Literature Review EDUC- 5199 RUNNING HEAD: Literature Review EDUC-5199

Pushing Buttons How Technology and Critical Media Literacy Are Integral Pieces to the Education of a 21st Century Learner Sultan Rana - 100405822 UOIT Masters in Education June 9, 2012

Literature Review EDUC- 5199 Being literate, and the subject of literacy has moved beyond phonics, and the comprehension of text based messages. To add the terms critical and media to literacy moves the subject even wider. The definitions for Critical Media Literacy (CML) vary, and differ in wording and context. However, they all seem to have similar underlying tenants of empowerment, meaning formation, and the ability to decipher between overt and covert messages. To summarize the research in a very condensed explanation/consolidated definition, CML includes the ability to reflect, analyze, become aware, and construct

meanings, pleasures, concerns, and deeper understandings with greater breadth and depth from sources such as the media, popular culture, corporate messaging, and/ or cultural texts (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000; Harste, 2003; Thoman, 1999). In the context of teaching elementary-aged students, CML develops critically literate students who have an understanding of how language constructs meaning, and teaches how to decipher the meaning in an onslaught of corporate sponsored impulses and messages sent their way in many modes (Harste, 2007). In preparing students to defend against these messages, teachers are also inviting pop-culture texts, in the capacity of many modes, into the classroom (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000). The uses of these popculture materials are more reflective of the students interests and out-of-school literary experiences (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000). This is great for increasing student engagement and transferring of skills (Alvermann& Hagood, 2000). It also increases the propensity of the student to exercise their learned skills in their daily lives (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000). CML establishes this inclusion. As exciting or frightening that may be for a teacher, the fusion between the students world and the classroom environment needs to follow the understanding of includes three

Literature Review EDUC- 5199 paramount components necessary to effectively teach CML. The first two are: how CML

moves beyond simply reading for textual comprehension; , and understanding the pivotal role technology plays in a modern day context. Finally, the driving principle and underlying reason why we must effectively teach this skill is because of the potential it has to empower, strengthen, and allow a learner to reposition themselves in the world in a more democratically thoughtful, and equitable manner (Harste, pg.11, 2003). This literature review will focus on the three previous ideas: beyond text-based comprehension, technology, and empowerment. A teacher must comprehend and understand these ideas and how they pertain to CML in order to start the journey to empowering their students. The Ontario curriculum expectations (Ministry of Education, Ontario, 2006) provide a stable base for teachers to utilize the comprehension skills taught in both the Reading and Media strands. It is up to the teacher to facilitate them in the classroom in a meaningful way. Applying them to print-based texts only (books, articles, readings) is not sufficient to meet the goals of CML. It is just a single mode of information transmission. Print media is an outlier in comparison to the multiple forms and modes/sources from which students gain their information from (Jewitt, 2008). They need to be equipped to apply their comprehension abilities in meaningful ways, to a variety of modes and formats the messages come in. The following concepts from Kellner and Share (2007) and Jewitt (2007 & 2008) articulate two frameworks a teacher can utilize to break down the process as to how students can improve in their proficiency in being critically literate individuals. Through the lens of cultural studies and critical pedagogy, Kellner and Share (2007) describe the conceptual understanding framework of critical media literacy. It is a five-step process. The

Literature Review EDUC- 5199 first step involves the recognition that media messages are a component of a particular process (Kellner and Share, 2007). Then, the framework continues on to having the students analyze the message, and explain the role the audience plays in constructing the

meaning (Kellner & Share, 2007). It is here a great deal of subjectivity and contrast between various student opinions will occur, for they are breaking down a message using their own knowledge and assets at this point. Then in the fourth step, problematizing the situation occurs in a full-class setting to uncover and engage in discussions that will involve issues of ideology, power, and silenced perspectives (Kellner & Share, 2007). Teachers have to ask rich and pertinent questions that will drive student thinking and rationale. An assortment of ideas and exchanges of perspectives would occur at this stage. Hearing points of view that are either comparable or discernibly different from one another can add to the deconstruction of the media message for each student, as they construct in their minds what they once interpreted, and what they may now currently think. A perspective that (in a way) grounds the previous framework into more theoretical foundation was Jewetts (2007) fusion of Rosenblatts (1978) Transactional Literary Theory with Critical Literary Theory (a filters and lens approach). This theory relays how each student comes to understand CML with the reservoir of habits and understandings they have with language when they deconstruct media messages (as cited in Jewett, 2007, p.152). Ideally, a student works with what they have, initially, to deconstruct a media message. From that step, the next is the Critical Literary Theory where the reader moves beyond personal responses, and questions why they know what they know (Jewett, 2007). Furthermore, they examine what has societys influence been on them to have that view, and why do they accept that belief without question (Jewett, 2007).

Literature Review EDUC- 5199 Between both theories, they honour the same rights of entry, and the process that must occur in the middle. Each respect and encourage students to comprehend a media message with the resources and experiences currently accessible to them. This is seen in the first three steps of the Kellner and Share model, and in Rosenblatts Transactional Literary Theory quoted in Jewetts article. Then, the two models make it integral to engage

in a discourse that forces the reader to ask him/herself questions that uncover the source of the media message, what intentions or messages are conveyed in their communication, and how one interprets and internalizes that message. Take the lessons from the frameworks and apply them to the concept of multimodality, and this understanding of CML can be applied to any literary format, such as images, advertisements, and videos (JewItt, 2008). Multimodality is described as being media messages that ascend beyond traditional print literacy (Jewett, 2008). In addition, it explains how greater meaning can be derived from the mode in which the source is presented, known as Modal Affordance (Jewett, 2008). The literature, especially that of JewItt and Jewett (2007 & 2008) makes it clear that simply using text-based resources, and reading messages for the sake of comprehension only is not enough. CML encourages the learner to ascend beyond one mode and the first grasped message, delve deeper into the source, and ascertain the ideological message the source may be trying to convey to the receiver. A key source of information in the lives of students is technology. Teachers must prepare students for this tech-driven world they are to inhabit, and make sure that students can critically analyze the messages they are bombarded with from modes such as the Internet and social media. Understanding technology, its inherent threats and potential

Literature Review EDUC- 5199

benefits are vital to CML. To speak about the threats in this literature review is unnecessary. Lived experiences and a plethora of research speak to it already. Educators know what the threats are. The benefits of technology, and the capacity it has in supporting CML, especially when students need to become engaged in creating their message, needs to be known. Communication and digital technologies have moved many mediums of information (images, videos, print text, advertisements) over a very large geographic and social space (Jewitt, 2008). To equip these students with that same power to convey their own messages is highly engaging and empowering to the students (Jewitt, 2008). Buckingham and SeftonGreen (1994) argue that when students produce messages for their own genre, they may be able to see how the media attempts to target them; tapping into their own interests and pleasures (Buckingham et al., cited in Alvermann & Hagood, 2000). The use of technology to give students a voice increases engagement, empowerment, and creative potential (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000; Jewitt 2008 & 2007; Kellner & Share, 2007). It also reduces the dissimilarity of utilized resources used between the students in-school environment and home life. It embodies the possibilities that will allow students to create their own, as Kellner and Share (2007) state it, alternative voice (pg. 8) and gives them a platform to share their point of view. Technology provides students the resources to empower themselves, share a message, and transform society, (Kellner & Share, 2007). This literature review to this point has explained the learning gains to be realized from the marriage between comprehending and creating media messages. One aspect explains how messages beyond a traditional text-based literary level need to be construed intently and challenge what students already know. Linked to that, students should use technology

Literature Review EDUC- 5199 to create alternative messages to offset oppressive or bias messages, using a format thats both engaging and relevant to them.

Granted the majority of these steps laid out in this review are comparable to how-to steps, the sources used also make it very clear why CML is necessary. One word empowerment. It empowers the student as a learner, redefines the student/ teacher relationship, and develops them as a contributing and advocating member of a democratic society. Referring back to the respect and value of student input in the previously mentioned frameworks, CML permits multiple points of entry (Jewitt, 2008). It strengthens the confidence of the learner by giving them a chance to interpret information, at first, based on the information, however much or little, they currently know (Jewitt, 2008). Jewett and Jewitt (2007 & 2008) go on to describe how using CML and looking through a multimodal lens renews the focus of learning on the learner. It allows students to make literary connections to their life, bringing their experiences and lives into the classroom. The benefits of this would directly improve the self-efficacy and confidence of a student in his/her literary abilities in such a context. As a valued student, in understanding his/her relationship to the teacher and other students, CML creates a real change of roles and relationships between the teacher and the student (Jewitt, 2008). It brings in the literary interests from popular culture or media messages related to the students. The students are now placed as the active participants and discussion leaders of the class (Jewitt, 2008). The students see first-hand how the curriculum connects with their everyday lives (Flores- Koulish, 2006). Furthermore, depending on how you look at the term culture, be it that of youth culture or that of a different cultural background/ ethnicity, CML and the frameworks that describe it imply that

Literature Review EDUC- 5199

different cultures and points of view fit in, and are necessary to broaden the critical dialogue (Harste, 2003). Inclusivity and voice serve to the as empowering functions of CML in this realm. Finally, the long-term payoff for CML is that it molds the student into an empowered democratic participant in society. It encourages the learner to identify the underlying elements of all media messages (Flores-Koulish, 2006). Be it racist, sexist, classist, oppressive or homophobic, students will be equipped to decipher these messages from a multitude of modes, and in a myriad of ways with the perspectives and views they would have gained from the learning of CML (Flores- Koulish, 2006; Kellner & Share, 2007; Thoman, 1999). This is all in hopes that one day in their adult lives, these students become what Len Masterman defines as critically autonomous, and Robert Ferguson sees as being apart of critical solidarity (as cited by Kellner & Share, 2007, pg. 7). Both ideas imply that the goals of CML are to ensure that the students are independent critical thinkers on their own onus in future situations. CML is a long-term investment. However, it is a journey teachers should start their students on now, granted the world and the messages within it are not letting up anytime soon. The literature about CML provides a wide-range of evidence supporting the need for critical analysis of media messages that are packaged in various mediums and modes. It strengthens the important role technology (internet, social media, corporate sponsored news and media) is playing in the lives of students. Teachers must see the need to equip students with an arsenal of strategies and critical lenses in order to deconstruct, question, analyze, and defend themselves against the views put forth in these messages. The literature is vast, however, now it is a matter of training teachers and developing workshops to create a

Literature Review EDUC- 5199

change in our schools. The worlds of our students (and the analysis of them) have a ways to go to being seen in the classroom, and inclusivity is still a concept many teachers strive to embed in their classrooms. CML is a necessary and logical step in literacy instruction for children. As Hollindale (1988) stated teach children how to read in a way that they will not be at the mercy of what they read (quoted from Jewett, 2007, pg. 161). In a modern day context, I think one could replace Hollidales verb of read with comprehend or understand, granted so many of the messages are not text based. As Jewett did in Reading Knee-Deep (2007), this is an apt quote to conclude this literature review, for it leaves a reason conveyed in a single sentence for all educators to realize why CML is vital to 21st century literacy instruction in the elementary (and secondary) panel.

Literature Review EDUC- 5199 References Alvermann, D.E., Hagood, M. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and practice in new times. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 193-205. Flores- Koulish, S.A. (2006). Media Literacy: An entre for pre-service teachers into critical pedagogy. Teaching Education, 17(3), 239-249.

10

Harste, J. C. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now?. Voices from the Middle, 10(3), 812. Jewitt C. (2008). Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms. Review of in Education, 32, 241-267. Jewett, P. (2007). Reading Knee-Deep. Reading Psychology, 28, 149-162. Kellner, D., Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry, 1-12. Thoman, E., (1999). Skills and Strategies for Media Education. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 50-54. Research