I just read “Literacy for the 21st Century” by Elizabeth Thoman and Tessa Jolls. You can read it here. When I first began reading, I really liked what the piece had to say. I agree with the idea that we should not be teaching kids to memorize facts, as there is a wealth of factual information at our fingertips (when we have Internet access, that is). It is true that literacy should be understood to be mean so much more than simply interpreting symbols on a page. I like the idea that teachers need to be focusing on helping students learn to interpret information rather than memorize it. That being said, I am not sure that is really a new concept. There a lot of people who have understood (and been teaching) for years that the truly important skill is processing information. However, now that we are surrounded by technology, there is more support for the idea. It is also more important that our schools adapt to meet the changing world.
After I got several pages into the piece, I felt my eyes begin shifting comically side to side, thinking to myself, “Uh, is this some kind of test? Are we supposed to recognize this piece for the media message that it is? Are we looking at an advertisement that is framed as an educational/informational text?” On page 23, they discuss the CML’s “Five Core Concepts,” and I have to wonder if they don’t all apply here. I couldn’t help but notice the appeal to ethos, with all of the “Wow this product is fantastic” quotes thrown in randomly, and I certainly couldn’t miss the bold black letters and the trademark symbol every time the words “CML MediaLit Kit” appeared. I also noticed that it said books are (or will be) available for purchase. I was laughing to myself because I was reading a piece about analyzing how texts are used to sell someone something when the work itself seems geared to doing precisely that. I think we could pretty easily analyze this piece just as it urges us to analyze other media messages.
Most of what is in this piece seems fairly common sense to me. From the questions we should ask when analyzing media messages to the core concepts, it does not seem like we should need a specific guide to help us teach this. The basic idea is very important. We do need to be teaching how to analyze media messages. However, I can’t say that I really learned much from reading this rather lengthy article. Unless I am just ultra-savvy in the media-interpreting department, I think most of this article conveys the obvious and could have been severely condensed and still provided the necessary information.
The one thing I did find novel and interesting was the idea of not asking “Why.” I have always been been taught to ask why, but I think that the article’s explanation of why not to ask why is quite compelling. They may be on to something here.
Although I feel like I just read a big advertisement, I am sold on helping my students to become media-literate. I just hope I or the school where I teach does not have to buy a bunch of expensive texts or equipment in order for me to do so.
It may be that you’re more experienced in such thinking…though a lot of teachers have trouble with this concept, especially when it appeared in the Georgia Performance Standards a few years ago.
I agree that we might apply the same critical lens to this information itself…hopefully the authors would encourage us to do this.
I like “why” questions, personally…though the point is taken that they should be paired with “how” in order to move beyond mere speculation…that is, we should support our argument with evidence/explanation centered on the text at hand.
dc