Getting into the practical application of principles that we have studied was very exciting. It was exciting because it meant figuring out ways to teach and train on how media works and developing those preparatory skills for students to interface with media. I was especially drawn to the teaching techniques of simulation and production. For example, when Buckingham talked about developing simulating a rock band, my mind went to the video game “Rock Band” (of which I believe Amberly “rips” [is that the right word?]) and its interactive use in the classroom. Conceivably, the classroom could divide into different bands, even do some “jam sessions” by playing the game, and discover their distinctive styles. Then, as they simulate the performance aspect of their band, they could go through and discuss how their band should continue on the road to success: How should it market itself? How should it get a manager, agent, etc? Who is their audience and how do they attract a larger segment of that same audience? What is their true product? I think it would be both fun and educational, plus it would require a great deal of their thinking about things that they otherwise would not think about concerning the “industry.” If these things were linked back to “reality” a great deal of understanding could be discovered along the way. This was very interesting and led to me really thinking about the subject that began to bug me: What are we advocating in our program of study?
I couldn’t help but wonder, “Are we concerned with teaching about media, or teaching about how to use media to innovate in our classrooms?” Perhaps we are doing both. The evidence behind the Jenkins text tells us that we innovate in our classrooms. The evidence behind Buckingham was overwhelmingly about teaching us to teach about media. But all of the above are falling under the umbrella of “media education” which is defying definition, it seems. We talked on Tuesday about how we used media as a jumping off point to get to talking about the “real” subject matters. There was discussion about us becoming advocates for the use of media in education, but I’m not sure where I should be focusing: using media to teach or teaching about media? Or both?
Now, switching gears a little, I love the discussion about expertise: “There is some truth in the argument that, when it comes to media education, teachers are no longer the experts. Nevertheless, there is likely to be a great deal that students do not already know, and which it is important for teachers to teach.” In my experience, I usually have worked with those who do know better about the product and service provided, but it has always been my experience that I am a “refiner of revelation” and I help them focus and use their personal expertise to get to new levels of understanding and performance. As a teacher, it is necessary to help bring out productive answers to questions you provide that insight thoughtful reflection and Buckingham helps give a framework for doing so in the classroom regarding media. This was very exciting because I’ve noticed that those younger than I certainly know more about media than I but I believe with proper understanding of media pedagogy I can help students effectively.
2 comments:
Last year I was at a grant writing conference, and after I read the "mission statement" that I had written for Hands on a Camera (or, to be more accurate, one that I had modified from one that Amy had written on a previous grant), one particularly vocal participant said that there was no way that she would fund me because it just sounded like "I just wanted to teach kids how to play video games better", to which I replied, "Of course!" I now realize that she might have thought that I meant that we were all about teaching kids how to rip on guitar hero like Amberly, but what I meant was that I wanted kids to play video games (and all forms of media) smarter, to "[think critically] about the messages [they] receive and create" (CPMLE 1). I believe that media education is not merely about integrating technology into the classrooms (although this is important), but about teaching students how to be more informed, critical, and autonomous agents in the media landscape.
I LOVE your phrase, “refiner of revelation.” A teacher of critical thinking, which seems to be to be central to the idea of media education, no matter how we look at it or interpret it, is just that. These teachers focus on teaching kids how to think. If you are truly teaching critical thinking, you’re not telling them what to think, you’re not giving them the revelation itself, you’re just giving them the tools necessary to better interpret what they have at hand; you’re helping them to refine the process so that they can better analyze and synthesize for understanding. I think that the problem Erika ran into at her conference was the fact that her objectives had to do with media, rather than with art, or science, or history—something that’s seen as a “real” subject. So, here we are again, back at the need to change people’s perceptions regarding the media in general, and more specifically regarding its legitimate place in the classroom.
Post a Comment