New Media Literacy
The Jenkins article points out three main problems that arise in schools with regards to media literacy. The first problem is the participation gap. Not all students have the same amount of access to new forms of media, and when they do have access, it is not always the same quality. The second problem identified by the article is known as the transparency problem. The transparency problem basically assumes that youth actively reflect on their media usage while they are creating and distributing what they have produced (Jenkins 12). In order to fix this problem, students need adult influence to consider what they are doing in an academic sense, and to learn from their experiences creating new media. The third and final problem discussed in depth by the article is the ethics challenge. This problem deals with the difficulty many youth experience in developing ethical norms and behaviors needed to participate in such a diverse and complex social environment such as the internet. This is another category where adult intervention and carefully planned lessons could teach kids how to properly navigate their way through cyberspace and to build those ethical norms that will allow them to have the most positive experience with technology.
While I agree with these three core problems and the solutions suggested for the transparency problem and the ethics challenge, I find it problematic that there is no solution suggested or in place for the participation gap. In other classes we have discussed addition access opportunitites provided by after school and public library programs. Even places like internet cafes afford students the opportunity to hook up with forms of new media. However, this article posits that these are not equal conditions for the have nots. While I agree that these are not equal conditions, I do believe they are better than the alternative, where there is no access at all provided for these kids. Jenkins, therefore, presents a dark and glum view of the access problem as he says that limited access breeds limited opportunity and in turn, limited knowledge. He says that the have nots fall further and further behind their more well to do classmates. I feel that it is our job as educators to tackle this problem. We cannot shy away from assigning new media projects out of a fear of access problems. Kids are eager to learn about media especially if it is what all their friends know and use frequently. They will find a means to catch up and to stay in the loop, as their social identities at school depend in many cases on their technological know how. I can recall many cases in high school where a few of my friends who did not have computers with the internet who would come over to my house to talk on instant messenger and to burn music CDs. Kids have a way of leveling the playing field for themselves, and I think that Jenkins does not really account for this. While I concede that there is a wide participation gap, I do not believe that the situation is as dire as Jenkins makes it out to be. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
This is kind of a lazy post for a website, but since it is the last week of class and many of us are authors on this site...and our readings for the week deal with this wiki page...I have decided to post the wiki from Beach's class.
http://teachingmedialiteracy.pbwiki.com/?doneLogin=1
Since I was lazy, here's another internet publication that I wrote an article for, it would serve as a good example of a media literacy project that could be completed in a future classroom.
http://voices.cla.umn.edu/vg/Bios/entries/schoolcraft_jane_johnston.html
The Jenkins article points out three main problems that arise in schools with regards to media literacy. The first problem is the participation gap. Not all students have the same amount of access to new forms of media, and when they do have access, it is not always the same quality. The second problem identified by the article is known as the transparency problem. The transparency problem basically assumes that youth actively reflect on their media usage while they are creating and distributing what they have produced (Jenkins 12). In order to fix this problem, students need adult influence to consider what they are doing in an academic sense, and to learn from their experiences creating new media. The third and final problem discussed in depth by the article is the ethics challenge. This problem deals with the difficulty many youth experience in developing ethical norms and behaviors needed to participate in such a diverse and complex social environment such as the internet. This is another category where adult intervention and carefully planned lessons could teach kids how to properly navigate their way through cyberspace and to build those ethical norms that will allow them to have the most positive experience with technology.
While I agree with these three core problems and the solutions suggested for the transparency problem and the ethics challenge, I find it problematic that there is no solution suggested or in place for the participation gap. In other classes we have discussed addition access opportunitites provided by after school and public library programs. Even places like internet cafes afford students the opportunity to hook up with forms of new media. However, this article posits that these are not equal conditions for the have nots. While I agree that these are not equal conditions, I do believe they are better than the alternative, where there is no access at all provided for these kids. Jenkins, therefore, presents a dark and glum view of the access problem as he says that limited access breeds limited opportunity and in turn, limited knowledge. He says that the have nots fall further and further behind their more well to do classmates. I feel that it is our job as educators to tackle this problem. We cannot shy away from assigning new media projects out of a fear of access problems. Kids are eager to learn about media especially if it is what all their friends know and use frequently. They will find a means to catch up and to stay in the loop, as their social identities at school depend in many cases on their technological know how. I can recall many cases in high school where a few of my friends who did not have computers with the internet who would come over to my house to talk on instant messenger and to burn music CDs. Kids have a way of leveling the playing field for themselves, and I think that Jenkins does not really account for this. While I concede that there is a wide participation gap, I do not believe that the situation is as dire as Jenkins makes it out to be. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
This is kind of a lazy post for a website, but since it is the last week of class and many of us are authors on this site...and our readings for the week deal with this wiki page...I have decided to post the wiki from Beach's class.
http://teachingmedialiteracy.pbwiki.com/?doneLogin=1
Since I was lazy, here's another internet publication that I wrote an article for, it would serve as a good example of a media literacy project that could be completed in a future classroom.
http://voices.cla.umn.edu/vg/Bios/entries/schoolcraft_jane_johnston.html
posted by nbuck at 10:52 AM
1 Comments:
I have the solution to the participation gap. We should become eduacational robin hoods and take laptops from the rich to give to the poor. Or, we could tell Steve Jobs that he's got enough money already, and that for the next year he should give macbooks out instead of hotdogs from a hotdog stand in the Bronx.
Post a Comment
<< Home