 16:
Peace
Justice
Strong Institutions
Overall Success in real time.
Contextual Sharing: After results for each survey are displayed, students provide context on factors that guided their voting decisions. Where do we see consensus? Where is there disagreement? What explains the variation?
Small Group Brainstorm: Students break into small groups to discuss the primary challenges facing media in a democracy today and consider some possible solutions or changes they think are necessary. Focus on challenges facing the media system in promoting an informed citizenry and potential solutions, such as policy changes, which are needed.
In a 50-student lecture, groups are formed informally to maximize time efficiency. No pre-assigned grouping is used in order to preserve instructional time and maintain momentum in a large lecture setting.
Individual Reflection: Students complete a Student Reflection Paper.
Deliverables:
Poll Everywhere Group Discussion
Small Group Brainstorm Exercise
Written Reflection Paper
V. Rationale and Context
This lesson builds on the course’s broader focus on the history, regulation, and social impact of American mass media. Freedom of speech and public access to information are foundational to democratic governance, and regulatory bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission were shaped by those ideals. Students therefore must evaluate whether contemporary media systems uphold or undermine these democratic principles. The assignment helps students reflect and evaluate the role of our media in democracy, which is an important foundation for critical thinking. These are capacities needed to be an informed voter in the democratic process.
VI. Materials & Assessment
Required Materials
Poll Everywhere OR some live polling component.
Assessment
Student Reflection Paper: A written reflection is required.
When considering media’s role in ensuring peace, justice, and strong institutions, students will be asked to also consider the following questions:
How would you define Global Goal 16, “peace, justice, and strong institutions” in your own words? What does the goal mean to you?
Why is Global Goal 16 important, particularly in a democracy?
How well is the U.S. media fulfilling the role of supporting peace, justice, and strong institutions? (You must provide some practical examples, rather than speaking generally. For instance, you could argue Tik Tok promotes justice by offering ordinary Americans a platform to talk about their struggles and identify a particular example of that that you have witnessed.)
Rubric: A rubric is provided with the paper assignment, which evaluates student ability to address all the required three components (peace, justice, strong institutions) as well as the strength of the examples they include to support their position.
Rubrics for Media Response
Media Response 1 Rubric (Total: 20 points)
1. Definition of Global Goal 16 (4 points)
Excellent (4 points)
Clearly defines Global Goal 16 in the student’s own words. Demonstrates accurate understanding of peace, justice, and strong institutions without relying on vague or copied language.
Good (3 points)
Defines Global Goal 16 mostly accurately in the student’s own words, with minor imprecision.
Meets Expectations (2 points)
Provides a partial or somewhat unclear definition. May rely on general or overly broad language.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
Definition is inaccurate, missing, or largely copied without interpretation.
2. Explanation of Importance (Including Democracy) (4 points)
Excellent (4 points)
Thoughtfully explains why Global Goal 16 matters, including a clear connection to democratic systems (e.g., accountability, transparency, participation, rule of law).
Good (3 points)
Explains importance and references democracy, though analysis may be somewhat general.
Meets Expectations (2 points)
Mentions importance but provides limited explanation or weak connection to democracy.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
Minimal or unclear explanation of importance; democracy not addressed.
3. Argument & Position on Contemporary Media (6 points)
Excellent (6 points)
Takes a strong, original, and clearly articulated position on how well contemporary media supports (or fails to support) peace, justice, and strong institutions. Argument is creative, analytical, and well-developed.
Good (4–5 points)
Takes a clear position with some originality and support, though argument may not be fully developed.
Meets Expectations (2–3 points)
Position is present but vague, obvious, or insufficiently supported.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
No clear position or argument.
4. Use of Concrete, Recent Examples (Within the Last Month) (4 points)
Excellent (4 points)
Provides specific, concrete examples from the student’s own media experiences within the past month (U.S. or global media). Examples clearly support the argument.
Good (3 points)
Provides examples from recent media use, though connection to argument may be somewhat general.
Meets Expectations (2 points)
Examples are present but vague, not clearly from the last month, or weakly connected to the argument.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
Examples missing, unclear, or not based on personal recent experience.
5. Organization, Clarity, and Word Limit (2 points)
Excellent (2 points)
Well-organized, clearly written, carefully edited, and does not exceed 500 words.
Meets Expectations (1 point)
Generally organized and readable, minor editing issues, and stays within 500 words.
Needs Improvement (0 points)
Disorganized, significant writing issues, or exceeds 500 words.
Media Response 2 Rubric (Total: 25 Points)
1. Application of Course Examples: Media Supporting Global Goal 16 (5 points)
Excellent (5 points)
Incorporates detailed, accurate, and thoughtfully applied examples from the course demonstrating how media supports peace, justice, and strong institutions. Selects a few strong examples and analyzes them in depth. Clearly connects examples to the overall argument.
Good (4 points)
Uses appropriate course examples with generally accurate application, though analysis may lack depth or specificity.
Meets Expectations (2–3 points)
Includes examples but discussion is limited, somewhat vague, or insufficiently connected to the argument.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
Examples are inaccurate, underdeveloped, or missing.
2. Application of Course Examples: Media Undermining Global Goal 16 (5 points)
Excellent (5 points)
Incorporates detailed, accurate, and thoughtfully applied examples from the course demonstrating how media undermines peace, justice, or strong institutions. Provides clear analytical connections to the central argument.
Good (4 points)
Uses relevant course examples with generally accurate application, though explanation may lack depth.
Meets Expectations (2–3 points)
Includes examples but analysis is limited or insufficiently connected to the argument.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
Examples are inaccurate, underdeveloped, or missing.
3. Comparative Reflection on Media Response 1 (4 points)
Excellent (4 points)
Provides a clear and thoughtful comparison between current views and those expressed in Media Response 1. Demonstrates intellectual development, refinement, or clarification of perspective.
Good (3 points)
Provides comparison with some reflection, though discussion may lack depth.
Meets Expectations (2 points)
Mentions prior position but comparison is brief or underdeveloped.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
Little or no comparison to Media Response 1.
4. Perspective on an Improved Media System (3 points)
Excellent (3 points)
Articulates at least one clear, substantive perspective on what a more peaceful, equitable, or democratic media system should entail. Demonstrates independent and critical thinking.
Good (2 points)
Provides a perspective, though it may be somewhat general or limited in scope.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
Perspective is unclear, overly vague, or absent.
5. Argument & Position on U.S. Media (6 points)
Excellent (6 points)
Takes a strong, clearly articulated, and well-corroborated position on how well U.S. media supports peace, justice, and strong institutions. Argument is informed by course material, analytically developed, and demonstrates originality.
Good (4–5 points)
Presents a clear position supported by course material, though analysis may not be fully developed.
Meets Expectations (2–3 points)
Position is present but vague, insufficiently supported, or primarily descriptive.
Needs Improvement (0–1 point)
No clear position or argument.
6. Organization, Clarity, and Word Limit (2 points)
Excellent (2 points)
Well-organized, clearly written, carefully edited, and does not exceed 750 words.
Meets Expectations (1 point)
Generally organized and readable, minor editing issues, and remains within the word limit.
Needs Improvement (0 points)
Disorganized, significant writing issues, or exceeds the 750-word limit.
SELF-REFLECTION: INVITATION FOR EDUCATORS:
1) Begin with your own relationship to media and democracy
When you consume news, which outlets or platforms do you turn to, and why? How might your own media habits shape the assumptions you bring into the classroom?
Think of a recent moment when media coverage of an issue felt unjust, misleading, or empowering to you personally. How could that moment become a teaching entry point?
How comfortable are you discussing media failures or political bias in front of students? What would help you feel more grounded when the conversation gets charged?
2) Examine your assumptions about student knowledge and civic engagement
What do your students already know about how media is regulated, funded, or owned? Where might their knowledge surprise you or challenge your framing?
Do you assume your students are disengaged from civic life, or do you look for the ways they are already participating (through social media, local activism, cultural commentary)? How might that assumption shape who speaks up in class?
Which voices or media forms are you implicitly centering in your examples—and whose experiences might be missing from the version of “the media system” you present?
3) Connect the lesson’s goals to your broader teaching experience
Global Goal 16 asks students to evaluate institutions critically. What other institutions beyond media could this same analytical framework be applied to in your course?
The lesson asks students to move from description to critique to reform. Where else in your course do students get practice imagining something better, not just analyzing what exists?
How do you personally hold the tension between teaching critical skepticism of media and avoiding cynicism that makes students feel powerless?
4) Think about what transformation looks like in your classroom
If a student left this class changed in how they consume or evaluate media, what would that look like six months from now? What is one habit or behavior you hope students carry out of this classroom and into their daily media consumption? How does your lesson design support that?
What would it mean for your students to become critical participants of media, or people who produce, share, contest, or reform media themselves?
Where in this lesson is there space for students to be vulnerable about their own media experiences, including misinformation they’ve believed or shared? How can you model that kind of honesty yourself?