The Tumultuous Marriage of Media & Technology by Vanessa Domine, PhD, UnderstandMedia.com Contributor
One of the criticisms aimed at media literacy educators is our tendency to rely excessively on protectionist efforts in the form of blocking, avoiding or eliminating harmful media content. To a certain extent this protectionism is warranted, given the real dangers posed by Internet predators and cyber bullies.1 While mandatory internet filters for school districts and the establishment of responsible computing guidelines are legally prudent measures, they do not entirely block inappropriate content from reaching the classroom. Administrators and teachers are rapidly learning that internet access at school not only puts students at risk, but also poses detrimental pedagogical, professional and personal consequences for teachers.2
The U.S. Government in 2004 unveiled a National Educational Technology Plan that promotes, in part, ubiquitous access to computers and connectivity for each student.3 Although nearly all K-12 schools have Internet access, only about half of the K-12 student population accesses the Internet while at school.4 Add to the educational equation a dearth of technology professional development for teachers and the result is an academic brick wall between classroom teachers and their students’ ways of seeing the world. It is not surprising that young people perceive a strong disconnect between how they use the internet at home and how they use it (or do not use it) with teachers at school.5 A major flaw of the National Educational Technology Plan is that it is fundamentally “technology-driven” educational reform rather that educational renewal driving the uses of technology.6
In addition to the National Educational Technology Plan, the federal government promotes technology through No Child Left Behind. All students must achieve technological literacy by the end of eighth grade.7 According to the federal government, technological literacy is:
To a certain extent, the economic imperative embedded in the skill-based approach of NCLB is acceptable in a capitalistic, free-market economy of the United States. According to NCLB, technological literacy allows young people to “exploit new technologies” to “enter the workforce and be competitive economically.”9 Such a utopian vision is the millennial version of the American Dream. Yet the balance is thrown off considerably when corporations and technology industries are the major stakeholders and the loudest voices in determining school curriculum and pedagogy. The current climate of high-stakes testing and skills-based curricula distracts teachers from more meaningful and responsible purposes for technology within education. As educators, we must assert the right and demand unconditional support to linger with our students in the educational technology paradox: The machines and tools that we celebrate, embrace and implement in our lives inside and outside the classroom are the vehicles for the very things we may abhor: Commercialism, cyber bullying, plagiarism, child pornography, just to name a few. Ultimately, we cannot afford to reduce the communications technology in our schools and classrooms as value-free tools that simply deliver curriculum. To do so, is to equate learning with information acquisition. The result is an excessive emphasis on the pursuit of information, at the expense of how to make sense of it once learners acquire the information.
What policies such as NCLB fail to realize is the social efficacy of media literacy. Some students display higher levels of technical proficiency in their uses of digital technologies than their teachers; however, it is important to note that these students do not necessarily possess media literacy—the ability to access, critically analyze, evaluate, produce and communicate using a variety of media forms.10 The cyclical progression of accessing, analyzing, evaluating, producing and communicating positions media literacy as a powerful educational tool. The global connectivity afforded through communications technology is merely a means to a more democratic end. Through communications technology, media literacy education cultivates active, participatory, and responsible citizenship among young people. The economic imperative of technological literacy, as defined through NCLB, promotes pedagogy that is neither humanistic nor socially change-oriented. In contrast, it is not technological proficiency but media literacy that ensures students are more effective agents of change within their own local communities and even worldwide. In sum, media literacy is not just what we do as practitioners, it defines who we are as people.
In a country where the economic imperative reigns supreme and dominates media channels, where else can the majority of young people learn to be critical media consumers and producers if not in the public school classroom? This logically implies school-related and academically relevant uses of computers and the Internet. Yet liability and safety issues override the pedagogical possibilities of incorporating social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook into instruction. While the pedagogical value of social networking is debatable, its value for education lies in its promotion of communal participation in ways that are meaningful for young people. Although there may be room for skeptical rejection of these network technologies, they are nevertheless powerful environments in which to educate young people about choice and accountability. As educators we must face any and all residual fears about the digital world—where files corrupt, computers crash, and Windows collapse. The bottom line is that, while the majority of young people may be more technologically proficient that adults, they crave the leadership and example of adults in their lives. To support media literacy and democratic practices among young people requires that we as educators be more proficient, more creative, and more critical in our uses of communications technologies than we currently are.
