TIPRR 1

While reading the Buckingham text, I was reminded of something that I have seen in the workplace is the evolving choices regarding identity. I work, and have worked, primarily with college age employees who are, for all intensive purposes, developing their identities. Most, recently leaving home and high school, find themselves seeking a newer sense of identity – a way to define who they are. As we discussed and read regarding media literacy education in Jenkins’ article, part of what media has done in its more participatory culture is the increased opportunity for self-expression. This expression, without hesitation, allows the individual to explore his or her internal roots and to find justification or reinvention based on collaborative efforts from readership, online communities, etc. What this means to me is that our current medias help in the evolution of the individual identity as a part of culture and multiple cultures. But they, by no means, are the determinant factor but merely a contributing factor where the individual then makes a choice to act within the context given and thus they are making choices in their media culture that lead them to evolving a sense of personal identity whereas young adults previously developed their identity merely through their choices of major or work; the outward world defined the individual. Media creates a new domain with which to exercise preferences and growth opportunities – thus influencing identity.

I have seen the formation of belief systems almost entirely based on the work that the individual does and those who surround them have a profound influence on their future business and work experience (despite what their major may be). But, more often than not, I have seen the individual categorizing their lives with work, home life, school, and another dimension that has given them some sense of liberation: the media. These individual belief systems, from a media education standpoint, are formed by those we interact with through the media (because media is not only a filmic, television, or literary experience, but an ongoing growing process of participation). The book puts it this way: “identity comes to be seen as a matter of individual choice, rather than birthright or destiny; and in the process, it is argued, individuals have also become more diverse – and to some extent more autonomous – in their uses and interpretations of cultural goods” (pg 16). This is a long way of saying: media has allowed for choices in identity.

The challenge in this context is that wider choices can be made than before but those choices are very much influenced within the communities that are participated in on an intercultural level. “Children are being ‘empowered’ and yet simultaneously denied the opportunity to exercise control” (pg. 22). The boundaries being let loose have created a dichotomy that is hard for individuals to grasp because there is a new vocabulary necessary to handle the new culture that they are involved in, and which is giving them some degree of power but is also pressing an intertextuality and interactivity that takes the individual across “landscapes” of media and increasingly are more connected with merchandising product upon product in a mass communication of consumerism which the individual is not always aware of because they do not have the means or know-how to deal with this paradigm. The individual has a new way of forming identity but that identity is controlled by businesses using media to help form the belief systems that compose the identity without the individual being entirely conscious of these effects. My question is, how do we effectively help children (and young adults) navigate through the consumer culture inherent in today's "trans-media intertextuality"?

TIPPR 1

After dividing the history of media education into the categories of discrimination, demystification, and democratization (I appreciate the alliteration), the David Buckingham text has a section labeled, “Towards a new paradigm,” in which Buckingham outlines a shift in ideas about media. Many of the concepts were applicable to the discussion we had in class and to my personal experiences. One major point was that the younger educators today who grew up with more media access are less likely to be opposed to the media intake of the their students. This immediately made me think of video games. Sharon even jabbed Erika in the ribs a little bit last week for her admitted Wii usage. I have played video games all my life. Computer time in elementary school was typing for ten minutes and Oregon Trail [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GH0-hr1u_k] for 40 minutes, Super Techmo Bowl [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PBvOxicz-0] is what I remember most about spending time with my older brothers, and junior high was up all night with my friends and Golden Eye or WCW vs. NWO.


These games really marked big social moments in my life. I am the youngest of 6 and my oldest brothers were out of the house by the time I was 6 years old and it may seem a little ridiculous, but of the things they liked, Super Tecmo Bowl was one of the few things I could do with them. Although video games didn’t play as much of a role for me in high school and I don’t think anyone would consider me a gamer, I still have a sympathetic view of the positive role a game can play in development.
On this idea of an education more accepting of students’ experiences, Buckingham writes, “it adopts a more student-centered perspective, which begins from young people’s existing knowledge and experience of media, rather than from the instructional imperatives of the teacher. It does not aim to shield young people from the influence of the media, and thereby to lead them on to ‘better things’, but to enable them to make informed decisions on their own behalf.”
I remember my teachers not being interested in what I liked, but instead trying very hard to get me interested in what they liked. Which is fine, but perhaps because of that experience I can be more open to what the students have to bring to the table and they may be more open to what I have as well. This is a form of teaching that I am trying to become more comfortable with. At times, I would prefer to type out my lecture and present it to the class without interruption, but having them bring texts to present to the class and to share their ideas with everyone creates the environment that we want and it also ensure that I am more fluent with the material and able to enhance the discussion instead of stopping it so that I can get back to my PowerPoint.

TIPPR 1

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?

TIPRR 1

Each year, I start my class with a unit on how to analyze and synthesize text. It’s a good place to start, because if you can’t closely examine literature and draw out universal concepts and applications, then there really is no point to a literature class.

During the course of this unit, as a class, we also address the issue of text, and what defines a text. Buckingham opens our reading by defining medium as “a substance or a channel through which effects or information can be transmitted” and the media texts as the “programmes, films, websites (and so on) that are carried by [modern communications media]” (3). This is exactly what I teach my kids. I absolutely love the idea that the text can be defined in a way that includes more than just novels, short stories, poetry, and articles of various sorts. In fact, we even do an assignment where we break down many different types of text, from art to film, none of which are actually written. It is through the analysis of these media texts that I am finally able to see various “light bulbs” start to flicker. Kids who have never been able to understand an actual written text are finally able to understand the analytical process by utilizing the same skill set on something with which they are familiar: the media. Not only is it a fun experience for students, but for me, this “[recognizing] and [building] upon…students’ everyday cultural experiences” has make a significant impact in my classroom, because once these skills are developed, the transfer of knowledge to literary text is actually quite simple (8). Based solely on their appeal to students, using media texts within a classroom is a smart idea, but when coupled with the idea that these texts can also make more “traditional” types of knowledge more accessible to students—I’m sold. The unfortunate thing is that often these texts are used improperly, thereby making all media a “lazy teacher’s crutch.” (For more of my feelings regarding this phenomenon, check out my response to Erika’s Aladdin anecdote.)

Another textual concept discussed that I found to be intriguing, especially within the English classroom is the idea of intertextuality. It used to be that the most connection you would get would be if authors used allusions within their work, and if you were familiar with the Bible or with Shakespeare’s writings, you had a pretty good chance of understanding underlying meanings and messages. In contemporary media, as pointed out by Buckingham, “texts are constantly referring to and drawing upon other texts,” assuming that their audiences will be aware of the other media being referenced, and not really bothering to make even important references blatantly obvious. In fact, seeing if you can “catch the references” has almost become a game within programs like The Simpsons and The Gilmore Girls, both of which are so much more entertaining if you are familiar with a myriad of movies, television shows, video games, and musical artists in addition to the more traditional authors and poets. (One of the most refreshing things about both of these programs is the fact that they do use “high culture” as well as “popular culture.” As a teacher of “the classics” I am even a bit grateful, because sometimes there is interest sparked in favor of a particular work of literature.) In connection with this idea, it would be interesting to me, as an English teacher, to teach two different classes on literary devices, one where I focused on the interconnectivity of “traditional” text through allusion, and another where I focused solely on this idea of intertextuality, using various genres of media text to study the same concepts. In the end, I’m sure the students in the second group would, at least initially, have less knowledge regarding “classic literature,” but that wouldn’t be the point. What I wonder is if the second group would have a better handle on the concepts and would then be able to connect their newfound knowledge to those same classic texts, eventually making up for “lost time” because they are able to comprehend more quickly. I have no idea how it would turn out, but I would venture that it’s worth a shot, at least.

Because I could go on about literacy forever and because I’m already waxing extremely long, I think I’ll save that discussion for class, and instead end with this: I am extremely intrigued by the idea of interactive media. The idea that the distinction between reader and writer is being eliminated is very interesting. As I read, I was reminded of the old Choose Your Own Adventure books. Could it really be that those who play video games are actually writing what amounts to the ultimate Choose Your Own Adventure? I absolutely loved those books, and so, if this is the case, I now have a schema for understanding the fascination with the video game. Hmmm…how can I incorporate this into my curriculum? Would it be that far of a stretch to imagine a Nintendo Wii game entitled Lord of the Flies or even The Crucible? And if they did exist, how many of my kids would become interested in the original novels? After all, there’s nothing like a “based on…” tag to inspire curiosity.

TIPRR 1

Beginnings are hard for me. Here we go.

A few months ago, I was talking to my younger sister about media in schools and she mentioned that she had a few teachers who would probably drive me crazy. I asked for an example, and she said that after doing a unit on the Middle East her teacher had shown them Disney’s Aladdin as a reward. (She was right about my being annoyed; I hold this practice on par with giving the winner of a weight loss contest a lifetime supply of Twinkies.) This experience (and the many like it that I have in my own memory) demonstrates the vital need for media education in the classroom: simply bringing media into the classroom is not enough. In fact, using media in this way—as a treat rather than a text—engenders a culture of passivity for young people, as if media is something to engage with after the ‘real’ work is done rather than treating it as the large influence on modern culture that it actually is.

The Buckingham reading is simultaneously inspiring and frustrating for me. I'm in agreement about many issues that he presents, but I also find it a little frustrating how few actual answers Buckingham provides to some of his own questions. I fully acknowledge that the forthcoming chapters do provide some answers as to pedagogical strategies, but to this point in the reading the most common note I have written in the margins is, “How do we do this?” While this might just show that I need to work on writing more helpful notes to myself, it also points to the main point of Buckingham’s book thus far: Media Education is desperately needed in theory, and somewhat complicated in practice.

The initial difference that Buckingham sets up between democratization and defensiveness is quite helpful, especially when use them to find our own motivation for pursuing media education. On one end of the spectrum we have defensiveness, which seeks to protect or ‘inoculate’ youth from the perceived (and real) dangers of media. On the other we have democratization, which recognizes that students use media regularly, and that media should be incorporated into the classroom in order to make education relevant to the students’ out of school lives. One camp asserts that youth need to be sheltered from media influences, and the other asserts that they should be allowed to roam free within the media landscape.

If we hold that virtue is the midpoint between two vices, then the ideal pedagogical standpoint seeks to reconcile these two tendencies (as Buckingham points out). This sounds great on paper, but actually making this work in practice is much more difficult (perhaps it is only difficult for me). Even though I always try to remember that “MLE is not about revealing to students the ‘true’ or ‘correct’ or ‘hidden’ meaning of media messages, nor is it about identifying which media messages are ‘good’ and which ones are ‘bad,’” (CPMLE 6.3) when teaching media analyses (especially to younger students) it is always tempting to try to find the “hidden” meanings, to point out the ways that we are being led to believe what we believe about a text. It is also especially challenging to not try to find the “right” answer, as there tend not to be right or wrong arguments, only supported and unsupported arguments.

One overwhelming thing that I feel while reading Buckingham (and the Core Principles, and the Jenkins reading) is that media education is bigger than one subject; it is a teaching philosophy and practice that needs to be integrated into all aspects of the curriculum. Going back to my initial example, in the same amount of time that it took the teacher to allow the students to watch Aladdin, they could have instead had a discussion about American portrayal of Middle Eastern culture, replete with other examples, treating Aladdin as the text it is rather than a treat merely for consumption.

This reality—that media education is a pedagogical strategy rather than a specific subject— makes it slightly difficult for me to see clearly where I fit in the picture. I approach media education from a film background (as evidenced by Hands on a Camera’s focus on filmmaking), but media education encompasses multiple media forms and their various uses. Ideally in Hands on a Camera we will discuss other forms of media, but the process can only go so far if students do not then engage with that material within the context of other school subjects.