Media Literacy in Schools

Public schools are in need of a huge shift in paradigm beginning with an unbiased examination of their purpose, mission statement, affordances, curriculum, culture and politics. 

Is it the purpose of public schools to truly serve their population, the entire population, regardless of class, gender, socioeconomic situation and political/religious affiliations?

 Is it their responsibility to prepare young people for success in the 21^st century? Who decides what success looks like? Is it functional literacy? And is the participation gap with unequal access contributing to the possibility of yet another cultural divide, a “new cultural elite”? (Ivey, 2006) Is there funding for after school programing to create some catch up? The new donated 3d printer in my school looks like job training to me. 

 Is the purpose of education to create engaged citizenship? Then why have civics classes been reduced to boring and irrelevant? (Bennett, 2008) My high school students tell me that in their Civics class there are few discussions about current events, opinions are stifled and course content essentially describes the structure of the hierarchy, no commentary. (Well, that’s a class I could not teach. Perhaps it is an exercise in doing as you are told. I can’t believe ANY teacher has nothing to say in that arena) Lots of packets of information.

(Before installing a collaborative student art project about personal and cultural identity, I passed along a quick image for administrative approval…regular protocol. I was surprised to be questioned about the reason for the prominent inclusion of the Virgin of Guadalupe. No mention was made of the symbol representing  the Marines or  the creepy masked character  from some graphically violent movie)  

 Why is critical thinking an optimal skill set in math and science, and critical inquiry as discourse de-emphasized? Why is STEM more rigorously promoted, when almost all research in cognitive studies support STEAM? (The A is for art…creative, open ended problem solving, expression, materials exploration, visual literacy, perceptual acuity, self-reflection, meta cognition, inquiry and historic reference) Schools need to regard the arts as important culturally, personally and, socially….This is one place in the school where identity can be explored, eyes wide open.

Why are phones allowed in schools? Who designs protocol and socially accepted practices? Are we afraid of the fallout? Or perhaps the police state that would ensue….I get it…kind of.

 Are we educating students that there are several modes of communication… that the linguistics/language they use for social communication is not appropriate to be successful in the “conventional” world? Or that rude is just rude, and hurtful is hurtful, even if there isn’t a physical body interacting with the communication.

 Old and new literacies need to be melded, compared and practiced with relevance. Students should be asked to write to an editor or a Politian about something that's just plain wrong, or write to someone they admire, a musician. Start a dialog with an expert or a student from another country. Do journal entries, practice public speaking. Have them interview someone in their community, or the person in their classroom who they know nothing about.  Blog, chat make videos and short animations …say something important or funny or that expresses a concern. Develop a voice…then figure out how to make it appropriate in all arenas.. Be exposed to spoken word, share your music of choice, write authentically about a cultural experience, listen to people telling stories, and learn to deconstruct an ad.Discuss, confer, argue if need be, support you comments with evidence.

In our school we have a Women’s Studies class, an LGBT and more club, an Advertising Media class and a student run TV station (Although very censored). They are all electives. A small portion of the population participates.

 Shouldn’t these discussions be a part of the mandated curriculum? How to 

use a  condom  is part of Health class...., thankfully I might add. 

   

And where are our parents?  Bill Ivey, the former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts , and Steven J.Tepper a professor of Sociology,  in an article  in the Chronicle of Higher Education(2006),  address the  necessity of parents taking an active role in children’s earliest relationships to media. Parents lack basic information that help them to understand expanding media options, so in general and understandably, they act as gatekeepers. But some studies show that exposure and adult guidance and discussion helps children to navigate media by making meaningful choices. They learn about consequences and develop appropriate behaviors. That being said, the reality of mummy and daddy standing by and sharing their children’s screen time experiences seems unrealistic.And if you haven't done it by middle school...FORGET IT!!!   I have a lot of students who don’t frequently see their parents, eat a home cooked meal or have heat where they live. Their guidance is social media exchanges with a cohort living in similar circumstance. For those parents who might get involved, there are few education programs for  and then there is the time factor

.

Parent education programs in my District have meager turn outs at best. Last week a program on teen violence attracted 16 parents.( A high school population of 2300)

Character education used to happen at home,and in the community.(Not to say it doesn't anymore. I am speaking to the "other" situations) Perhaps Jenkins supports participatory culture for this very reason. A group of people all ages, a community of choice, with mentors and role models working together. Nice image of functioning democratic framework. No whacky family dynamics involved and perhaps more support and acceptance then what is found in some real time, actual communities. Perhaps the next generation of the commune. It takes a village?

(I have several students who find solace and community through cos-play, sharing art on sites like DeviantArt, or through discussions on blogs about gender and mental health...conversations they may not engage at home.)

      

In general  Jenkins suggests three core competencies to be taught in the the new paradigm in schools in conjunction with traditional literacies. I would agree. I  think it is the responsibility of everyone to participate in the "education" of each other, particularly the youth. I keep telling them," You're in charge next, better get along and better figure out whats important."

• Affordances of technology in a participatory sense and the necessity to close the participation gap in a move toward democratic equality.
•   Transparency…equipping our students with strong literacy skills, and the ability to recognize the who, what, and why of various forms of communication produced at us as consumers of various media.
•  The ability to engage in critical inquiry, and to have the self-confidence and tools to be part of the dialog, to be producers of our collective cultural knowledge and to recognize our ability to create change.  

 Jenkins’ call to paradigm shift in education is supported by Green’s approach to literacy. Both frameworks encourage use of language (s), understanding context and content and recognition and critical analysis of the construction of knowledge. It all seems indistinguishable, interrelated and dependent . How do we start the revolution?

Resources:

Bennett. Lance,  “Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age “, c 2008 MIT, Creative Commons

Jenkins, Henry,” Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21^st Century”https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/9780262513623_Confronting_the_Challenges.pdf

“The Challenge Ahead: Ensuring that All Benefit from the Expanding Media Landscape”, Chronicle of Higher Education (May 19, 2006) Bill Ivey and Stephan Tepper

Deconstructing an Advertisement

I deconstructed a Johnny Walker Blue Label print ad.

 An unusual glowing bottle of booze, inferred urban setting, Gotham City in the distance, it's control definitely in the future. An office... sleek black desk, late at night, single shot poured in a fabulous crystal glass. A recently signed contract ...open fountain pen still warm laying beside the sign of victory.
Dark, corporate, stoic, stylized, dramatic. These seem like observations, unadulterated by context or association, right?
Then the list grew....sexy, powerful, masculine, grotesque in some way. Actually those are my  TV Mad Men associations....I can hear the sickly waning theme music.
Enters left, the text .
"An achievement of great distinction" (Only 1 in 10,000 casks are hand -selected for Blue Label,making it an accomplishment as rare as those who drink it.)

The bottle glows more brightly, eerily.  A transparent aqua blue, containing a golden liquid.
What does this bottle hold? An elixir of the gods? Something VERY special, powerful, desirable. Only few can attain it. A legend, "a rare spirit..."

The refractory light pinging off the single tumbler is smug, centered on the page,in control.
The contract reeks of corporate loopholes, people in charge, heirarchy, hegemony.
The oneness belonging to the pen,the solitary achievement, the self proclaimed iconic man in control of his and perhaps your destiny. Spirit of darkness?
The ad reeks of masculinity....or does it?( Is that sexist, or does Capitalism have  gender identification? Like in the Spanish language, a dog is pero...masculine, a door is puerta ...feminine.)

So there you have it...what I saw and what I read...two different things.

Is this ad socially responsible? I hadn't thought much about that before.

The ad does not promote irresponsible, reckless drinking behavior, or over indulgence.
What the ad does that is socially irresponsible is that it promotes a particular view of success. It supports the status- quo power structure and creates desire for individual elitist consumption.
  
It is important in our culture to teach critical visual literacy.
It starts with teaching students to slow down and look.
What do you see? What does it mean? and What makes you say that? Evidence based critical literacy.

Week6, Blog 4:Emerging Medias, Evolving Culturals

“If we have largely looked toward utopian, positive movement in network cultures, we note new threats emerging as well.”( Varnelis,p 159) (Green’s critical)

Looking at new medias and new literacies at this moment in time is pretty exciting. It seems that from every social, political and cultural perspective we are witnessing and participating in a monumental evolutionary shift in defining who we are as Modern Man. A socio-technological phenomena, as Mizuko Ito would refer to it. We are living in a time of rapidly emergent, evolving and uncharted territories. The affordances of technology and access to information combined with innovation and collaborative invention and usage has brought us some amazing abilities, advances and diversities. The ways that we spend our time, communicate, consume, manage, and the ways that we gather and share information in our day to day has changed. (Green’s operational)

What we know to be true in the world is no longer heard from several traditional media outlets that create monologues with content .We now have the capability to access information from many sources, many of which are “two way” in nature, allowing for response, query and discourse. New media provides a platform to publish that which isn’t discussed, or is omitted in traditional medias. Rachel Raquero reporting on emergent themes in new media…says that in Brazil, conventional media outlets are watching social media and responding in their reporting to discourse found there. Raquero recognizes that this may not change anything specifically, but it does create a possibility to deepen understanding by presenting different viewpoints and this has the potential to create debate. This is an example of social media referred to as “citizen media.” (Green’s cultural)

 Because social media affords an ability to share information and media with social cohorts, it is supporting the creation of youth social movements.  Youth create strategies to connect with others internationally on issues of global corruption, environmental and humanitarian concerns.

New ways to spread democracy, creating collective projects, and finding new forms of social mobilization have been afforded through new media and creative usage. Social media creates a platform for inter generational connection and communication. And in this ‘best of all possible worlds’,  Henry Jenkins recognizes the emergence of  a strong participatory culture…easy access, support your interests, connect to like minds, share the info, create change in magnitude and multitude. “Be the Change”.

Open source archives are contributed to daily for public use through public domain licensing.... sample, remix and create.

Social media is ubiquitous in youth culture. Have a phone? Don’t leave home without it.

Amazing good stuff and so much more, without a doubt.

And now for the flip side, which seems to be of concern to those who are studying this social phenomena.(I will premise the following discussion with the statement that across the board none of the reading I have done has advocated for abolishing the evil technology driven monster. Most development of social media, the internet and Web2.0  is viewed as an amazing set of tools, with the capacity to implement huge change…for global betterment  and are well received as cause for hope and inspiration.)

In Networked Publics we are cautioned or reminded that “All too often, discussions of contemporary society are depicted in the rosiest of terms. Sometimes this relentless optimism is a product of fatigue with outmoded modeled of criticism: sometimes this is just propaganda”(Varnelis,p.159) Saskia Sassen in her videoed talk entitled, “Network, Power and Democracy, “warns that it is a misconception that   technologically afforded openness of information and many choices necessarily produces democratic outcomes.” Racuero refers to the negative aspects of social media as “the dark side”. She does however, bring to our attention that perhaps social media “is showing social problems-not making them.”(Green’s operational, cultural and critical)

We’ve all recognized in some situation or other too much engagement with devices, and communication…creating distraction from everything else…you know, couples on their phones at the restaurant, kids in class gazing into screens instead of engaging the present.(Okay…that may be their present.)

Lines between private and public are blurring. People are creating digital narratives…piecing together a persona of how they want to be perceived  and how they relate to their own identities…a mash up of what they like, or what they think others may like.… promoting themselves as part of consumer based culture. (Some kids think of corporate logos as part of their personal identities.) I am always shocked when a student uses a Facebook image of themselves for reference in a self-portrait. WHO is that 2o something year old sexpot in the photo your showing me?)

Cyber bullying. Flaming. Sexist, prejudiced and violent messages are spread.... sometimes under the guise of humor. David Tosh of the cable TV show Tosh 5.0 comes to mind. We may be laughing at the gender bashing, stereotypes, stupidity and mean spirited behavior brought to our attention for entertainment, but in some underlying dialog those ideas are entering our consciousness.

 There is so much information, that we stop paying attention and/or stop creating dialog and instead we defer to the 20% population of popular bloggers for info and opinion formation, recreating yet another traditional media perhaps of a different flavor. We revert back to being passive participants.

Aggregation of biased, unchallenged information creates the “echo chamber” effect which can create a false sense of reality, balance and lack of diversity.

 Use of propaganda, for creating radicalized youth groups and extreme violence against violence has been cited most recently in news reporting through NPR and the BBC. 

Data mining, identity theft, targeted marketing, and privacy issues are just a few…more.

But that being said…none of this is leaving. Much of it is viewed from a traditional perspective. We are no longer operating in a traditional landscape. There is a need for change and to find a meeting place for the old and the new.

We need to teach social-techno protocol. 

We need to incorporate the teaching of civics through a critical lens instead of minimizing, whitewashing or obliterating in schools.

Saskia Sassen says, “We need to research to understand the social logic and utility of the user” with the access we have. We need to do the hard work to innovate new platforms that accommodate equal distribution in an effort towards democracy. We need to ask of ourselves and our institutions,  How do we engage in this media more effectively? (Green’s critical)

  We need to always be aware that technological access and openness do not necessarily produce a democratic outcome.

“The question we face at the dawn of network culture is whether we, the inhabitants of our networked publics, can reach across our micro clustered worlds to coalesce into a force capable of understanding the condition we are in and produce positive change, preserving what is good.” ( Varnelis,p.160)

 

Raquel Recuero - Digital Youth, Social Movements, and Democracy in Brazil Published on Jun 17, 2014

http://connectedlearning.tv/raquel-re

Saskia Sassen: Networks, Power, and Democracy http://Networkpublics.org

Published on Jul 26, 2012

Saskia Sassen spoke at the Netpublics research group on Networks, Power & Democracy on March 23, 2006.

Varnelis, K.(Ed.).(2008). Networked Publics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.  Amazon.com)  

Week 3: Abstract Representational Taxonomies: Who Knew?

How many times have I laid out information in relational conceptual representation to clarify meaning?

 Constantly?...no, daily? Frequently.

 As multi-taskers, I am sure that we all make hierarchical lists. Classifying things by priority, simultaneity, noting their necessary order of importance, in an effort to accomplish the many goals of consequence we answer to or create for ourselves every day. 

As an educator, I scaffold lessons in units that relate skills and concepts to previous learning and that will connect to future learning. I map the year, with branching structures, abstract symbols and accompanying text as part of my thinking process. This process is my “thinking out loud”, only quietly. Oftentimes the ideas appear as a network, (too) many things interconnected in any number of ways, with no specific beginning or ending point. I agree with Kress and van Leeuwen that, “This fragmentation (in a network system) makes it difficult, if not impossible, to form a coherent view of the whole.” (pg.85) I crumple the paper and move on. 

I have a huge white board in the front of my classroom where I constantly abstractly represent groups of things in different configurations and use gesturing vectors to support the verbal babble that students find difficult to absorb. Students deconstruct an image by naming its Possessive Attributes and by identifying its symbolic structures.  I introduce students to abstract representation having them create a  mind map as self-portrait…a branching display representing  the major influences of their identity creation and with a   hierarchy  of importance’s visually represented with tributary smaller branches. Their design is usually based in some organic structure.

 I display temporal analytical processes using flowcharts and topological mapping to show “the stages of a sequenced, unfolding process.”(Translation: I create displays that illustrate sequential steps to complete a particular task.) These are all great tools to support visual learners, they help absent students stay in the loop, and the information displayed is helpful for the short term memory that comes with adolescence. 

Green used the visual model to represent his ideas of the 3 dimensions of Literacy. Three equally sized circles, equidistant to each other, overlapping , each possibly organically evolving. Each circle represents a distinct set of Attributes. At the point of their overlapping convergence, they create the Carrier: a separate, solid, stable “entity” represented by the centrally placed rectangle horizontal to the picture plane. There is a locked- in, bound together quality of his representation. Without the specific text included, we would still have a sense of parts- to- the- whole and have an understanding of a new “other” created from the intersection.

 So who knew all these processes had names and were based in theories of media communication and perception? Who knew these were literacies? 

 

I think I would visually structure Jenkins’ “New Digital Literacies” in respect to participatory culture as a network system. Leeuwen defines a network system as a system where “any participant can form an entry point from which its environment can be explored and the vectors or lines (‘links’) between the participants can take on many different values…”(p. 89) Jenkins, in his TEDex video, describes  "participatory culture” as community, cultivated through mutual cultural interests, that exists in a large communication system, and where all participants are considered equal, having something to offer regardless of age or area of expertise. Ideas are exchanged, built upon and changed in a nonlinear formation.

Can’t you just see all the nodes and co-joining links? It’s a beautiful thing .

I think the “fragmentation view” of network systems brought to our attention by Kress and van Leeuwen with “a difficult view of the whole” is replaced in the participatory culture network system with an eye on the goal(s). Jenkins’ style of a network system would squirrel around and land up all in one place…at least for a moment….and then move along creating offshoots, gathering more nodes instead of hierarchical branches. Not a static structure suggesting evolution by means of its visual form, but as an organic evolving reality. Perhaps with this new literacy and culture, we need a new model of representation.

Chapter 3 in Kress and van Leeuwen's "Reading Images" produced moments of concern during my reading. Statements like: “this makes it possible for the producer of an image to classify……” whatever.  Or,… “Classification and processes do not, of course, simply reflect “real”, “natural” classifications.” “They were judged to be members of the same class, and to be read as such”…And, “classification structures represent participants in terms of their place in a static order.” (83)And,

analytical representations are, “open to many readings, and that constitutes its power to shape reality..”(Leeuwen, p.90) all give me reason to pause.

 As I mentioned before, with networking systems, fragmentation “makes it difficult, if not impossible, to form a coherent view of the whole. The network system  " appears to be fluid, providing the “reader” with many choices, many paths to follow, but on the other hand tend to  obscure the fact that the range of choices is ultimately pre-designed and limited".(84) (Designed by whom and for what purpose?)
 Analytical systems and taxonomies represented in any number of configurations reek of authority and fact, but as Kress and van Leeuwen states in regards to a simple bar chart…”it can be easily (mis)taken as suggesting….”something.(102)

 I’m certain there are many more examples that make us aware of the necessity of critical analysis when engaging these literacies throughout the text.

Perfect example...only you have to imagine the visual representation.

On my way home from school. The radio is on. An event is reported.Two stories are told. Each biased by its presentation, and its classification of participants.I think to myself, " Who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?"
 The same event can be represented in any number of taxonomies. Each representation creating a different knowledge based on what is abstractly left out, or considered salient.

“Who has the power to make some forms of knowledge more legitimate then others?”

                                                                                              Peter McLaren, Life in Schools ,2007

Sources:

 Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen, Theo (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.  

Jenkins, Henry. "TEDxNYED - Henry Jenkins - 03/06/10." Online video clip. 

Youtube.  Uploaded on April 13th, 2010.  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCLKa0XRlw.  January 29th, 2015.  

Week 2, Interactive Participant

“Visual structures do not simply reproduce the structures of “reality”. On the contrary, they produce images of reality which are bound up with the interests of the social institutions within which they are produced, circulated and read. They are ideological. Visual structures are never merely formal they have a deeply important semiotic dimension.”( Kress and van Leeuwen, p.47)

I think above all, as interactive participants of humanly constructed communication, we need to be aware that there is always an intention of the maker. There is a perspective, and a point of view embedded in the communication in whatever form the communication takes.

In relation to social literacies, I think it is important that we learn to be critical interactive participants. As conscious readers, producers and writers of socially produced media, we are capable of contributing to the creation of a more “transparent”, interactive, collaboratively constructed reality.

We need to be aware that no communication is neutral. A personal blog is written by an individual to put forth an idea, to share an experience or to promote a point of view. The dialog, the interactive quality of that media, has affordances for discourse. Often times in social media we find “the preaching to the choir”or the “birds of a feather'" phenomenon, or a skewed version of reporting, something taken out of context, or a producers goal driven creation of reality.  And then there are “other” social practices like,…(our hero)…. “ Ad Busters.” (You go! girl/boy/both/neither)

A consideration with regards to creating and reading images concerns the social and cultural context in which the communication is created. The value of a particular element as seen in its context needs to be considered in respect to audience interpretation. Kress and van Leeuwen, when referring to geometrical shapes for example, express that an element “can be positively valued in one context ,and less positively in another”(p56). As creators of text, we need to be aware of the social and cultural weight of elements that we choose as tools of expression. 

Hatti, in week 2 of her blog, addresses the lack of surrounding cultural context as a detriment to effectively reading the elements found on an Iroquois artifact/text. Her blog posting brings up the question of who is left out and what is lost in a communication that lacks social or cultural context.

Not unlike social and cultural context, and a less predictable element, is personal association. I suppose  the psychology of perception, “ Madison Avenue” and propaganda studies have gleaned a lot about what makes us tick in response to certain combinations of affective images/text, but individual personal experiences/histories and, perceptual acuity weigh in big time in reading an image, or interpreting an experience. 

What comes to mind is the many situations where I am with 22 young people who are looking at….…a something together. (Advertisement, painting, installation, photograph)

 What do you think this is about? What is this saying to you? What was the intention of its production? No response.

 What do you see? Then there is a lot of individual observation. Usually, responses are what is most relevant to them, and not what is necessarily visually most prominent.

Why do you think that element is there? Or, what does it mean?…some response…

 And lastly in our trail of befuddlement, What makes you say that? And then the individual responses become associations to other things, experiences and stories from their lives.

 The associations become the “other” participants, or elements in the conversation/communication. As a group we can usually put all the pieces together and make a close reading of the artifact that started out as an unknown, unapproachable text.

 The surrounding text (title, place of origin, date) is sometimes needed for specific context to create a particular point of entry, or to fine tune the reading. Putting all the individual, external associations to the reading or analyzing of the text, fleshes out the communication. An analysis of the embedded information is what the group as reader brings to the table.

Through this process we collaboratively construct knowledge. I want my students to recognize that part of the analytical process of visual literacy in the face of the supposed unknown, happens when they share the responsibility of being an interactive participant. Individual and shared personal histories, experiences and associations all add to the knowledge base.(And its always enlightening for me to see who they are.)

 And NOW there’s the question of history…how much, whose and what kind/genre do we need to perpetuate in education in order to create associative continuity that spans more than the life of a meme?  

Do students need to know about Mondrian or Banksy? And how much do we, (20+ something’s) need to know about a particular rapper, anime zine or urban slang? What will remain relevant in our fast paced, globalized, evolving, new literacies? What, if anything, will remain perennial? Who gets to pick?

 Kress and van Leeuwen, “Reading Images, The Grammar of Visual Design”, Routledge, New York, NY, 2007