Film & TV in the classroom

According to Lacina, media literacy is “a multiple literacy that includes informational literacy, computer literacy, film and video literacy, and cultural literacy” (2006, p.118). As such, teaching literacy today is not confined to the more traditional forms of reading and writing. In today’s media saturated society, children and young people need to have, or be taught, to be multi-literate, or proficient in the different forms of media that are outlined above. In particular, students need to be taught how to engage critically with media, to be intelligent and critical in their consumption of media, and about the different ways in which they can make use of media for educational, work-related and personal reasons. The classroom is the perfect environment for students to begin to learn these skills. By incorporating media into the classroom, teachers are able to enjoy the best of both worlds: ensure children are receiving the same kind of education in terms of traditional literacy, critical thinking, and interpretation, while fully engaging them in the process of creating and producing their own work in areas that are of interest to them.

Much of the focus on media literacy and incorporating media into the classroom and curriculum has tended to focus on the more “innovative” technology and software, such as mobile media, gaming, and social media. However, despite being classed as the somewhat older forms of media, film and television still have a role to play in the classroom. However, the use of films in classrooms has been met with some derision, with some educators believing that there is no place for films in the classroom. (Vetrie, 2004, p.40) There is, of course, a right and wrong way to use films in classrooms; as Vetrie notes, the “worst application of all is to use a feature film as an entertaining reward between the conclusion of a teaching unit and a holiday” (2004, p.40), but if used correctly, films can be particularly useful for holding students’ attention and engaging them in critical examinations of both the text, and the film itself. Once engaged, the challenge is then for the teacher to transfer this engagement to a “need to listen, write, discuss and utilize critical-thinking skills.” (Vetrie, 2004, p.44) In other words, actually engage with the film, instead of merely watching it. Further from this, encouraging students to become media producers instead of merely consumers, is also essential when discussing film and television in terms of media literacy. Young people today are heavily involved in producing their own media content; they regularly create and publish content onto YouTube and Facebook, and are involved in the creation of multi-layered mash-ups. Involving students actively by inviting them to produce their own content draws on the experiences they have learned outside of school, and works to more usefully engage them in their study.

I currently work as a Reference librarian in an academic library, so am not in a position to change or affect curriculum or incorporate new pedagogies into classrooms. However, this unit has provided me with many examples of ways in which this can happen, and why it should happen. If I were in a position to incorporate media into my classroom, I would ideally like to do it in the following way.

Creative pedagogies involve students becoming producers of media and text, rather than being passive consumers or users. In this way, students are able to become involved, use many different skills and draw on knowledge they may have learned informally or in their day-to-day lives. Taking a Year 11 English class, I would look at incorporating different media texts into the reading of the Shakespeare classic, Romeo & Juliet. Instead of completing merely a critical analysis of the text, and perhaps watching one of the films, I rather think it would be more appropriate to look at the text in relation to the different interpretations. For example, by comparing the text itself to two other interpretations, such as the plays or any of the multiple film versions, students will gain a greater understanding of the text itself, and can begin to look at the different ways in which different people interpret the same text,

and how they are interpreting representations of gender, race, sexuality and social status. The second part of this project would involve creating their own modern interpretation using video recording equipment, Web 2.0 technologies such as YouTube, and any other medium that they wished. In this way, they are continuing with the critical analysis skills and thinking of new interpretations of the text, while also physically engaged with creating. Children, and adults, learn better when they are actively engaged in whatever it is that they are doing. Involving students in producing and creating their own physical interpretation allows them to gain a better understanding of the text and context. Encouraging or enhancing their media skills means that they are more likely to be enthusiastic and excited about what might otherwise have been a boring subject. Also, students are far more likely to be engaged in a project if they see the relevance to their personal lives, so incorporating their interests into the curriculum can only be a good thing. (Weigel & Gardner, 2009, p.40)

Young people are much more technologically engaged today than they ever have been. Much of the technological knowledge and experience that they have, they learn informally, in activities outside the school environment. Schools and teachers need to incorporate more of these technologies, both those that are new and emerging, and the more traditional forms such as film and television, for a number of reasons. We need to equip students with the skills and knowledge to successfully navigate the complex media environment, teach them to be critical and involved consumers of media, instead of passive, and encourage their creativity and innovation in terms of producing their own media. By doing this, we are instilling with them values and practices that will stand them in good stead for future study and long careers.

References:

Lacina, J. (2004) Media literacy and learning. Childhood Education 82(2) 118-120. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from Academic Research Library.

Vetrie, M. (2004) Using film to increase literacy skills. English Journal 93(3) 39-45. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from Academic Research Library.

Weigel, M & Gardner H. (2009) The Best of both literacies. Educational Leadership 66(6) 38-41. Retrieved October 20, 2010, from Academic Search Elite database.

Don't panic!: children & the effects of media violence

For as long as television has been around, concerns have been raised about the potential effects, both positive and negative that too much television, or even any at all, on children. One issue in particular is often cited above all others: media violence. What effect does media violence have on children, and can television be identified as a reason for the increase in youth violence, or indeed, violence in general, that society today is faced with?

Authors Catharine Lumby and Duncan Fine, in the book Why TV is good for kids, discuss these issues in the chapter entitled Child’s play? Media violence panics, with the aim of debunking many of the theories and panics that have arisen around this issue. Noting the strong bias in media reporting and commentary towards the somewhat simplistic view that watching media violence will lead to real acts of violence, Lumby and Fine have decided to take a “forensic and unflinching look” at what is a very emotive issue. (2006, p.99) They maintain that this bias is not supported by thorough media research that has been conducted in Australia and elsewhere. All this is doing, they contend, is diverting the attention away from the real issues and causes of violence in society, namely, dysfunctional families, mental illness, drug abuse and poor educational or vocational opportunities. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.100-101) While the media and society are focused on banning or sanitising violent television, these other societal problems are continuing unchecked.

One school of thought around the issue of media violence is the ‘media effects school’. Linked strongly to behavioural theory, media effects theorists attempt to use scientific experiments to discover the effect that the media has on people. The problem with this approach, Lumby & Fine note, is that while it would seem natural to examine the multitude of effects that media has on us and how we react or behave in response to these, they tend to focus almost solely on one in particular: aggression (2006, p.104). Child’s media expert David Buckingham is just as dismissive: “in the estimation of many other researchers, this research in fact fails to prove its central hypothesis: that media violence makes people more aggressive than they otherwise would have been, or that it causes them to commit acts they would not otherwise have committed. (Buckingham, as cited in Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.108).

So contrary to what the media would have us believe, many international reports have in fact showed that media violence is not a prime cause of real-life violence.

Why, then, do “simplistic and totally contrived” (2006, p.108) media effects studies continue to be not only funded, but given extraordinary media coverage each time someone sends out a press release “claiming that letting your toddler watch Teletubbies today will encourage him to join a street gang when he turns fifteen”? (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.108). The authors postulate two main reasons for this: the fact that most of these studies are conducted in the United States, where media effects research suits the simple cause and effect agenda of those who profit from the advertising industry (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.109); and that the media itself loves it. As we all know, sex sells, or in this case, horror and simplicity sells. Media effects researchers habitually claim that they have irrefutable proof of the media’s horrific effects; while media studies researchers draw far more complex conclusions, these just don’t make for simple enough headlines. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.111-112)

Having detailed evidence that indicates that the research linking youth violence with media violence is weak at best, Lumby & Fine (2006) explain their position in relation to the banning of violence on TV, and in other media. Banning all media violence is easy in theory, they contend, but far more difficult in practice; once you start looking for it, you can find violence in virtually every genre and every medium. (2006, p.119) Television is a prime example: from slapstick comedy, to football matches, to the evening news, and even children’s cartoons, aggression and violence is there, in one form or another. Even outside of television, you can find violence in Shakespeare, in fairy tales, even in the lyrics of Waltzing Matilda (2006, p.119). We are exposed to violence every day, through a multitude of different mediums; children are as well. They key here is context: viewers, adults and children alike, are able to see the violence within the context of whatever it is they are watching. Even children as young as three can recognise the difference between representations and reality, and it is this real-life violence that cause children the most distress. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.123-124) The idea that children are becoming desensitised to this real-life violence is, as David Buckingham notes, impossible to sustain. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.124)

So when it comes to the issue of what to ban, Lumby & Fine instead note that the question that should be asked is, ‘what should we be doing to guide children and teenagers through the world of media, including the representations of violence that they will undoubtedly encounter in all kinds of media and in many different genres?’ (2006, p.126). In answering this question, the authors note that it’s important to focus on real examples of real children and what they enjoy. A study conducted in Australia in 2000 took an in-depth look at children’s views about media and the harm it potentially does to them. Focusing on horror films, the study found that the children found the experience of watching a horror film not harmful, but exciting. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.130) What this indicates is not only confirmation that children are able to understand the differences between imagined and real-life violence, and understand how films are constructed, but also that the difference between what violent media critics worry about what children actually experience is vast. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.131) The real issue is whether the violence frightens or saddens them, not, as the media suggests, the potential for violent media to make them violent, or trigger copycat actions. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.131) As other studies, including this one, suggest, media does have an effect on children, just not in the simplistic or negative way that we are led to believe.

The final point that Lumby & Fine make is perhaps the most salient: banning violent content doesn’t prevent children’s exposure to violence in the media. Not merely because more often than not it serves to only increase the desirability of the movie or television show, but because they will be exposed to violence, both real and imagined, in their everyday lives regardless. Parents and educators need to work with children and young people, to help them make informed decisions about what they can and can’t handle. (Lumby & Fine, 2006, p.132) It is so important to encourage youth to become involved in conversations about what they are watching, and how they are responding to it. By doing this we are able to prepare them for the everyday realities that they are likely to face in the real world.

Clearly, this issue is one that causes emotions to run high. When the welfare of children is at stake, everyone is always going to have an opinion. However, what we need to be careful about, and what I think Lumby and Fine have explained clearly, is the tendency for the media to sensationalise and oversimplify the kinds of effect media violence has on children and young people. By examining the flaws and concerns of the media effects studies that continually tell society that television and media are the cause of violence, they provide a constructive and sensible analysis of the issues, without succumbing to the panic that continues to grip the mainstream media. I agree with Lumby and Fine in that the constant focus by the media on television shows and films as the cause of violence distracts attention from where it should be: on the more societal causes of violence, such as drug abuse, dysfunctional family environments, and mental illness. Television is, after all, merely a distraction.

References:

Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006) Why TV is good for kids: Raising 21st century children. Sydney : Macmillan.

A Tale As Old As Time : The Influence of Disney

Mention the word Disney, and one immediately thinks of childhood innocence, of fantasy and magic – good old fashioned family values and wholesome childhood memories. Disney movies are watched by literally millions of children worldwide, and have been for generations. In a world where we are encouraged to be cautious about what children watch, one might think that a Disney movie would be fairly safe, right?

Well, apparently not, according to the documentary, Mickey Mouse Monopoly. Produced by the Media Education Foundation, this documentary indicates that there is a whole lot wrong with Disney, and with the movies it produces. As one of the largest media corporations in the world, Disney has enormous control over the images and messages that we are exposed to. Therein, of course, lies the problem. The extent of this influence is such that concerns have been raised about what stories are being told, and why they are being told. Closer examination of many Disney movies, as explained in this documentary, reveal traditional stories and characters that are flawed, stereotypical, racist, and even dangerous.

So if we accept that children’s ideas about the world, about values and norms, are derived in part from the television programs and films that they watch, and agree that Disney’s influence over types of stories that children are being exposed to is immense, then it seems logical that much of what a child understands about gender roles, about race, sexuality, etc., come from Disney. If one was to then look at specific Disney movies, concerns might be, and have been, raised about what children are leaning from these, particularly about gender roles, what it means to be male or female, and how to treat those of different races and cultures.

However, despite this evidence, one needs to wonder how much of this really affects children in the same way that it affects adults. Is it possible toread too much into a Disney movie, and should we simply be looking at them for what they are … fun, charming movies full of adventure, romance and family values. Children do not look at these movies inthe same way that adults do. No child would watch Beauty and the Beast and come away with the message that deep inside every emotional and physical abuser lies a big softie in need of redemption.

While this documentary makes an attempt to cover both sides of the story, there is really only one message: the Disney Corporation is not as warm and cuddly as many would like to think, or it likes to present itself as. In other words: Be afraid, be very afraid … after all, if you can’t trust Mickey Mouse with your children, who can you trust?

References:

Media Education Foundation (2001) Mickey Mouse Monopoly Part 1. [Video webcast] Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJvRK_8Kr9s&feature=related

Media Education Foundation (2001) Mickey Mouse Monopoly Part 2. [Video webcast]. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47wp8RImhZw&feature=related

Media Education Foundation (2001) Mickey Mouse Monopoly Part 3. [Video webcast]. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6IgecZ8NI8&feature=related

Media Education Foundation (2001) Mickey Mouse Monopoly Part 4. [Video webcast]. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZXxn03X_t0&feature=related

Media Education Foundation (2001). Mickey Mouse Monopoly Part 5. [Video webcast]. Retrieved October 9, 2010 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goXx1OSGL9U&feature=related

Dexter in the headlines: youth and TV violence

Headlines such as ‘Dexter made me kill my brother’ are unfortunately all too common in today’s world where an increase in violence has been linked, inexorably by some, to violence in the media. In this case, a eighteen-year-old boy in the US has confessed to killing his ten-year-old brother because he felt ‘just like him’, him being the title character in the hit television series Dexter, starring Michael C. Hall as the blood spatter expert who moonlights as a serial killer. The teenager told investigators that he ‘identified with the character [Dexter] and wanted to kill someone for years’.

This article, while remaining relatively unbiased, does bring to the fore issues about the way television shows have been linked to, or held accountable for, the actions and crimes of individuals. Dexter, perhaps unsurprisingly, has been linked to other crimes in the US as well, and has come under criticism from the Parents Television Council because it makes Dexter "the hero, [it] forces the viewer to cheer for a serial killer and hope he succeeds in his attempt to commit a vicious, premeditated murder".

While I don’t think anyone would suggest that shows like Dexter are in any way appropriate for children, the fact that it has been directly linked to actual crimes is concerning, although unfortunately, hardly surprising. Television’s place as one of the most significant socializing agents in children’s lives today, teaching them important values, behaviours and norms (Lemish, 2007, p.147), means that the effect violent behaviour or attitudes has on them is of concern to many. However, to say that television, or media in general, is the root cause of the increase in violence, especially in the Western World, (especially North America) is inaccurate and verging on ridiculous. Researchers, and there are a lot of them, seem to agree that there are many other factors that influence and effect children and adolescents to engage in violent or anti-social behaviour. As Lumby and Fine (2006) note, putting violent media at the top of the root cause list effectively takes the focus off the real problems’. Blaming a television show for the horrifying actions of an individual not only distract from the real issue, but contribute to the ongoing panic over violence in the media.

Violence is unfortunately a part of our society, whether we like it or not. Children and adolescents are being exposed to it on a daily basis through a number of different mediums, not solely fictional television. What is important is not to fall to the knee-jerk reaction of banning or censoring, but instead to educate and engage youth in conversations about what they are watching, and preparing them for the realities of the real world.

References:

'Dexter made me kill my brother': Teenager jailed for murdering brother, 10, claimed he was inspired by the hit show. (2010) Retrieved October 14, 2010 fromhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320982/Dexter-kill-brother-Teenager-jailed-murdering-boy-10-claimed-inspired-hit-TV-show.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Lemish, D. (2007) Children and television: A global perspective. Maiden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Lumby, C. & Fine, D. (2006) Why TV is good for kids: Raising 21st century children. Sydney: Macmillan.

A Voice for Youth

In response to Fran’s blog post, ‘Moral Panic’, (Group 17: Youth, Film and Television Blog, October 7, 2010).

It is fascinating to step back in time and read the ‘moral panics’ connected with the rock and roll culture that happened here in Australia.  Apparently in the 1950’s there were a constant barrage of headlines about the behaviour of bodgies and widgies and this youth phenomenon created worry and anxiety for many people (Moore, 2004).  It didn’t help that sensational media coverage contributed to the whole issue exploiting it for profit ( Moore, 2004).  The newspapers continue to use headlines to sell and often are responsible for these moral panics, but now because of cross media ownership the audience has now widened to encompass magazine, television, radio and online subsidiaries so in essence an issue can reach saturation level.  Once online the reader or viewer has the ability to expand on an issue with the use of other web 2.0 technologies like facebook, youtube, blogs, forums, twitter and texting. 

I agree that educators need to empower students by helping them to understand the media moral panic phenomenon, and being a part of the solution by becoming digital citizens and using these technologies wisely.  Young people have a voice now and as educators and parents we need to not only provide them with opportunities but show them how to use the new media ethically and responsibly.

You're the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
We're not gonna sit in silence
We're not gonna live with fear
This time, you know that we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing, we can make it better

(Lyrics from You’re the Voice written by Andy Qunta, Ketih Reid, Maggie Ryder and Chris Thompson)

References

Moore, K.  (2004).  Bodgies, widgies and moral panic in Australia 1955-1959. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/633/1/moore_keith.pdf

The Bikini Sell

In response to The Librarian and the Teacher’s blog post, ‘Bikini clad girls, racing barriers, models and the Gold Coast Turf Club, al in the name of entertainment or fundraising or sports promotion?’, (YCPT: The FTV Blog, October 2, 2010).

Objectification and eroticization of females by the media continues on its mercenary way with the images of female bodies everywhere selling anything and everything.  What better way to increase attendance at a Turf Club than by having a novelty race with young women clad in bikinis and of course defending its premise with the unquestionable charity image!  I totally agree with The Librarian and the Teacher’s suggestion that even if the women are athletes, making them run in bikinis objectifies them even more so because the focus becomes the body, not the athlete’s running ability.  The message being reinforced here is that women are objects rather than whole human beings (Media Awareness Network, 2010).

However it would be true to say that women who participate in these events or even support them are perpetuating this objectification.  Perhaps the real problem lies in the fact that not enough women hold positions of power, be it in the racing industry or the media industry.  According to the Media Awareness Network (2010), women can make a real difference if they have executive positions in media industries where they can have a definite impact on the ways women are portrayed on the screen and in print.  Studies in media literacy can inspire young women to resist stereotypes and work for change particularly in understanding the role that institutions play in the production and use of media.

Embrace the Glee!

In response to Howe's, 'Glee: Harm in its humour' (Projecting Youth Cultures Blog, October 16, 2010)

Glee’s characters are certainly constructed gender roles and the humour is definitely reliant on these stereotypes (Howe, October 16, 2010). However what this show does is use these typical stereotypes in such an obvious way deliberately to critique the norms of society, especially American youth culture. Chris Lilley did the same in  Summer Heights High with a carefully constructed take off of the perceived stereotypes in a high school setting.  Howe (October 16, 2010) suggests “it takes a more mature viewer to appreciate the subtleties of the satire and see beyond the ‘ugly’ stereotyping as Denhart describes it”.  It begs the question as to how young people actually ‘get’, the subtle humour of the show.  Do we too often assume that young people don’t have the skills to read and comprehend these texts? 

A few years ago I taught a year 7 class who just loved Summer Heights High.  They had no trouble understanding what the show was really portraying and knowing how stereotypes had been used in such a clever but extremely funny way. The beauty of these engaging shows is their potential for discussion, and not just for the content or issues addressed within them, but their scope to engage with all the key concepts of media literacy; media languages, representations, audiences, technologies and institutions.  So to just focus on representations and identity in a show like Glee would be a waste, if you consider how this show connects with all the new media and technologies from; fanfiction sites, facebook and myspace, wikis, blogs, mobile phone apps, youtube and an array of online discussion forums.