As I did this week’s reading, I was troubled by two issues that I see as being related and problematic when looking at the implementation of media literacy programs in today’s public school system.
First, like Jenkins, Buckingham placed a strong emphasis on the participatory nature of modern media culture and the need for media education to teach students to not only be critical consumers of media but also to be active participants in media culture through the manufacture of their own media, so how do I as an educator facilitate that process? How do I use media in my classroom so that students are participating in a dialogue and not merely passive observers or critics? It really does seem to require that media education be taught not as an independent subject but as an integrated element in every subject. The difficulty I foresee with this is that education seems to be particularly resistant to systemic changes and paradigm shifts. Even today when countless studies show that children learn in a variety of ways and when the idea of multiple intelligences is generally accepted, the most common form of assessment is still standardized testing and rote memorization. Additionally, when new technologies are brought into classrooms they are often only employed as substitutes for older tools, i.e. computers are used as typewriters while ignoring all of the other benefits they have for student use.
My second concern lies with the question of access, specifically if it is necessary for a media literate student to not only critique media but also create it, how do we ensure that all children have access to participate? I know we’ve discussed that media literacy can be taught via low tech but I still feel that those students who lack access to the more high tech end of modern media culture are going to be operating at a greater disadvantage than their more technologically wealthy peers. Again, I see this as a large hurdle to the systemic implementation of media education in this country. The academic achievement gap in this country is a significant one, so how can we ensure that media literacy does not become one more area in which learners from low-income socio-economic backgrounds are disadvantaged?
3 comments:
Ever since class on Tuesday, I have been thinking about the same thing that you bring up here. How do we integrate media education into the classroom when the very nature of our educational system is “resistant to systemic changes and paradigm shifts”? I know that there are those of the newer, “younger” generation of teachers that have done very well in some aspects of media integration, but as you point out, due to lack of access for many students, it never feels as if I have ever been 100% successful. Add to it the fact that no funding is ever based on a student’s ability to “read” media, and there goes all administrative support. Okay, now I know that sounded really negative, and there are many, many administrators out there who would be wonderfully supportive in promoting media literacy. However, the ones who would be financially able to do so are often not the ones who have the most need to. If the school has money, oftentimes, so do the families in that area. Is it just a matter of rethinking how we fund schools? I’d venture a “no” on that one, but is that a place to start?
Hmmm...funding and administrators. Polarization between the ‘technology rich’ and the ‘technology poor.’ It would seem that the answer to these questions, and the ability to truly influence the changes necessary in these areas, would need something monumental to do so. Right now with NCLB (or whatever overriding educational philosophy is motivating administrators), how does the use of media fit in? What behaviors need changing? Which of these administrative behaviors, if changed, make the biggest difference? How do you help these administrators believe it will be worth it? Even if you knew all the answers to these questions, it seems you would have to go on a crusade to make changes happen. After all, politically speaking (since politics are governing our educational system) that’s what employing lobbyists is all about. Also, it kills me the “the most common form of assessment is still standardized testing and rote memorization.” I’m hoping that our course of study in this program will possibly help us answer some of these questions to influencing the educational system to becoming more attuned to modern media and thus affecting politicians and administrators to supporting their own causes and begin bridging that achievement gap due to technology access.
What is the role of the school and public libraries in this discussion of accessibility? Are there concerns other than transportation to the public library? Is the city/public library not set up to accommodate the media expectations of an educator? I have spoken with the Orem Library media center employees and they seem underworked and under-appreciated. Are they a possible solution for someone without higher personal means? What does the school library do? Does it close with the last bell? Could that be a location for students to accomplish what Media Education asks of them? Lots of questions and there may be very a simple "no" for each question, but is the problem only access? It seems like there are computers everywhere. My wife is a 3rd grade school teacher and she has a computer in her room for the students and their is a computer lab and a media center/library. It is a Title One school (so that may be why) and students are always there on the computers outside of their designated computer time. Are there enough computers to accommodate the students who don't have one in their home? We didn't have the Internet in my home, so I would go to the library or to a neighbor's house to do research for school, but the library was only a couple miles away, so I could walk there and I lived in a neighborhood where people had computers. Accessibility has to mean more than just having a computer you can sit in front of.
Post a Comment