Applying critical interpretations to Reality TV

By Jenny

sj Miller,  endorses venturing into a Reality TV Project with English: Humanities Literature students in the journal article Demythologizing Reality TV: Critical Implications as a New Literacy . Of particular interest to me was its delivery to students of critical literacy using the multimodal text of Reality TV; a burgeoning, ubiquitous media genre (Burr & King, 2011, p. 4) frequenting free-to-air and cable/pay televisions.

When presenting the newly devised project to the students, despite this audio-visual text’s growth, obvious appeal and real-world application, Miller came up against obstacles from departmental heads questioning motives, methodology and the course objectives. Using Reality TV, looking beyond the heroic, star-struck façade, to actually critique this media form, was the objective. This removal of the face value, outer layer would enable students to determine the underlying meanings, themes and messages presented in Reality TV shows.

This goal, of setting socially and culturally relevant, student-centred lessons, is stated on sj’s personal webpage, and echoed in the opening paragraph of the article. Corroborating with this theme is the posting by Nicole, which advocates Media Literacy studies to ensure students become critical consumers of popular culture. Significant to me; however,  is the promotion of 21^st Century learning, in certain educational institutions, faces such an “unanticipated barrier” – particularly when in an arena where innovation and pedagogy should be at the forefront (Miller, 2011, p. 135). Conflicting with normative practices, Miller’s approach, while pedagogically sound, bucked the system… The usual course of action was not being followed – thus the “dissonance” towards this new approach as the departmental heads “argued against its (Reality TV’s) legitimacy as a visual literacy” (Miller, 2011, p. 135).

This dissonance placed Miller in the position of having to justify the legitimacy of the course. The process of doing so, to me, gives further clarity and conviction to Miller’s original objective – providing over the course of a semester, a student-centred, interest sustaining Reality TV project. Through the closer examination of the course design, Miller finds that not only are the Liberal Studies objectives met, but so are the National Council of Teachers of English Standards (Miller, 2011, p. 138). Highlighting the investigative aims of the project and meeting the set goals of high interest and engagement whilst exposing students to this genre saw the strategies of critical media literacy pedagogy evolve.

Just as Miller faced challenges, Livingstone, advocates, “what Lars Nyre, quoting McLuhan, calls the shift of academic interest from the Ivory Tower to the Control Tower”. Livingstone questions their “critical and reflexive commitments” noting how commonplace is disruption as opposed to building and reshaping. She questions empirically those not promoting a softly, softly approach. Further stating “support for the gradualists who identify evolutionary not revolutionary change, who emphasise the reconfiguration of identities more than their transformation… not (the likes of Miller who instigate) wholly new kinds of activity, (with) refashioned styles of learning and participating, but perhaps not or not yet new forms of relationship or institution” (2010, p. 14).

The promotion of critical literacies for students is also the theme of this social justice advocate author’s collaboration with colleague, David Kirkland, in the co-editing of Change Matters. Prudently noted within the book’s forward, Miller cites John Baldwin, almost as a mantra: “The paradox of education is precisely this – that as on begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he [sic] is being educated” (2010, p. xvi). Encapsulated within the title of the article, like the mantra, demythologizing is about removing mythological elements in order to trace underlying significance. This would allow tracking to elements of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, spiritual belief, social class, age, ability/disability, political affinities, marital status, education attainment; the paradigm of our individual and multiple identities and their embodiment. As Miller acknowledges, these Reality TV shows clearly have immense authority and persuasion over their audience’s sense of self and way of life (Miller, 2011, p. 137). This power, traced historically by Miller, utilises the appeal and availability of Reality TV, making it the ideal teaching tool for exploring critical literacies. Miller includes other educational researchers supporting this concept.

Among other educational researchers endorsing popular culture’s integration into the teaching environment, is Bach who suggests Reality TV programs such as The Amazing Race and Project Runway allow the negotiation and creation of authentic problem-solving challenges and activities, following the inclusion of these shows in the teaching practice of fourth-grade students (2011). Burr and King, along with their undergraduates, found Reality TV programs an engaging and effective way to teach and learn about research ethics. Their program of choice was Big Brother due to its “familiarity to students and… (because) it regularly pushes the boundaries of ethical acceptability” (2011, p. 1).

Unpacking Reality TV is an important stage in understanding its popularity and prevalence as a form of popular culture. Kirsten’s post acknowledges that parents and teachers are instrumental in using this media form in a positive way through its critical deconstruction. Promoting this same conclusion is Shelley’s post on Reality TV. It is acknowledged that this media form has breadth; “one can view almost any topic these days” and it has infiltrated or converged into other media forms such as chat rooms, blogs, internet sites and “even the fashion industry” (Miller, 2011, p. 136). Miller examines Reality TV’s beginnings, tracing back to Candid Camera in the US, The Family in the UK, and for Australian audiences, Sylvania Waters. He also gives credit to Real World, a high rating, multi-season plus Reality TV show, that he believes altered viewing dramatically in the US (Miller, 2011, p. 137).

Following the concept of the convergence of Reality TV shows, Miller notes many of the approaches used to market these shows to consumers. Strategies of cross promotion, advertising of other products, featuring on covers of magazines, merchandising of clothing, just to name a few, are as Miller suggests, testament to the “great power and influence over identities and lifestyle” these shows have (2011, p. 137). It is for these very reasons, Miller’s Reality TV project and others like it should be a priority in educating youth.

By using Reality TV, raising the awareness of how media audiences interpret and engage with the vast array of these shows, Miller encourages their dissection. Allowing for own choice of Reality TV show, after making observations, relevant to their criteria and reflecting on the whole series of episodes, the students were expected to critique it. Through analysing, then synthesising their findings, students would individually or collaboratively, develop a presentation via a media, again of their choice: either written or audio-visual of their hypotheses of the outcome for once the series had ended. These critical observations by the students as a result of their deconstruction, were as Miller described “stupendous” (Miller, 2011, p. 135).

Miller emphasises the importance of discourse, drawing upon the work of Gee to distinguish between what he notes as primary and secondary forms. The primary discourse he sees as what we come packaged with – our immediate identifiers of family, friends, culture and language – in essence our personal paradigms. Whereas, the secondary discourses he explains are organisational influences of religion, political affiliations, schools, clubs, employment and others. These perspectives, Miller believes, citing Tremmel, “are what good teaching tells us to build upon” and encourages students to acknowledge their identities. Miller maintains it is only when students have “the tools to negotiate their identities, by unpacking the hidden sociopolitical, gendered, capitalist, and heteronormative messages embedded in Reality TV, (do) students gain power to make informed decisions about their lives” (2011, p. 139).

Student responses to Reality TV as noted in the article were, for me, as expected. Their personal choice of Reality TV shows rose from reasons of: personal appeal, portrayal of particular ethnicity, popularity, were already fans of, came recommended or simply seemed interesting. Students also pigeonholed the target audience, finding Reality TV shows rarely market religion. Here, the students suggested, Reality TV imply morals that are basic to most religions. They noted audience appeal was due to a combination of features, or “meta-categories… (of): moralistic, competitive, family/relationship, improvement and moralistic/competitive”. Identification of the seductive powers of Reality TV, via audience manipulation and invitation to develop relationships with the characters, were ways the students believed viewers became more likely to watch the next episode (Miller, 2011, pp. 146-147). During the analyses, students also came to identify and question the way Reality TV shows maintain yet also confront stereotype expectations.

Overall, this article considers teaching theory while seeking to empower students through a classroom practice, to grow and increase student access and understanding of critical media literacy. This occurs through the scaffolded discovery of “how power is used and misused in literary practices and, provides… the tools to negotiate what is being fed to them through Reality TV” (Miller, 2011, p. 141).

References

Bach, J. (2011). How teachers negotiate the use of reality television in their pedagogy. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 6(2), 144-153.

Burr, V., & King, N. (2011). Teaching research ethics through reality TV.

Google. (n.d.). demythologize  Google Search. Google dictionary  Retrieved October, 17, 2011, from http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&rlz=1W1GGLL_en-GB&q=demythologize&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=Np2eTui8K5GtiQf9xcTJCQ&ved=0CBsQkQ4&fp=1&biw=1440&bih=676&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&cad=b

Kirkland, D. E. (2010). Change Matters: Critical Essays on Moving Social Justice Research from Theory to Policy: Peter Lang.

Livingstone, S. (2010). Youthful participation: what have we learned, what shall we ask next? Paper presented at the First Annual Digital Media and Learning Conference: Diversifying Participation. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27219/1/Youthful_Participation_(LSERO_version).pdf

Miller, S. (2011). Demythologizing Reality TV: Critical Implications as a New Literacy. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3).

sj Miller. (n.d.). Welcome Dr. sj miller Indiana University of Pennsylvania.   Retrieved October, 20, 2011, from http://www.sjmiller.info/

Wikipedia®. (2011). Reality television: Subgenres. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Retrieved October, 17, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_television#Subgenres

When Parents Choose to Home Educate...
the Education Advisor's Dilemma

By Jenny

Despite the digital culture promoted in most educational arenas of today, there exists a minority of students not exposed to, or denied access to, many of the texts usually so freely available. These multimodal texts feature with great predominance in the Australian Curriculum, which defines multimodal texts as: combining “language with other systems for communication, such as print text, visual images, soundtrack and spoken word as in film or computer presentation media” (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2011a).

Multimodal texts are historically, in the forms of film and television, and usually taken, by most of us, for granted. New technologies have aided the universal spread of these text forms, and have created “individualisation and the associated trends of consumerism, globalisation and democratisation (Livingstone, 2009, p. 151). Their dynamic nature, as an entity of popular culture sees daily changes, “to such a degree that it is often difficult to make any coherent sense of it” (Pomerance & Sakeris, 2010, p. xi).  It is for this very reason critical literacy/media skills are necessary to face the challenges of understanding issues in both a domestic and global sense. The Australian Curriculum acknowledges this priority through its seven General Capabilities to support students to become “successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens” (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2011b).

 (Bika Masr Staff, 2011)

There quite likely exists young people, whose parents have shunned multimedia and as such, endeavour to deny its access. These are the offspring of ‘digital disbelievers’ or ‘digital dissidents’; parents who champion philosophies of Natural Learners (or Unschoolers), Classical Educators, Steiner or Warldof and Charlotte Mason, just to name a few. These are the students not enrolled in formal schooling, children, whose parents have decided, often due to moral, religious or ideological convictions, not to ever send them to school, or have withdrawn them, for a plethora of reasons (Jennens, 2011, p. 146).

Within Queensland, it is a legal option for parents to Home Educate their children if they do not attend a formal educational setting (Department of Education and Training, 2010). In my role as an Education Advisor, for the Home Education Unit, I am expected to assist “parents to comply with legislative procedures should they wish to register their child for home education” (Department of Education and Training, 2010).Parents must “comply with the standard conditions of registration by providing their child with a high-quality education which is detailed in the child's education program and demonstrated in the annual report” (Department of Education and Training, 2006).  There is no obligation for these parents to follow a timetable, school-like curriculum or actually formally teach. So as previously suggested, many home-schooled children are at risk of becoming, as Henry Jenkins termed, part of the “participation gap” within the “digital divide”(Jenkins, 2006, p. 258). Zingrone, as cited by Mackey declares “a one-medium user is the new illiterate” (2003, p. 403).

It is highly likely many home-educated students are at risk of becoming the “vulnerable citizens… (those) in the media and communications context… (with) limited digital literacy” (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2010, pp. 6-7) . This notion is recognised by UNESCO’s Declaration on Media Education, the Grünwald Declaration, which outlines the value of instilling critical understandings of various communication forms in “fostering greater citizenship and social participation through the use of the media” (O'Neill, 2010, p. 324).

The challenges many fundamentalist, home-educating parents pose to core values of citizenship, by rejecting them, is the subject of a study by Ross. She argues that democracy relies on citizens who share core values of citizenship and calls for the reform of home schooling; in particular to encourage homeschooled students to be allowed the “exposure to mainstream norms of tolerance” (Ross, 2010, p. 1013).

These students miss the usual enculturation of formal education, especially when parents snub the basic ideals of citizenship, including the most prevalent and culturally popular of media forms: mainly film and television. These are media, which also closely align to the internet and other forms through convergence. It is therefore imperative to promote the importance of media literacy to these home-schooling parents. Unlike the study conducted by Bullock to investigate “the role of technology in home school environments in Southeast Ohio” (2011, p. 19), the parents I am concerned about are the ones not using any technological media. A study by Princiotta and Bielick in 2006, found only 41% of the home-schooled students participated in learning programs provided by their parents that used “media such as e-mail, the Internet, television or video” (Bullock, 2011, p. 40).

Consequently, in my role as an educator, it is not so much innovative pedagogy that I must consider, but innovative andragogy. Understanding the relevance and motivation of these adults (Riggs, 2010, p. 388) I deal with, who are their children’s educators, is paramount. With this in mind, a careful balancing act of respecting parental choices and supporting the provision of quality education ensues. Jennens (2011) questions whether upholding the rights of home educating parents’ freedom of choice is an acceptable outcome, in relation to the access and openness of their child’s education. He considered the implications of acquiring "such freedom raises questions about the very essence of education" (p. 145). Whereas in contrast, Kinz advocates and cites Bourdieu’s opinion of considering worldview whereby “people are conditioned by their social and material conditions to a habitus” or unconscious perceptions that classify those who are different (Kintz & Lesage, 1998, pp. xi-xii).  

Examples of these diverse views range from the Natural Learning Australia website suggesting “Turn off the TV and…”. Yet upon this same webpage, going “to the library… (to) find DVD’s” is advised. The Steiner education clearly avoids the use of electronic media until students are in secondary school. Yet another viewpoint comes from the advocates of the Classical Education which declare “in front of a video screen, the brain can sit back and relax; faced with the written page, the mind is required to roll its sleeves up and get back to work.” Proponents of this philosophy believe their language-focussed approach, achieved via written and spoken words as opposed to images, has the mind working. The theory is that different 'Habits of Thought' are required for language learning which encourages the brain to translate symbols into thought from words on a page whereas an image learnt via pictures, videos and television causes the brain to be passive.

There are; however, other parents who are purely anti-technology as discussed in a Technology in Education Blog from last year, or in a Charlotte Mason blog promoting ditching the TV and taking up sewing instead! Unfortunately, many of these parent educators are not valuing the power of film and television as conduits to learning, but using it merely as a babysitter. The flipside to this techo-aversion is the acknowledgement by Henry Jenkins in 2004 of a home schooler embracing technology and researchers such as Templeton who are considering future directions and the need for collaboration (Templeton & Johnson, 2008). 

Gunther Kress posited the necessity for educators to embrace a new theory of semiosis as a way to acknowledge content and process of the embedded cultural resource of various multimodal text forms. He also acknowledges the demand for transformative action to develop literacies of critique and design. These 21^st Century media forms afford potential of both representation and communication by consumer/producers within social, cultural and economic fields. He goes on to call for precise transformative action, for now and in the future (2000, pp. 156-161).  

 (Vilimaka on cruiselyna, 2010)

It is therefore vital for me, as an educator, to engage in, not necessarily pedagogy, but the innovative andragogy previously highlighted! To these parents, I must seek ways to promote the value of multimodal texts and media forms, while still respecting their diverse views. A conclusion reached by Ross, is that democracy requires similar views (2010, p. 1013). It is not, after all, my responsibility to educate these home-schooled young people, but their parent’s job.

Conversely, when I was a classroom teacher, I was the one accountable for the students within my class, now; I am expected only to assist parents to ensure they provide their progeny with a high quality education. The regulatory nature of my work leaves few avenues in which to promote media use within home education programs. Hopefully information disseminated via the Home Education website (which is in need of an upgrade), links to The Australian Curriculum and our quarterly Newsletters may help spread the message! As Ian McShane, suggests “it has been necessary to build an alliance between schools and homes as co-contributors to digital education” (2011, p. 387), but in some instances with home educators and their children, where the home is the school – even more so!

References

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2010). 'Citizens' and the ACMA - Exploring the concepts within Australian media and communications regulation. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib311886/citizens_and_the_acma.pdf.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011a). The Australian Curriculum v1.2 - English: Content structure. The Australian Curriculum  Retrieved 15 October, 2011, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/English/Content-structure

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011b). General Capabilities  ACARA. ACARA  Retrieved 26 August, 2011, from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/general_capabilities.html

Bika Masr Staff (Producer). (2011) new-media-literacy-lesson-one.jpg. Turkey: Journalists’ Arrests Chills Free Speech - Bikya Masr : Bikya Masr. JPEG image retrieved from http://bikyamasr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/new-media-literacy-lesson-one.jpg

Bullock, K. K. (2011). Home Schooling and Technology: What is the Connection? A Collective Case Study in Southeast Ohio. Ohio University.

Department of Education and Training. (2006). SMS-PR-014: Home Education in Queensland. Department of Education and Training

  Retrieved October 12, 2011, from http://education.qld.gov.au/strategic/eppr/students/smspr014/

Department of Education and Training. (2010). Home education legislation Department of Education and Training  Retrieved 12 October, 2011, from http://education.qld.gov.au/parents/home-education/legislation.html

Jenkins, H. (2004). Why Heather can write. Technology review, 6.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide: NYU Press.

Jennens, R. (2011). Professional knowledge and practice in health, welfare and educational agencies in England in relation to children being educated at home: An exploratory review. Child Care in Practice, 17(2), 143-161.

Kintz, L., & Lesage, J. (1998). Media, culture, and the religious right: Univ Of Minnesota Press.

Kress, G. (2000). Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures, 153-161.

Livingstone, S. (2009). Half a century of television in the lives of our children. The ANNALS of the American academy of political and social science, 625(1), 151.

Mackey, M. (2003). Researching new forms of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 403-407.

McShane, I. (2011). Public libraries, digital literacy and participatory culture. Discourse, 32(3), 383-397.

O'Neill, B. (2010). Media Literacy and Communication Rights. International Communication Gazette, 72(4-5), 323.

Pomerance, M., & Sakeris, J. (2010). Popping Culture: Pearson/Education.

Riggs, C. J. (2010). Taming the Pedagogy Dragon. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41(9), 388.

Ross, C. J. (2010). Fundamentalist Challenges to Core Democratic Values: Exit and Homeschooling. Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J., 18, 991-1129.

Templeton, R., & Johnson, C. E. (2008). Homeshool Learne. 21st Century Education: A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications. Thousand Oaks, USA: SAGE Publications.

Vilimaka on cruiselyna (Producer). (2010) medialiteracy.jpg. JPEG image retrieved from http://cruiselyna.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/medialiteracy.jpg

Film, Television and Transforming Pedagogy

By Sue

As modern educators, teachers are not only responsible for traditional education – “the 3Rs” – but also to educate the students in topics of the 21^st century.  These include media literacies. The internet and mobile media are important, however film and television, as two of the older media continue to be a vital part of most children’s lives.

My major focus in teaching and learning is that I believe learning should be an active process, with inquiry at the centre and the teacher as the facilitator of learning. I employ a constructivist approach to teaching and learning and believe in setting up a problem or a 'quest' and allowing students to construct their own knowledge by connecting from what they know to the new. I act as a facilitator in a majority of cases guiding the learning and allowing students to arrive at their own conclusions. As a social constructivist, I search for the Zone of Proximal Development - find where the students are at and therefore how they can be moved on. I act as a scaffold, providing support for students to achieve. I view learning as a collaborative and a social activity. I attempt to develop knowledge in authentic learning activities, which engage students in the kinds of problems and practices that are present outside of school. These practices must include media of all types as this is what students are using to acquire knowledge and develop socially at home. Therefore it is imperative that I use digital media in the learning context.

My above view of knowledge in the 21^st century is supported in a variety of research and current curriculum documents. The Essential Learnings Position Paper (2007) states that knowledge itself has a undergone a transformation.

Knowledge exists in a range of forms, and a comprehensive curriculum will ensure a balance of the most important ones. A synthesis of knowledge typologies illustrates the range which needs to be represented in the curriculum 

(Essential Learnings and Standards Position Paper 2007, p5

My view of the use of digital media in general and film and television in particular is supported by the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for young Australians where it is stated that although technologies are used in schools there is a need to increase the effectiveness of the use of such technologies over the next decade.  (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008) Therefore with the above beliefs in mind it is necessary to approach the media literacies and in particular film and television in a very similar manner, that being not of a passive participant but rather a creator and critical viewer of media.  Jenkins’ White Paper supports this assertation.

“ We are moving away from a world in which some produce and many consume media,

toward one in which everyone has a more active stake in the culture that is produced”  (Jenkins, 2006 P 10)

The 3C’s – Connect, Create and Critical– discussed in the Lecture 11 (QUT, 2011) are an excellent way of allowing students to construct knowledge when using film and television. No longer is it acceptable to just put on a TV show for children to gain knowledge from. I do recall such TV shows as “For the Juniors” where perhaps, sometimes, I would tune in at 1.40pm after second break just to allow my Yr 2 students some down time after play. In that situation I lacked purpose. After many years of teaching this type of activity is no longer acceptable (if it was ever?) It is now necessary to use the medium to connect students to their past knowledge allowing them to construct new learning from it. We can then ensure new   learning is connected through student’s creating with this knowledge. Most importantly, developing the critical aspect of film and television viewing is essential. This view is also supported in the Literacy for the 21^st Century Document where the process skills of media literacy are discussed as Access, Analyse, Evaluate and Create.  (Thoman, 2003)

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends 1-2 hours of screen time per day.  (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2010). This includes film, television, computers, and mobile media. However realistically most children have up to 5 hours of screen time per day not including screen time at school.  So with screen – TV in particular such a major aspect of children’s lives, it is vital that children develop critical media literacy skills. With many children using TV as a background noise in their bedrooms and perhaps just watching to chill out, they may take all that is on ‘the box’ at face value. It is vital for educators to be modelling and practicing the critical viewing of television and movies targeting in particular, the moral panics, gender and ethnicity stereotyping and the sexualisation of children and women. Using TV in education is not just about the what, but rather the how. It is a time when the substantive conversations about important moral issues can take place.  In traditional literacies, teachers constantly discuss comprehension techniques – predicting, questioning, clarifying and synthesising. I consistently apply these known strategies to any film and television viewing. The connections between what is watched and what is read are established.  Television is used not just to support learning – or as a resource, but rather the use of TV and movies is the learning. This targeted use of film and TV resources ensures that, the use of film and television in schools does not become a moral panic in itself. In my community the use of a movie in learning is very rarely seen as an authentic medium – rather parents view this medium as down time and ‘fun’ for the students. This is a view that with publicity is gradually changing.

 I believe digital media is a most powerful medium for providing the optimal opportunity for transformative learning to take place and for students to construct knowledge. It is vital not to simply equip them with knowledge but rather with the skills and processes to access any knowledge they may need in order to achieve success. The appropriate use of film and television in schools assists in transforming learning, developing 21^st century skills that will allow students to be productive citizens. Thus film and Television continue to be viable education resources in my setting.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2010). Policy Statement - Media Education. Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 1-8.

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011, March). Guide to understanding ICSEA. Retrieved April 5, 2011, from My School: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Guide_to_understanding_ICSEA.pdf

Brown, J. (2002). Retrieved October 14, 2011, from Growing Up Digital: How the web changes work, education and the ways people learn.: http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html

Jenkins, H. C. (2006, August). Confronting the Challenges of Particpatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. . Retrieved October 14, 2011, from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=enJLKQNlFiG&b=2108773&ct=3017973&notoc=1

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from MCEEDYA: http://www.mceetya.edu.au/mceecdya/melbourne_declaration,25979.html

Queensland Studies Authority. (2007). Essential Learnings Position Paper. Retrieved March 30, 2011, from Queensland Studies Authority: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qcar_el_position_paper.pdf

QUT. (2011). Youth, Popular Culture and Texts Blackboard Site - Week 11. Retrieved October 11, 2011, from Youth, Popular Culture and Texts: http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_75617_1%26url%3D

Thoman, E. (2003). Literacy for the 21st Century. London: Center for Media Literacy.

Television - Harmful or Helpful?

Is Television Harmful for Children found at http://news.discovery.com/tech/is-television-harmful-for-children.html is an article which focuses on the effects of TV on all children. Despite the contentious title the article is a well-rounded version of one of many which associate television with many of the current moral panics surrounding youth including violent behaviour, obesity and learning difficulties.

The news article begins with the ‘fact ‘(no evidence supplied) that the average American children sits in front of the Tv for 2-5 hours a day despite the American Paediatrics Association recommendations. It continues on this vein by then linking TV to childhood obesity, poor brain development, lagging educational performance, sleep disturbances and diminished physical activity.  So it seems that once again the moral panic around TV continues.

However the article then debates the actual issue of TV use in children with the statement.  “This doesn’t mean parents should toss out their TVs; they should just pay more attention to what toddlers are watching.” A quite relevant comparison of TV to junk food is then used, whereby parents are encouraged to develop healthy TV habits directing their children towards non-commercial programs and programs which have educational content which promotes interaction. Once again Teletubbies is depicted as one show not to engage with although its relationship to poor language skills is the stated fact, rather than that of drug promoting behaviour or the debate whether or not Tinky Winky is gay.

The article concludes with some sensible recommendations about TV viewing for parents.

In summary I believe this is a relevant article with credible research and realistic recommendations. It offers a sensible view of an inflammatory product, ensuring that both positive and negative views are presented.

Sue

The National Film and Sound Archive

by Jenny

National Film and Sound Archive: Television

Organised into the sections of: News and Current Affairs, Television Drama and Television Partnerships, this website's usefulness is via historical snapshots of television and topical programming.

I find this site a place for my ideas to springboard... as it mentions shows I personally like or despise - my individual critiquing of these television shows modelled to students using the strategy of "think-alouds"... (Pearson Educational, 2011) considering the purpose, intended audience, messages, its possible appeal... empowering young people to become discerning viewers and articulating their enjoyment, cringe-factor or dismay (Media Education Foundation, 2005).

These days the power of the remote, ease of access to recordings and archived shows, encourages young people to view - not for the sake of viewing, but with purpose in mind. It is imperative educators encourage critical viewing of television! Life is too short for square eyes!

National Film and Sound Archive: Film

When teaching I was always keen to link the children's own experiences to new ones: particularly when setting the context for readings. An example of this was trying to explain the setting of the Coorong when reading Colin Thiele's Storm Boy. In particular young children need these hooks to help set the scene in their mind’s eye, or the characterisation - to encourage visualisation... what better way than through the use of film? At a more sophisticated level, this can link not only to setting and characterisation, but relationships, themes and symbolism (Cross, 1995).

This contextualisation aligns with Constructivist theories and Vygotsky (Richardson, 1997) and encourages critical literacy and media literacy. As Cross (1995, p. 85) espouses, it is about creating "visual realism" for students.

The National Film and Sound Archive contains an absolute plethora of films and images. It is easy to escape into this celluloid collection - to trigger personal memories and create new ones from the comfort of your viewing location. It doesn't have to be the whole movie - often a snippet is sufficient to whet the appetite and establish a known (but not necessarily first hand) setting or context prior to sharing reading.

This is only one small aspect of the educational usefulness of film: to take someone to a place not normally possible.

Brendan Smith's blog, currently on this website, sets the challenge to not find a favourite movie moment in The Great Aussie Montage. How interesting to discuss student’s own views of these Aussie greats as to whether or not they agree they belong on the list. Better still – students design their own criteria to decide what attributes are necessary to make it on this list!


References

Australian Government. (2008a). Film. National Film and Sound Archive, Australia. Retrieved October,19, 2011, from http://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/film/

Australian Government. (2008b). National Film and Sound Archive, Australia. Retrieved October,19, 2011, from http://www.nfsa.gov.au/

Australian Government. (2008c). Television. National Film and Sound Archive, Australia. Retrieved October,19, 2011, from http://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/television/

Australian Government. (2010). Television Partnerships. National Film and Sound Archive, Australia. Retrieved October,19, 2011, from http://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/television/television-partnerships/

Australian Government. (2011). Television Drama. National Film and Sound Archive, Australia. Retrieved October,19, 2011

Australian Government. (n.d). NFSA Title Details. National Film and Sound Archive: Australia Retrieved October, 19, 2011, from http://colsearch.nfsa.afc.gov.au/nfsa/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;group=;groupequals=;holdingType=;page=0;parentid=;query=Number%3A5150;querytype=;rec=0;resCount=10

Brendan Smith. (2010). Great Aussie film montage gets a refresh. National Film and Sound Archive, Australia. Retrieved October,19, 2011, from http://www.nfsa.gov.au/blog/2010/03/31/great-aussie-film-montage-gets-a-refresh/

Cross, S. M. (1995). Dead poets do tell tales. The English Journal, 84(7), 84-86.
Education.com Inc. (2006-2011). Critical Viewing Definition. education.com Retrieved October, 19, 2011, from http://www.education.com/definition/critical-viewing/

Media Education Foundation. (2005). How to become a critical media viewer. 2. Retrieved from http://www.mediaed.org/Handouts/CriticalViewing.pdf

Pearson Educational. (2011). Think Aloud Strategy: Teaching Method for Reading (Grades K-12) TeacherVision.com Retrieved October, 19, 2011, from http://www.teachervision.fen.com/skill-builder/problem-solving/48546.html

Richardson, V. (1997). Constructivist teaching and teacher education: Theory and practice. Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings, 3-14.

Wikipedia®. (2011a). Critical literacy. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Retrieved October, 19, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_literacy

Wikipedia®. (2011b). Media literacy Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Retrieved October, 19, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy