In Search of the Ideal Media Experience

Posted on July 19, 2011 by Amy

Recently, I have been working to co-curate the upcoming National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) Film Festival for the biennial conference held in Philadelphia this year from July 22-25. This year’s theme is Global Visions Local Connections: Voices in Media Literacy Education.

In keeping with the theme of this year’s conference, we have been heavily focused on selecting films for the three-night festival that are as unique in their representations, stories and voices as they are educational. This has been such a tremendously fun experience – watching a slew of films, critiquing as much on content as production value, analyzing individual scenes and shots for their quality and their message – a true hearkening back to the film school “nerd” days if you will. In finalizing the films for the Festival, and in thinking about how they will be presented at the conference – with materials and resources? What kinds of materials and resources? With an introduction or without? With a post-screening discussion or not? All of these little nuanced questions got me thinking – is there an “ideal” media experience? What if we include media AND technology experiences? Should I be experiencing (consuming) media and technology in different or similar ways in an ideal world or in ideal settings? Whew, that’s a lot of questions.

The key question (is there an ideal media experience) has multiple layers. In the simplest sense, it is about aesthetics and physical space, and access. My experience in watching a film in a state-of-the-art movie theater is different than watching a film at home, or a film at home in 3-D, or a film at home with surround sound. The question here is as much about the physical space and physiological response and experience as it is about how these factors can affect our perception of the media piece and its message. Think of the different experience an 8.1 surround-sound mix offers as opposed to a standard two-channel stereo channel mix. In a strictly physiological sense, you’re hearing up to six more additional channels of sound and a multitude of different effects, which are setting the tone and environment for your experience, and subsequently, how engaged or disengaged you may be. Or how about if you’re watching a program broadcast in 3-D with no 3-D glasses, and how distracting it is to see the distorted image on the screen. For a young child, these variations may actually pertain to how realistic something is or is not perceived – and that is powerful!

In a larger sense, and this has equal if not more significant weight from a media literacy standpoint, how does a physical space and setting affect aesthetics and critical response? If we watch a film in a movie theater full of other patrons, or if we watch a film on our laptop with headphones, is our willingness to think critically about what we have seen or to talk about our experience altered? I would argue that it can be. I don’t know that our internal critical response mechanisms would change significantly, but what could change is our willingness to talk about, and share, our experience. This is important. Especially when we consider the consumption of educational media, media that makes us think and asks us to respond or act. If we have an immediate chance to talk about what we’ve seen or what we’ve heard with someone else who will surely ask “so, what did you think of the movie?”, how much more likely are we to internalize and learn more about (maybe even act on) what we’ve seen. Plus, we get the added bonus of incorporating more than our own perspective into our response of said media. Think about it: Would you be more likely to talk about your reaction and response to a film if you went to the film with someone or without?

Finally, there is very real concern about access when we talk about the “ideal media experience”. What kinds of barriers exist to literally and figuratively prevent someone from accessing media and in what form? One person may be able to afford to go to every opening night screening in every IMAX theatre every time, another may not. One person may be able to access on-demand videos on their cell phone or iPad, many more may not. When we curate, create, or disseminate media on a variety (or even one) platform, we need to address these sorts of concerns for our audience. Ask ourselves, “does how and where we disseminate media content and information on a given platform or in a given setting automatically exclude certain individuals or groups from accessing the content?” In most cases, the answer is probably. We have to respond to this sort of concern and attempt to mitigate the type of detriments it can have. In essence, we have to consider two things: is the artistic integrity of the piece more or less important than the ability for a majority of people to access it? Would I rather show my 8.1 surround-sound mixed film only in a high-quality movie theater, or am I willing to distribute it widely so that more people can see it knowing that they may not have access to the latest and greatest sound system?

This seemingly silly discussion does actually have a point – should we be advocating for, and modeling, as in the case of the upcoming NAMLE Film Festival, an “ideal media experience” and why? I say yes, yes, and because it has larger implications for media literacy education and, also, arts education practices as well. What about whom should we advocate for? I don’t think we can (or should) advocate for an ideal media experience that solely pertains to our exhibition capabilities, especially in K-12 education settings where we likely do not understand the technology capacities of a given classroom or setting. If we decide on advocating for an “ideal media experience” I would say (and the filmmaker in me may cringe a bit in saying this) that we should advocate for an “ideal media experience” that is more about the questions you ask, and the conversation the piece raises through its messaging rather than focusing solely on a physical or aesthetic “ideal experience”. Advocating for a strictly or predominantly “ideal media experience” that is based more on physical space and environment will almost always alienate an audience and decrease access to the media form itself, and I don’t think that’s the goal of any media as a communications tool.

However, it doesn’t mean that we couldn’t include physical space or environmental recommendations or suggestions for ideal experiences (this film is best enjoyed with ___________) would make for a very rich discussion of the medium itself. A practical media example: “Could our experience watching a digitally re-mastered version of Star Wars differ if we were to watch it in surround sound or in stereo? Would this affect our experience as a viewer and our interpretation of the film? How?” It’s the same type of discussion that one would expect to have about the Georges Seurat painting A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, where you could certainly discuss the historical and cultural context of the piece, but could not as effectively demonstrate its use of pointillism technique in a living room or classroom as you could actually seeing the piece in person.

What we, as educators, exhibitors and creators/curators of content, should most definitely be advocating for is an ideal media experience that involves an aesthetic and critical response piece whenever and wherever possible. This could mean different approaches in different settings, but would almost always include an experience that is founded in the Core Principles of Media Literacy Education.

In practical terms, if I were to curate a film festival and wanted my audience to have the most ideal experience possible (and I could not control the setting or physical space) or if were asked by an audience member, “how could I get the most out of my media experience”, I would tell them to always consider the following when interacting with any form of media:

(1)  Ask questions whenever you interact with media and discuss, discuss, discuss! After all, isn’t this goal of media and technology as a whole – as tools for communication?

(2)  Seek out alternative forms of information and voice, whenever possible.

(3)  Start your media or technology experience with a question. It can be about the message of the piece, the intended audience, what you (the viewer) want to get out of it, etc.

(4)  Think about how the medium and the physical space or environment in which you are using the media could alter the message or the experience (see notes above about physical space and aesthetics) Do you think that the way in which you are using the media is the way intended by the media-maker? What would happen if I watched this in a different setting?

(5)  Find a way to critically respond. Write a review, make your own multimedia piece, etc.

(6)  Share your ideas with someone else and encourage them to do the same

These are certainly not meant to be all-encompassing and across all platforms of media and technology, but rather, are meant to be starting off points for a greater discussion of what constitutes an ideal media experience. Having this conversation matters because once we work to define what an ideal media experience is, we can identify what an ideal media experience isn’t, and that’s where media literacy education can begin to take shape.

As is and will always be the case for me, media and technology are means to an end rather than ends in and of themselves. They are tools to communicate, to tell stories, to inform, to educate, to learn, to connect. When we don’t stop to think about how best to use these tools for further connection, for further education, for further amplification of our voices, for further communication across our local and global communities, we are not using them in an ideal way. Let’s talk about what the ideal experience should be. Let’s talk about how we can most efficiently and effectively use these tools to our advantage, for their innate and intended purpose, and in an active, participatory way rather than a passive and submissive context. Meet me at the movies to further discuss, I’ll bring the popcorn!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Breaking Through the Celluloid Ceiling with Media Literacy Education

Posted on June 7, 2011 by Amy

When I think about the importance of media literacy education for individuals, groups of people from all walks of life, ages and backgrounds, there is one group for which media literacy education is especially critical: women and girls. Media literacy education is important for everyone, everywhere. For women and girls, the importance of media literacy education cannot be overemphasized enough. In fact, there is not one piece of media literacy education: production, communication, critical thinking and analysis, inquiry and creative, thoughtful expression, that is more important than another when it comes to the development of media literacy skills in women and girls. We must look no further than the current state of our media, across multiple platforms, to understand why.

In a recent study conducted by Dr. Stacey Smith from the USC Annenberg School for Communication, a total of 122 films from 18 different distributors from a theatrical release period spanning three years (2006-2009) were content- analyzed for their portrayal of gender. Of note, the films analyzed were family films with a G, PG or PG-13 rating. When analyzed, these films were found to have 5,554 discernible speaking characters, 29.2% of whom were female and 70.8% who were male. Two additional findings from this study are especially important: the appearance and portrayal of females in the films studied, and the change over time in the representation of females in film.

When researchers analyzed appearance indicators of female and male characters, a significantly higher percentage of females were shown to be in “sexy attire” (24% females, 4% males), “in partial nudity” defined as some skin exposed between the mid- chest and upper thigh regions (18.5% females, 5.6% males), and as more beautiful (14% females, 3.6% males). Take a moment to think about that. What kinds of messages do we think this is sending to impressionable young girls watching their favorite family film, or to women and girls who seek their self-image from the media they consume?

According to the Girl Scout Research Institute in a 2008 study, “three out of four girls (73%) compare how they look to girls in the media at least sometimes, with three out of ten girls (29%) comparing their looks either a lot or all the time”. What happens when girls begin to define their self-worth and body image by the media they see? While research does not yet show that media has a direct cause on eating disorders in females, one study from the University of Minnesota found that “teen girls who read magazine articles about dieting were more likely five years later to practice extreme weight-loss measures, like vomiting after eating.” I also encourage you to review the American Psychological Association’s (APA) and The APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls reports that further detail links between media, sexualized media images, and mental health problems in girls and women, including eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression.

Perhaps even more surprising is the Gender Disparity in Family Films (Dr. Smith’s study mentioned above) study’s comparison of the percentage of females in G, PG and PG-13 films over time. From G-rated films released between the years of 1990-1995, to G-rated films released between the years of 2006-2009, the study finds only a 2.7% increase in female characters. Across PG and PG-13 films studied over the same time period, the percentage increase across the same 20 year period is actually less than 2.7%. On second thought, maybe we shouldn’t be as shocked at this statistic as I initially thought; after all, the first female to win an Academy Award for Best Director did just occur last year.

Why are media literacy skills such as critical analysis and inquiry so important in a media environment such as this? When we look at the How adolescent girls interpret weight-loss advertising report conducted by Renee Hobbs, Sharon Broder, Holly Pope and Jonelle Rowe, the need becomes clear. The study analyzed “how girls aged 9–17 years interpreted magazine advertising, television (TV) advertising and infomercials for weight-loss products in order to determine whether deceptive advertising techniques were recognized and to assess preexisting media-literacy skills.” What did it find? Two important pieces to the puzzle: many girls do not recognize how advertising evokes emotional responses or how visual and narrative techniques are used to increase identification in weight-loss advertising, and girls were less able to demonstrate skills including recognizing persuasive construction strategies including message purpose, target audience and subtext and awareness of economic factors including financial motives, credibility enhancement and branding.”

All of this data helps us to understand the need for one piece of media literacy education: critical analysis, inquiry and thinking skills, but what about the other piece, the piece that is normally defined as “the ability to… communicate in a variety of forms…” (a production piece, if you will). To better understand the need for a completely holistic media literacy education for all women and girls, and to help us identify where these stark disparities in gender representations in media come from, let’s look at the most recent The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 250 Films of 2010 report conducted by Dr. Martha Lauzen. According to Dr. Lauzen’s research analyzing the top 250 grossing films of 2010; women comprised only 16% of all key behind-the-scenes roles. In this instance, key behind-the-scenes roles are defined as directors, writers, executive producers, producers, editors, and cinematographers. You may also recognize these positions as those also often referred to as “above the line”, those who influence the direction of the film. These employment figures actually represent an overall 1% decrease in women’s employment in a key behind-the-scenes role in the top 250 grossing films since 1998. Also interesting to note, the study found that women were most likely to work in the “romantic comedy, documentary, and romantic drama genres, and least likely to work in the horror, action, and comedy genres.”

The importance of these figures becomes no more apparent or important as when we look at the correlation between women in key behind-the-scenes roles with that of the representation of female characters on the screen. According to numerous reports, including studies from both Dr. Lauzen and Dr. Smith, when women are in key behind-the-scenes roles, such as writer, director and producer, the percentage of female characters on screen also increases. In some instances, this increase is as high as 10%. What more important argument for encouraging women and girls in the production and communication of ideas through media than this, a piece of the ‘gender representation in media’ puzzle that is in fact cyclical in nature.

Besides placing a special emphasis on, and advocating for, media literacy education for women and girls, what else can we do now to help decrease gender disparity in media and inspire women and girls to feel empowered, informed and engaged digital citizens? For starters, we should talk about these disparities and findings more. Whenever possible, I try to draw attention to the gender of the filmmaker and the representation of gender/women in media during our monthly community engagement initiative centered around screening documentary films here at the station, at the very least to stimulate a discussion amongst our audience and to ask them to think critically about the source of the media messages they view. I also talk about the role of women and girls in media in media education workshops we conduct with girls, presenting this data as a starting point for discussing their role(s) as young filmmakers.

As a community, we should also continue celebrating new and existing initiatives that focus specifically on the role of women in media. While there are so many great programs that currently exist, some important ones to note include: Jean Kilbourne and her pioneering work on gender and advertising, The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, Women Make Movies, Reel Grrls, and the very recently launched Women and Girls Lead initiative from ITVS, an “innovative public media initiative designed to focus, educate, and connect women, girls, and their allies across the globe to address the challenges of the 21st century.” Initiatives and programs such as these are important not only for their continued scholarship and support of women and gender in media, but for their dedication to providing resources for, and empowerment to, the next generation of women media makers.

This must be a cornerstone of media literacy education moving forward. We must reach, and continue to reach out to, groups everywhere – from small towns to big, from one state to one country, that are under and mis-represented in the media today; women and girls are one such group. Until groups such as these are empowered with the requisite critical inquiry and production skills needed to actively participate in civic discourse, our media will not accurately represent all of the beautiful diversities of our society. As media practitioners, educators and simply active community members, we should settle for nothing less from our media system.

This article was originally posted by NAMAC on June 3, 2011.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Real Importance of Public Media: Youth Programming

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Amy

As the debate over public media continues, we must continue to ask ourselves what the term “public media” really means. What defines a “public”? What does the term “media” actually include? When I think about public media, the first image that comes to mind is the public broadcasting system as it currently exists. More importantly, I think of the continued and very real debate going on across the country and in Congress about whether or not to continue federal funding for public broadcasting. There has been much talk about whether or not the model for public broadcasting as it currently exists today is outdated. Opponents of the continued funding of public broadcasting often argue that public broadcasting is now obsolete given the current structure of commercial television broadcasting, ‘500 different channels all devoted to a person’s individual interests, etc.’ – that sort of thing, so why do we need public broadcasting when there are so many options?! More on that later.

As Paula Kerger, President and CEO of the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) recently discussed, public broadcasting “is America’s classroom”. When we talk about the importance of public broadcasting, and the many benefits of the current system, and there are many, we cannot neglect to talk about the importance of public broadcasting (public media in this instance) for America’s youth. In fact, this is in so many ways the single most important benefit of public media/broadcasting. There are three key reasons why public broadcasting/media are so crucial to today’s youth: accessibility, the educational merit and robustness of programming, and the overall potential for learning.

Accessibility can mean a lot of things. In this context, I refer to the availability of quality educational media content to the greatest number of individuals. There have been numerous reports outlining the many positive effects that the educational resources put forth by public media and broadcasting outlets can have on children, especially as they relate to children from low-income families and closing the literacy gap. A significant amount of this research has come from the federally-funded Ready to Learn Initiative, “a program to develop educational television programming, online games, and outreach activities that increase school readiness for 2- to 8-year-old children living in low-income households. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Education awarded one of two Ready to Learn Programming and Outreach grants to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).”

These reports have found that not only does multimedia literacy intervention have a positive impact on the literacy skills of low-income children, but that specific PBS KIDS shows such as Super WHY! and Between the Lions have an impact as well. The Super WHY! study, conducted by the Annenberg Children’s Media Lab, found that exposure to episodes of Super WHY!, in as little as two or three episodes, was shown to improve the following: overall positive effect on performance by preschool children using standardized measures of early reading achievement, an astonishing 97 percent of children found the show engaging, and low-income and working class children in the experimental group scored 46 percent higher than low-income and working class children from the control group on standardized tests. (Full report here). Super WHY! and Between the Lions are just two of the public media educational resources that have been shown to increase literacy skills amongst children from low-income communities. To view the complete report on the PBS KIDS Raising Readers initiative, click here.

The accessibility of public media goes beyond what is available for free to the estimated 170 million Americans who use public broadcasting each month; it also includes educational outreach events and specialized workshops that take place in under-served communities each year through member stations and local affiliates. Public media/broadcasting is about providing access, access for those who may not otherwise have the ability to access educational programming of any kind, but especially and most importantly educational multimedia. Accessibility isn’t the only important piece of this puzzle though.

Perhaps the biggest cornerstones and strengths of public media are the educational merit and robustness of its programming. Content is not only rigorously designed to be developmentally and age appropriate by scores of individuals specializing in education, but it is also designed with educational standards in mind. Furthermore, it is designed to be engaging and interactive, during both the viewing process and beyond with innovative online tools offered for every show, lesson plans that have been developed and categorized for teachers and parents according to content area, skill, and age – to name a few. Most importantly, however, is the sheer amount of educational programming offered by public media as opposed to that of commercial television.

While television broadcasters are legally required to air three hours per week of children’s educational programming as mandated by the Children’s Television Act, it is estimated that public media outlets air nearly seven hours a day of children’s educational programming; at WQED-TV in Pittsburgh we air 12 hours a day. Conversely, it is estimated that commercial broadcasters air a significantly less amount of educational and informational programming (E/I) a week, where 96% air only 3.0-4.0 hours a week of E/I programming. Furthermore, according to the 2008 E/I Programming Report, public broadcast shows such as Sesame Street and Between the Lions were far more likely to contain high-quality lessons focused on cognitive-intellectual development than their commercial counterparts.

So we have accessibility and high-quality, educationally robust programming and resources, but what do these ultimately mean? In the grand scheme of things, it not only means that children who may not otherwise have any access to high-quality educational programming (including but NOT only limited to multimedia), especially in the very important formative early childhood years, are provided access to high-quality programs that have been proven to have a positive effect on cognitive development and skills acquisition, but it also means that the potential for learning appears to be so much greater with public media/broadcasting than simply consuming every day media.

Aside from the many discussions about the academic rigor that goes in to developing a public media property for children, but just as important, is the way in which these shows are developed and designed. They are designed to be engaging and interactive and not just consumed, imagine that! As has been detailed in multiple studies, notably the Children’s Media Center READY TO LEARN: Literature Review PART 1: Elements of Effective Educational TV report and even Cable in the Classroom’s Navigating the Children’s Media Landscape: A Parent’s and Caregiver’s Guide report that discusses the types of “media mediation” that is recommended for parents and caregivers to encourage an engaged media mind, we find that active viewing that is aided by engaging and interactive content is the way to increasing the educational effectiveness of media, both outside of and including media literacy education. So, not only do we have embedded educational content that is accessible, we have engaged viewers who are learning to interact with media from a very young age. There are even more reports and studies on the intersection of learning, media and psychology that I highly recommend checking out from the Media Psychology Research Center as well.

While all of this information is useful and so important to the debate over public media, we are left with this 500 channels choice argument, right? There are two important points to remember here. First, as was so brilliantly pointed out by Mary Kate Cary in her “What Congress Needs to Know About Funding NPR and PBS” article in U.S. News and World Report article earlier this week, “The corporation (for public broadcasting) is legally charged with “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” This has serious implications not only for the quality of programming produced by public media outlets, but as equally if not more so for teaching today’s youth crucial media literacy skills. In a social, and even educational environment, where many individuals feel as equally that media is inherently good as inherently bad, we must have an objective media source that serves as a model for displaying the powerful communicative measures and means of media as a form of self expression and crucial 21st century communication skill.

Secondly, I would simply ask that we analyze how many of those supposed 500 channels are owned by the same individual companies or media properties? I suspect we would find a number somewhat closer to 10-20, potentially even dipping into the single digits. 500 channels do not always mean variety when we consider where the root source of these media messages comes from; for at the end of the day, so many come from the same or similar sources.

At the end of the day, we are left with the many proven benefits of a public media/broadcasting system that may or may not completely resemble the current model we have today. While we may debate how public media can continue to best serve its community, we should not doubt the importance of a strong public media system, and most importantly, the educational merit and the many implications that a strong and robust public media can have on the education of our youth. We live in a time in which the average child spends an estimated 10 hours and 45 minutes a day with multimedia. Multimedia education, media literacy if you prefer, is increasingly important to this generation, and I cannot think of a better, more equipped and well-proven system to support this education than our public media system.

If not for all of the reasons listed above to support public media, I encourage you to listen to Fred Rogers’ 1969 defense of funding for public broadcasting at the United States Senate Subcommittee hearing when Congress was again considering whether or not to eliminate funding for public broadcasting. As only Fred could do, he talks about the importance of public broadcasting and the educational significance of the cornerstone shows of PBS such as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. As I am certain that we are not all remiss to remember hearing this phrase as a child, Fred explains that he ends each of his episodes telling children that “You make each day a special day by just your being you.” How simple, yet empowering and important for every child to hear every day – and from the media itself! That is truly something as special today as it was then. That is truly the educational power of a public media system that can and does change the lives of youth everywhere.

This article was originally posted by NAMAC on March 17, 2011.

What do you value most about public media? We invite your questions and comments below.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is What You Want to See Always What You Get? Perceptions and Expectations of Media

Posted on January 25, 2011 by Amy

I love to read individual, user-created reviews of feature films. Now, I must admit that I don’t read these reviews before seeing a film in an effort to determine whether or not I should attend a screening. I, on the other hand, tend to read user reviews of films I have already seen. I find it interesting to see how other random people have reacted to the film I have just watched, not necessarily as a form of vindication but rather as a study in psychology, if you will.

What I have found interesting over the many years of reading these reviews is the number of people that complain about a film not meeting their expectations. Some will explain their expectations of the film going in and how their actual experience compared to their expectations, but many will not. Inevitably, I am left wondering, “What was your expectation and why?” What initially started as an interest in hearing others’ opinions has transformed into a genuine curiosity about the role of viewer (audience) expectations in the consumption and interpretation of media. More importantly, how these expectations interact with, and affect, the practice of media literacy education.

In my experience, I find that the study of audience expectations as they relate to the consumption and interpretation of media is not always present in higher level media courses, specifically production classes. Although production classes teach the psychology behind shot construction and audience interpretation of standard film shooting conventions (see the Kuleshov experiment as an example of a typical production class lesson on how the use of shot juxtaposition and montage in cinema affects audience perception of emotion and meaning-making), a thorough discussion of audience expectations, meaning-making and interpretation is more typically relegated to critical media theory courses. While many critical media theory courses will discuss historical and cultural context, among other topics, I find that many of the most in-depth discussions of audience expectations and meaning-making in media come from interdisciplinary courses. Such courses include the Sociology of Media, the Psychology of Media, and film theory courses which place an emphasis on mass media as a communication form and thus tend to discuss more general communication, rhetoric and literary-based models of audience interaction and communication.

One such course I remember taking during my undergraduate work was the Sociology of Media, still one of my favorite classes to date. More specifically, I think of one of the great texts I was introduced to: A Thousand Screenplays: The French Imagination in a Time of Crisis by Sabine Chalvon-Demersay. The book is a fascinating study on individual representation, audience meaning-making and media interaction with a sociological bent. That being said, I think it also offers some interesting insights into audience expectations of media, insomuch as it demonstrates that regardless of social demographic, a great majority of individuals still expect and interact with media hoping for a sort of personal vindication, acceptance and connectedness.

While I do not subscribe to all of the principles set forth by the Uses and Gratifications Theory of mass communication, I do think that this theory warrants some mention here.  In essence, this theory holds that audience members choose media that will best fit their emotional, social, psychological/intellectual needs. These needs are commonly broken down into four main categories:  Information, Personal Identity, Integration and Social Interaction, and Entertainment. Though I believe these categories (or needs), originally created by Denis McQuail in the late 1970s, may hold serious weight when it comes to explaining why a majority of individuals choose to consume a certain media at any given time, they do not take into account certain other theories of media consumption. One such theory is reception theory, which essentially states that individuals will interpret the same media (or “text”) in a multitude of ways depending on their individual life experiences, including social and cultural contexts. The other important aspect of media selection that warrants mentioning here is the level of consciousness present in the audience’s media decision-making process. I would argue that, a majority of the time, the decision to fulfill an inherent emotional, social or intellectual need through the consumption of media is not conscious for a majority of individuals; the same is also likely to hold true for the application of reception theory to media text interpretation.

When we combine these two theories, the practical result will likely resemble the following: I and five of my closest friends may go to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster for a multitude of different reasons, or for all of the same reasons. I may want to be entertained, another person may want to re-affirm their identity (Personal Identity), another person may want to be informed, etc. Even if we all went in to the theatre with the same motivations, or expectations, we will all come out with different interpretations, be they drastically opposing or very similar, but never completely identical.

An interesting phenomenon, sure, but not wholly surprising. What is interesting, however, is how these primarily unconscious decisions can and likely do affect our interpretation of media texts. Put simply, do my expectations and motivations for media consumption affect my interpretation of said media? In terms of the implications for media literacy education, how do these expectations and motivations affect my interpretation of media? The answer is yes, and greatly.

Let’s say, for example, that I am seeking to be informed. If I choose a media text that I perceive to be informational, will I automatically assume that this text (or source) is an objective source of information? I would argue that without any proper media literacy education, I would. It goes without saying that this type of credulous interpretation has many important implications for my world-view and critical thinking skills, or lack thereof. This is where media literacy education plays a significant role in the development of such skills.

Media literacy education plays an important role in shaping our expectations for media, and somewhat inadvertently, our media consumption. The question is whether or not media literacy education increases our awareness of these “internal filters” and selection processes before, during or after the selection and consumption of media.  Media literacy education, at its very best, should teach all of the above.

In many ways, media literacy education is about raising awareness at multiple levels – both internal and external. While the aim may not wholly be on raising awareness of individual psychology and decision-making processes when it comes to media consumption, this is an important byproduct of a successful education in media literacy. If we teach awareness and critical thinking skills as they relate to media consumed and created, sooner or later this personal awareness and media decision-making will fall into place as well, because media literacy education demands a certain level of reflective and engaged thinking.  Need proof? Consider the following: Do you ever just consciously make a decision to turn on the television in search of some form of mindless entertainment? You know not to expect much from what you’re watching other than background noise.  Conversely, maybe you search the dial for information on the day’s events. Does this mean that you automatically search for a news channel?

These types of situations also beg the question: are our psychological, social, emotional and intellectual needs for media selection, as defined by McQuail (Information, Personal Identity, Integration and Social Interaction, and Entertainment) mutually exclusive? No. We know this because this is where we start to ask ourselves those important media literacy questions like: “Why was this made?” and “What is this about?”

Another interesting question (or three) we might begin to ask ourselves at this point: “What were my expectations of this media? Why? Where did this expectation come from?” What will follow from this type of questioning is not only an examination of our own internal media selection and consumption decision-making processes, but also a thorough examination of media producers’ expectations and messaging strategies (in other words, more media literacy education!). If we start to question our own motivations for choosing certain media, and how media producers’ messaging affects our expectations of this media, we are more likely to make smarter and more informed choices about our media consumption. Smarter and more informed media consumption choices can only mean that we begin to look at the media we consume, for any and all reasons, with a more critical and active eye for interpretation. This increase in active and critical thinking will ultimately make us more informed and engaged citizens, the primary goal of media literacy education.

At the end of the day, we must admit to ourselves that we go into every media consumption moment with expectations of what we will see, largely based on an inherent need we know, or just feel as though, we need to fulfill through media. We must also seek to understand that these expectations for our media consumption and selection do not always come from inside ourselves, but that they may also be affected by external stimuli, cultural and social contexts, and media producer messaging, be it good and bad. We should not always feel the need to say that these needs or expectations are inherently good or bad, but we must certainly acknowledge that they exist. When we are able to consciously acknowledge that these needs and expectations for our media exist, we are more likely to understand that they can and do affect our media selection, consumption and, ultimately, interpretation.  For in the end, it is this acknowledgment that will make us active media users, creators and communicators.

This article was originally posted by NAMAC on January 19, 2011.

Where do you draw your expectations for media from? We invite your questions and comments below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Defining Technology and Media: An Important Step Towards Teaching Necessary 21st Century Skills

Posted on September 10, 2010 by Amy

Using technology in education is not a new phenomenon. Though this type of integration may be more prevalent now in the 21st century than what it has been in the past, it has existed in education in some form or another for decades. Media integration, on the other hand, is consistently referred to as a relatively new phenomenon in education. Although complete media integration is not yet commonplace in classrooms throughout the country, media’s use in the classroom, much like that of technology, is seemingly old hat (who didn’t enjoy “movie day” in the classroom?) Although “movie day in the classroom” has shifted from slides and projectors to DVDs and YouTube as a result of rapidly-changing technology in the 21st century, media use in the classroom remains prevalent nonetheless.

So, what is the difference between these two communication forms?  Is there a difference? If so, how does this difference affect classroom integration, pedagogy and, perhaps more importantly, student development of 21st century skills in the classroom and beyond? Can we teach media without technology, or technology without media and what does this mean for the current, and future, states of education integration and reform in the United States?

What’s in a Definition?

One of the most important reasons to define and clarify the relationship and distinction between media and technology is funding. When seeking funding for the many education initiatives centered around STEM, STEAM, STREAM, technology integration in the classroom and everything else in between, the relationship between media and technology must be clearly distinguished in an effort to expand upon the types of programs that may be available for additional types of funding. There are a lot of funding initiatives that have centered on STEM, and more recently STEAM, and although these terms do not explicitly relate to media integration in the classroom, most if not all are likely to relate to some form of technology integration in the classroom and across disciplines.

Another important basis for defining the differences (and similarities) between technology and media lies in conducting research, which ultimately has effects on funding efforts as well. I have seen a lot of reports, especially recently, that examine teacher use and attitudes towards media and technology, but not often both in the same report. What is interesting to note, however, is that most of these reports ask teachers to discuss their views and usage of media and/or technology in the classroom without explicitly saying that researchers are measuring the two communication forms, either separately or inter-dependently. Take for instance the following sample questions: “Do you use YouTube in your classroom?” or “How often do you use documentaries as part of your lesson plans?” Both of the sample questions refer to both media and technology implicitly, but not necessarily explicitly. The different types of responses, when not separated and examined in more depth, can have important implications for teachers.  A high number of responses, for example, indicating that a majority of teachers use YouTube in the classroom could indicate that teachers use, and are familiar with, technology integration concepts in the classroom but not media integration. Conversely, these types of responses could also indicate that a high number of teachers use media in the classroom but may not teach media literacy, with varying degrees of separation and similarities in between.

In defining the relationship and distinction between technology and media before or during a survey of educators, we can better understand where these types of double-coding may occur. In the case of the YouTube example, we will be able to better understand how educators use all communication forms in the classroom and the context for said use, which better equips us to respond to their needs and interests.

How Does this Affect Education?

Put simply: in a lot of ways. Aside from the obvious issues inherent in funding and research possibilities, as previously discussed, the lack of distinction and understanding between the terms technology and media has very serious implications for teacher professional development and undergraduate training. If the institutions that will offer teacher professional development in either technology OR media integration in the classroom do not clearly define the two terms, as well as their relationship with one another, then an opportunity for complete understanding and acquired knowledge in successful technology and media integration techniques in the classroom is lost. We must understand that technology and media are in fact two horns on the same bull; they are almost definitively dependent upon one another in order to be most effective. If we train teachers solely in technology integration, and ignore the inherent inclusion of, and dependence of, media on technology, we do not fully synthesize a complete understanding of necessary 21st century skills, nor do we open the door for media literacy training. The converse is also true – where we cannot, and should not, teach media integration in the classroom without an ample discussion about the effects of technology on the constructs and messages of the media.

So, What Can Be Done?

First and foremost, we must define both the terms themselves in order to create a common vernacular, and also the relationship between the terms so that we may begin to develop the necessary types of teacher professional development in 21st century skills integration in the classroom; training that will truly prepare teachers to both use and critically examine the technologies and media they use in the classroom on a daily to weekly basis.

Once a set of common definitions has been created around both technology and media, teacher professional development trainings can be developed around both terms, which may be separate in terms of programmatic area but that will unequivocally contain integrated technology and media concepts. As we re-imagine our Education Department around the idea of public media as educational media here at WQED Pittsburgh and begin offering teacher professional development opportunities centered on these concepts, these ideas may manifest in the following ways:

1) We offer professional development workshops based on a specific program, either on-air or outreach, that we offer. During the course of the workshop, we discuss the actual media and messages, as well as how it is affected by the technology it uses to communicate.

2) We offer professional development workshops based on a specific technology or tool. During the course of the workshop, we discuss how the technology used can affect and help shape the different messages that funnel through the technology.

In both cases, the goal is the same: we teach about the relationship between technology and media by placing both in the context of education and their role in communication. Using this framework, we are better able to discuss how both forms affect communication messages and structure(s), which are critical 21st century skills.

How do we Define?

There are multiple ways that technology and media can be defined and/or distinguished:

1)       Using a simple dictionary definition.

According to Merriam-Webster’s, this means that “technology” would be defined as:

1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car’s fuel-saving technology>

2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage>

3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>

— tech·nol·o·gist\-jist\ noun

And “media” would be defined as:

: a means of effecting or conveying something: as a (1) : a substance regarded as the means of transmission of a force or effect (2) : a surrounding or enveloping substance (3) : the tenuous material (as gas and dust) in space that exists outside large agglomerations of matter (as stars) <interstellar medium> b plural usually media (1) : a channel or system of communication, information, or entertainment — compare mass medium (2) : a publication or broadcast that carries advertising (3) : a mode of artistic expression or communication (4) : something (as a magnetic disk) on which information may be stored

2)       Define each term based on their practical application and intended purpose.

Using this method I would say that, for our purposes, technology may be defined as the physical tools, elements and methods used to complete a specialized task.

Although the definition of media would be similar to that of technology, I may differentiate the two by saying that media is a physical manifestation, form or instrument used to convey thoughts, emotions and/or expressions.

Both forms are used as tools for communication, however, the difference between the two lies in the intent of the user as well as the creator/inventor. This subtle difference has two important nuances:

Whereas the creation or invention of a new technology may not always seek to accomplish the goal of communication, the use or creation of media, or mediums, is always to communicate.

The second important nuance between the definitions of technology and media lies in determining the responsible party for creation or invention. Increasingly, this line is being blurred with user-created content and technologies, which includes both media and mass media forms such as YouTube, CurrentTV, etc. as well as iPhone application technologies, open-source software and the like, which can be defined as user-created technologies.

Why defining and differentiating terms REALLY matters

It is commonplace in many state and national academic standards in technology that media also be included as a core competency. In most cases, knowledge and understanding of media is included under Information or Communication Systems in state and/or national technology standards, and is also often integrated in other content areas as well, the most common being English and Literary Arts. What should be noted is the very frequent use of technology in academic standards, both at the state and national levels. For every instance in which technology is taught or used in the classroom, as it is deemed a necessary proficiency for all students, without also including a discussion, however brief, of the important relationship between technology and media, we lose an opportunity to also begin a discussion of media literacy.

When the two communication forms remain separate in public and educational discourse, we discount the many important ways that one form’s meaning is altered with the inclusion, or lack thereof, of the other form. In short, if we ignore teaching about the relationship between media and technology, then we ignore ALL of the skills necessary to become an actively engaged citizen in 21st century discourse.

This article was originally posted by NAMAC on September 10, 2010.

How do you define media and technology? We invite your questions and comments below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A ‘C+’: Do They Even Give Those in Arts Classes?!

Posted on April 29, 2010 by Amy

Picture it: High school visual arts class, sophomore year. A ‘C+’ on my coil-technique clay plot. A ‘C+’: do they even give those in art classes?! After all, I made the requisite piece. The piece looked different than everyone else’s, so I used some level of creativity. Shouldn’t that be an automatic ‘A’?

Sadly, this is not an uncommon view of assessment in the arts. When educators are forced to assess student-created art solely as an end-product rather than as a wholly informative and creative process, it painfully oversimplifies the role of art in our society. It is a furtherance of the horribly misguided notion that the purpose of art, especially media art, is to act as either “meaningless” form of self-expression or a one-way cultural mirror. There may be several reasons to explain why we got here, but the question is: how do we get out?

There are three primary catalysts that continually fuel an over-simplified assessment in the arts:

  • Standardized-testing environments
  • The nature of creative expression
  • Lack of understanding about the purpose of art classes

None of these things are inherently bad, but they do make the implementation of assessment in the arts more challenging.

Standardized-testing environments and lack of understanding about the purpose of art classes, in many ways, are interrelated. The logic is simple: if a subject isn’t tested, then it probably isn’t that important. Classes in more traditional subject areas should be given more effort and attention because they have assessable outcomes, right? Media arts classes are where students go to just have fun. In these classes, similar to all arts classes, the focus should be solely on the process, not the product. We can assess the products and outcomes of classes, but we can’t necessarily assess the process. Or can we?

Classes with more process-based learning are not excuses to not assess student work; possibly a common misconception about arts education. When media arts educators and arts educators alike assess student work based on a variety of criteria, including but NOT limited to creative expression and intent, people get confused; not because they are incompetent, but because they do not understand that these art forms have standards that should (read: must) be met too.

This lack of understanding is also commonly related to the perceived understanding of the nature of creative expression. In so many words, a creative expression is an individual’s expression of thought or emotion and cannot be objectively judged or assessed. I made the video (or the coil pot), I should get an ‘A’. Truth be told, I didn’t receive an ‘A’ because I didn’t fully demonstrate that I understood the concepts presented in the lesson. This is a hard concept to swallow, I admit. However, if you subscribe to the notion that all learning should contain some element of standards-based and conceptual practice, you must also recognize that the mastery of these concepts must be assessed in order to accurately gauge learning comprehension.

These aforementioned issues are especially true of media arts education, which is quite often misconceived as a way to engage children in otherwise monotonous material without the need to present new and challenging content or ideas. While it may seem to be another case of the chicken and egg conundrum, integrating rigorous assessment in the media arts may actually serve to address and fix these misconceptions.

The following methods and suggestions for assessment in the media arts are not intended to be all-inclusive, and should be altered depending on the classroom, community and organizational situation.

Self-assessment
This term seems to be commonplace in education vernacular these days, and is especially relevant in assessing the media arts. This form of assessment is one of the simplest ways to gauge and quantify a student’s creative process. Although the nature of self-assessment is often qualitative in nature (i.e. writing response questions or essays), these types of assessment can be placed into more quantitative metrics, as has been discussed in detail by Chris Worsnop in his Assessing Media Work book and as explained in his article, Using Rubrics to Assess Media Work in the Classroom.

Self-assessment may take a variety of different forms, but should include prompts that require that the student demonstrate some level of logic and reason in explaining their creative process as it relates to more tangible techniques and processes discussed in class. For example, a student response to the prompt, “Explain your choice of shots in this sequence” may be “I chose to use a low camera angle to film this character because the low angle makes him appear more powerful and I liked the contrast of the low-angle to other shots.” In examining this type of self-assessment, explanation of process and its level of support as it relates to techniques discussed in class should be given more credence than a simple “because I liked it” response. While it may be difficult to comprehend, qualitative and quantitative self-assessment is one of the “fairest” ways to address a student’s cognitive processes. Accordingly, self-assessment should be weighted more heavily than any other form of assessment in the media arts.

Group assessment
This can take many different forms, and may either be very useful or very detrimental to the learning process, depending on the learning atmosphere and group dynamic. The goal(s) of group assessment may also be multi-faceted. Effective group assessment may help establish critical and aesthetic analysis and reflection in critiquing art, it may instill skills and competencies in the areas of teamwork and group dynamics, and it may further concepts related to audience interpretation and awareness in the creative inquiry process.

Depending on the situation and classroom dynamic, group assessment may take the form of Q & A sessions with the artist/student in front of the classroom, private individual or small group peer evaluations of work, or small discussion groups. While group assessment may not be ideal for all situations, especially for groups of students who are less familiar with one another, such as in a one-week workshop, it may be ideal in situations where students are able to build trust and camaraderie over an extended period of time. Group assessment should not be weighted as heavily as other forms of assessment, but may prove to be very useful in teaching and assessing aesthetic response to a variety of works.

Goal-based assessment
Goal-based assessment does not mean focusing on product over process. It is the idea of communicating assessment standards and expectations prior to, or in correspondence with, an assignment rather than issuing an assignment without any grading criteria. This is essentially a presumption in any kind of assessment, but the way(s) in which it is communicated to a variety of audiences, most prominently parents and students, largely determines its effectiveness in education. It should be assumed that assessment cannot be effective without first establishing lesson plan and curriculum goals, otherwise, what is being assessed? However, how often are these goals communicated to parents and students in ways that clearly establish performance expectations?

It would be beneficial for parents and other stakeholder groups to be made aware of lesson plan and curriculum goals in order to foster a better understanding of not only what is expected of students, but also to plant a seed of understanding about the artistic process as a whole, rather than as a finished product. Students, however, will benefit the most from communicated goals and assessment standards in media arts education. Though this may lead some students to attempt only the bare minimum required for a passing grade, it may lead other students to the understanding of how individual concepts in the media arts are interrelated. Imagine students paying attention to the “boring” theoretical and technical concepts of media arts rather than simply waiting until they can play with the computer or video camera.

These concepts may garner more student attention if they knew ahead of time that they would also need to demonstrate a mastery of said concepts in their final product. Except in cases of students pursuing independent studies or theses, assessment standards and lesson plan goals should always be communicated to students prior to, or with, assignment of the project.

One of the biggest challenges in assessment in the media arts is in overcoming the notion that all media arts education is only subjective. While I agree that children need to be given ample time to freely explore their creative voice and that students must be taught to interpret media in a variety of different ways, all without being subject to scrutiny, they must also be able to discern effective media arts and communications from ineffective media arts and communications. By making assessment commonplace in all media arts classrooms, we increase the likelihood that students will gain the knowledge needed to effectively interpret and critically analyze media art, and also provide further support and educational credibility to the media arts to those who may doubt their effectiveness.

Integrating assessment standards and practices in all media arts classrooms does not need to take away from, or inhibit, the creative process and subjective interpretation of media. It can, however, signal the importance of critical and aesthetic response in media interpretation and production, which is a crucial and under-appreciated asset in today’s educational climate. Does this mean less A’s and more C+’s for all media arts students? Not necessarily. It simply means that that ‘A’ will be more deserved AND culturally and educationally relevant.

This article was originally posted by NAMAC on April 29, 2010.

How do you assess creative projects in the classroom? We invite your questions and comments below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Teaching Children to Overcome the Small-town Mindset Through Media Arts Education

Posted on April 12, 2010 by Amy

Similar to many in the media-making field, I grew up loving movies because they were my connection to the world. If there was a story to be told, the movies could do it. After all, what better way to connect with millions of people world wide than through an art form that is subtle in its communicative power yet still effective? Being a filmmaker was a dream afforded to few, an art form that had to be studied diligently to be fully understood. This fascination with the seemingly untouchable world of media was amplified by growing up in a small town in Michigan with little access to any form of media education.

For as long as I could remember growing up, I wanted to work in film. When I got to high school, I told my guidance counselor this. He told me to become a lounge singer on a cruise ship. I have yet to make the connection. I wonder how much this mindset has changed over the years? I mention this not to berate my guidance counselor, but as an example of how the small-town mindset often works. Making movies and being an artist for a living isn’t necessarily frowned upon, it just isn’t understood. This lack of understanding can be devastating to a child. With no other support systems in place, I fear that many of these children with a passion for the media arts simply give up.

Even with the power to freely create and distribute media content whenever desired through the many forms of new technology, rural children often still lack any formal education in media arts in the important, formative primary and secondary school years.  How can we engage children in more rural areas who have little or no access to any form of media arts education and who may only ever be exposed to one media arts program? More importantly, how can we support children from rural areas who have a desire to pursue the media arts?

Building on the Positive Core of the Media Arts developed in 2006-2007 by the National Alliance for Media Art and Culture, I propose the use of four methods, a new 4P’s for all of you marketing gurus out there. Though these concepts may not be new to the field, they are crucial for actively engaging and sustaining truly effective rural media arts education.

Personalize
This concept goes deeper with children today, who are in a constant state of information overload. Sure, there are commercials and shows everywhere that want to hear their opinions. All they need to do is text a message to five numbers on the screen. This isn’t an opinion, it’s buy-in. It’s not to say that this type of marketing is not occasionally well-intentioned, but it doesn’t truly engage children. It seems that too often we as adults forget how intelligent and insightful children can be when given the opportunity to be so. Some of the work that I have seen come out of media literacy courses and visual arts students who are eight years old is truly amazing. How refreshing it must be for children to be given the opportunity to have their voices heard, and not be told that they are right or wrong. This sense of empowerment is especially important in rural areas, where more opportunities to engage with the community and freedom of expression through artistic mediums are not as prevalent for children.

Part of History
Depending on the region, this may be more difficult for some than others. However, it seems that there is history being made everywhere these days. In the grand scheme of things, this history may not all be epic but is important nonetheless. Most often, this can be accomplished through documentary filmmaking. Giving children a camera and letting them record their own version of history teaches valuable production skills and creates lasting impressions. Allowing children to be a part of a historic event is consistent with personalizing the media they create because it is their take on history being made. Particularly for children in rural areas, who again may be slightly disconnected from events taking place in bigger cities, this is a crucial opportunity for them to become more engaged in civic discourse.

Pop-Culture
In many ways, this one kind of goes without saying, but I still think it warrants mention here. At a recent workshop I attended, one visual arts teacher from a local suburban school discussed how she had structured numerous lesson plans around Beatles- themed music and art. The best part was, the students were asked to respond to the music and images in their own interpretive way, rather than simply reiterating the same material. This type of incorporation is almost second nature to the media arts. In fact, many of the best media pieces are created in response to pop-culture trends. Though no program should be based solely on pop-culture, it is especially important to include in introductory courses for rural area students simply because it is the best-recognized form of media. Allowing these children to critically respond to pop-culture breaks down the passive viewing barrier that is most often perceived as pop-culture media entertainment.

Process, not Product
Of all four concepts, this may be the most difficult to institute. Although the media arts are, at their very essence, process-based learning, this form of learning still runs counter to many of the ingrained habits that are the current standardized-test based K-12 educational system. The important point here isn’t to just reward the final product, but rather the process as a whole. As much as I may have despised them at the time, what always proved to be most useful for me were the self-assessments that were commonplace in nearly all of my undergraduate film courses. This focus on self-assessment can be duplicated for younger children’s programs as well, as I have seen mentioned in various K-12 arts education workshops over the past year. These types of assessment may be most crucial to programs centered around rural area children because they require a high degree of introspection and realization; the very types of self-realization that may spark a child’s passion for the media arts.

Though these four principles may not engage every child all of the time, they do take a right step in the direction of engaging children in the public discourse and reinforcing a sense of power over mass communications that children who grow up in small towns so often lack. At the end of the day, at the very least, these four programmatic elements combined will instill in rural children, those who most often succumb to the notion of one-way media communication, the understanding that they too have the power at any given moment to become active media participants, tellers of their own story.

This article was originally posted by NAMAC on April 12, 2010.

What was your experience with media growing up? We invite your questions and comments below.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment