Jenkins
(2006) discusses the classroom practices that have been implemented or should
be implemented in order for students to become media literate in the new media
culture.
Jenkins (2006) basically states that the underlying issue in (and goal of) his report is “to shift the focus of the conversation about the digital divide from questions of technological access to those of opportunities to participate and to develop the cultural competencies and social skills needed for full involvement” (p.4). This would shift the focus of schools from the more-limited operational dimension to a more meaningful cultural dimension – but not really move toward the critical dimension of analyzing history, power, and “the socially constructed nature of knowledge and literacy practices” (Green diagram).
Jenkins (2006) begins his paper by stating that “schools as institutions have been slow to react to the emergence of this new participatory culture” (p. 4). Translated into Green’s 3D literacy model, schools have been operating only or mainly within a limited portion of the operational dimension (of the Green 3D model). Translated, schools have been slow to adopt appropriate new tools to train students in critical media literacy.
Jenkins (2006) states that “a focus on expanding access to new technologies carries us only so far if we do not also foster the skills and cultural knowledge necessary to deploy those tools toward our own ends” (p. 8). Translated again into the Green 3D model, Jenkins is trying to specify how media literacy can operate effectively in the operational dimension (going “beyond received or usual notions of technical competence and ‘how-to” knowledge” (described below by Durrant and Green) and move towards the cultural dimension.
Durrant and Green (2000) explain the operational dimension of their 3D literacy model as follows:
“The operational dimension includes but also goes beyond received or usual notions of technical competence and `how-to' knowledge. Operational knowledge applies as much to literacy practice and learning as it does to IT practice and learning, and hence of course it applies with particular force to literacy-technology learning (or, rather, as it might be more appropriately expressed, l(IT)eracy learning). The issue here becomes how--literally--to operate the language system; how to make it work for one's own meaning-making purposes; how to `turn it on', etc." (para. 32).
Jenkins also wants schools to go beyond operational computer training by adopting an “ecological approach” to think about the interrelationship among all of these different communication technologies, the cultural communities that grow up around them, and the activities they support. Media systems consist of communication technologies and the social, cultural, legal, political, and economic institutions, practices, and protocols that shape and surround them…” (p. 8)
Jenkins approach involves all dimensions of the Green 3D diagram, but Jenkins barely discusses the critical dimension. This will be discussed later.
Jenkins wants schools to function effectively in terms of Green’s operational dimension, in terms of using the language system to decode and encode in a range of contexts” (Green diagram). Jenkins cites Kress for the idea “that modern literacy requires the ability to express ideas across a broad range of different systems of representation and signification (including ‘words, spoken or written; image, still and moving; musical...3D models...’) (p. 47). Jenkins, like Kress, wants students to learn visual literacy and be able to interpret multimodal texts in the present digital media culture.
Jenkins also says that: “Kress argues that this tendency toward multimodality changes how we teach composition, because students must learn to sort through a range of different possible modes of expression, determine which is most effective in reaching their audience and communicating their message, and to grasp which techniques work best in conveying information through this channel” (p. 47). These are critical literacies (in terms of students being able to decode and encode a variety of texts) that clearly fall under the operational dimension of Green’s 3D model.
Jenkins also states that “Kress advocates moving beyond teaching written composition to teaching design literacy as the basic expressive competency of the modern era. This shift does not displace printed texts with images, as some advocates of visual literacy have suggested. Rather, it develops a more complex vocabulary for communicating ideas that requires students to be equally adept at reading and writing through images, texts, sounds, and simulations” (p. 47-48). As the reader can see, Jenkins is mainly placing his literacy approach within the operational dimension of Green’s 3D diagram.
Jenkins mentions some of the tools and techniques schools are now putting into practice:
[We have] “spotlighted a range of existing classroom practices that help children become fuller participants in the new media landscape: the use of educational simulations, alternative and augmented reality games, webquests, production activities, blogs and wikis, and deliberation exercises. Such exercises involve actively applying new techniques of knowledge production and community participation to the existing range of academic subjects in the established school curriculum” (p.57).
Jenkins thinks schools need to put additional tools into practice:
“We must teach communication comprehensively in all its forms. Today we work with the written or spoken word as the primary form of communication. But we also need to understand the importance of graphics, music, and cinema, which are just as powerful and in some ways more deeply intertwined with young people’s culture. We live and work in a visually sophisticated world, so we must be sophisticated in using all the forms of communication, not just the written word”. (p. 48).
It should be noted that Jenkins is still approaching literacy in terms of Green’s operational dimension, but is now linking it to the cultural dimension by suggesting that we look at the cultural context (“young people’s culture”) in term of understanding media literacy.
Jenkins (2006) conceptually moves the critical media literacy analysis into the cultural dimension by stating that “media operate in specific cultural and institutional contexts that determine how and why they are used” (p.8). Jenkins obviously thinks that the cultural and institutional context is important in terms of placing educational practices within that context.
As Jenkins states: “Participatory culture shifts the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community involvement. The new literacies almost all involve social skills developed through collaboration and networking. These skills build on the foundation of traditional literacy, research skills, technical skills, and critical analysis skills taught in the classroom” (p. 4).
Jenkins’ description of what some schools are doing to improve media literacy in the classroom to create a more authentic learning experience corresponds to the cultural dimension of Green’s 3D model because Durrant and Green (2000) state that:
“The first of these is the priority, in practice, of the cultural dimension. This means putting the emphasis firmly and clearly on authentic meaning-making and meaningful, appropriate action within a given community of practice. In the case of classrooms and schools, this puts the focus on meaningful and appropriate school and classroom learning--on `doing school', as best one can, something that applies equally to students and to teachers. Ideally, and preferably, `doing school' is always linked to and in the service of `real-life' and `life-like' social practices” (para. 44).
This is learning and education in a meaningful social and cultural context, where each type of text is encoded and decoded in terms of its specific socio-cultural context rather than simply in terms of a one-dimensional operational context of “how-to” do something.
Jenkins (based on all the above ideas) explains very well what society and schools need to do to increase critical media skills of today’s current students. Jenkins also mentions what “might be done” to put into practice eleven new media literacies which Jenkins describes as “a set of cultural competencies and social skills that young people need in the new media landscape” (p. 4). Jenkins is much more focused conceptually on the operational dimension of literacy (coding and decoding a range of texts) and the cultural dimension (the context of participatory culture) than he is on the critical dimension.
Jenkins (2006) starts to discuss the critical dimension, in terms of the power of mass media, but pulls back to the operational and cultural dimensions, by saying that:
“Media literacy is concerned with developing an informed and critical understanding of the nature of the mass media, the techniques used by them, and the impact of those techniques. It is education that aims to increase students’ understanding and enjoyment of how the media work, how they produce meaning, how they are organized, and how they construct reality. Media literacy also aims to provide students with the ability to create media products” (p. 58).
Jenkins (2006) does move into the critical dimension, but makes no value judgment about the extent of media power: “Media literacy educators are not wrong to be concerned by the concentrated power of the media industry, but they must also realize that this is only part of a more complex picture. We live in a world in which media power is more concentrated than ever before…” (p. 58).
To gain more perspective on Jenkins’ approach and the critical dimension of the Green 3D model, I will apply the analysis of Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013), who point out what they see to be limitations of Jenkins’ “traditional media literacy” approach. Garcia, Seglem, and Share (citing Campbell, 2005) state that even though students may know how to use digital tools, this does not mean that they “know how to capture the power of participatory culture” (p. 112). Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) (also citing Campbell, 2005) explain that while young students have plenty of experience with “digital tools,” this does not mean that they know how to “manipulate their multimedia languages well, with conceptual and critical acumen” (p. 112).
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) expand on and extend Jenkins’ approach to media literacy in terms of focusing on ideology and power structures. This corresponds to moving the media literacy analysis from the operational and cultural dimensions (where Jenkins basically focuses his analysis) into the critical dimension. It is Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) who fill in the third (critical) dimension of Green’s 3D model of literacy practice by more fully analyzing issues of history, power, and the “socially constructed nature of knowledge” (Green diagram). This corresponds more completely to Green’s 3D model. As Durrant and Green (2000) state:
Rather than simply focusing on `how-to' knowledge, as it usually is understood--that is, technical competence and so-called `functional literacy'—it [the 3D model] complements and supplements this by contextualising it, with due regard for matters of culture, history and power” (para. 29).
Durrant and Green (2000) describe the “critical dimension of literacy practice as follows:
“The critical dimension draws in explicit consideration of context and history, and also of power. It takes into account that school knowledges are always partial and selective. They are always someone's `story', in the sense that the curriculum always represents some interests rather than others, and that it is a complex socio-historical construction. Rather than a single, universal Truth, the practice of curriculum and schooling follows lines of social division and is structured according to the prevailing principles of social organisation and power” (para. 35).
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) define critical media literacy in terms of the critical dimension of Green’s 3D information literacy diagram:
“Critical media as we are defining it here is a progressive educational response that expands the notion of literacy to include different forms of mass communication, popular culture, and new technologies and also deepens literacy education to critically analyze relationships between media and audiences, information, and power” (p. 111).
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) further state that their “expansive view of literacy is combined with a deeper understanding of literacy that explores the always-present connection of information and power” (p. 115). Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) clearly view media literacy from a “socio-historical construction” standpoint and state that “critical media literacy offers the tools and framework to help students become subjects in the process of deconstructing injustices, expressing their own voice, and struggling together to create a better society” (p. 121).
The critical dimension approach (in terms of the Green 3D literacy model) taken by Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) clearly contrasts with the mostly operational/cultural approach taken by Jenkins, who states that (when pushing the boundaries): “Even when media content has been determined credible, it is vital for students to also identify and analyze the perspective of the producer: who is presenting what to whom, and why. Existing media literacy materials excel in examining the forces behind controversial media properties, particularly provocative visuals, its intentions, and effects.” (p. 45). Jenkins focuses mainly on perspective and person, and not socio-history, power, or ideology.
In terms of the operational dimension (“using the language system to decode and encode in a range of contexts”) of the Green 3D diagram, Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) say that students need to utilize “alternative media production” to create their own messages as producers instead of consumers – to really understand the underlying media messages – and to “challenge media texts and narratives (p. 111). This is clearly an issue of power and “the socially constructed nature of knowledge and literacy practices” (Green diagram) and falls under the critical dimension of Green’s 3D diagram.
Another key issue that underlies Garcia, Seglem, and Share’s approach is “that critical media literacy depends on guiding students to explore difficult-to-see ideologies and connections between power and information” (p. 111). This is also a power issue and falls under the critical dimension of Green’s 3D diagram.
To really see the difference in approach to the critical dimension by both Jenkins and Garcia, Seglem, and Share, it is useful to understand what each says in terms of critical media pedagogy. Jenkins (2006) states:
“We have developed an integrated approach to media pedagogy founded on exercises that introduce youth to core technical skills and cultural competencies, exemplars that teach youth to critically analyze existing media texts, expressions that encourage youth to create new media content, and ethics that encourage youth to critically reflect on the consequences of their own choices as media makers” (p. 59).
The reader can plainly see that Jenkins focuses on decoding/encoding texts (the operational dimension) and cultural competencies (the cultural dimension – to develop an understanding of content and context) (Green diagram).
Jenkins also states: “Yet, we also see a value in teaching youth how to evaluate their own work and appraise their own actions, and we see a necessity of helping them to situate the media they produce within its larger social, cultural, and legal context” (p. 59).
While Jenkins mentions the social context, he remains in the cultural dimension because he never mentions or discusses the “socially constructed nature of knowledge and literacy practices” in terms of ideology and power (the way Garcia, Seglem, and Share do). Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) state: “A 21st century critical media literacy pedagogy is one that integrates discussions of media representation, power, and ideology into a class instead of teaching this content as something separate” (p.119).
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) discuss the major issue underlying their approach:
…a media literacy pedagogy that is not critical – that does not confront and challenge the cultural hegemony that underlies the media products and tools created – is one ‘that attempts to control thinking and action, leads men and women to adjust to the world, and inhibits their creating power” (p. 119) (also citing Freire, 1970, p. 77).
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) are analyzing media literacy along Green’s critical dimension because they focus on the socio-historical context, social structure, and power relationships that surround the educational context and structure.
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) discuss another major issue that underlies their approach:
“In spite of the current political attacks on education and teachers, critical media literacy offer the tools and framework to help students become subjects in the process of deconstructing injustices, expressing their own voices, and struggling together to create a better society” (p. 121).
Garcia, Seglem, and Share’s (2013) approach can clearly be distinguished from Jenkins’ approach because Garcia, Seglem, and Share focus on using critical media literacy to deconstruct societal, ideological and underlying power messages that underlie the various media messages being communicated, whereas Jenkins focuses on interpreting media messages in terms of technical skills and cultural competencies.
All of the authors (Green, Jenkins, Garcia, Seglem, and Share) think that it is society’s responsibility (through the schools) to teach critical media literacy to the students. Each of the authors has his/her own approach (as mentioned above). None of these authors thinks that students can learn or should learn critical media literacy on their own. The main issue becomes not so much whether critical media literacy should be taught, but how it should be taught.
Jenkins (2006) says that “schools and afterschool programs must devote more attention to fostering what we call the new media literacies: a set of cultural competencies and social skills that young people need in the new media landscape” (p. 4). Jenkins is not saying that schools are bad in any way, just that they must do more to teach critical media literacy skills.
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) state that “ in light of the current movement for standardization, high-stakes testing, and scripted curriculum, it is now more important than ever for all educators to recognize the conservative nature of education and commercial media, and challenge their role in replicating dominant ideologies and oppressive social structures” (p. 111). Garcia, Seglem, and Share’s (2013) approach is parallel to Green’s approach on the critical dimension because, as Durrant and Green (2000) imply, the educational power structure represents someone’s interests and viewpoints in a socio-historical power construct.
Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) discuss educational tools and techniques they or their colleagues have put into practice that appropriately mirror their views on ideology, power and history (Green’s critical dimension) and that will effectively enable students to “deconstruct” and interpret a variety of texts and media messages. Some specific educational tools that Garcia, Seglem, and Share have put into practice are the following:
1) Have students create multimedia texts “to challenge the thinking of the world around them” (p. 110).
2) Using critical media literacy, social justice educators can bring questions of racism, homophobia, classism, sexism, and so forth into the classroom through examining media and popular culture that students are seeing, hearing, and using every day (p. 112).
3) School assignments such as creating wanted posters that require images combined with words, alternative book reports using multimedia (p. 115).
4) Social media for addressing problematic representations, photographs, podcasts, word clouds, and digital stories (p. 115).
As Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) state: “the assignments are structures to integrate technology-related tools into the educational experience through a critical pedagogical framework that encourages candidates to assess the authenticity, reliability, relevance, and bias of the messages as well as the different medium. The assignments are also productive as they require students to not only analyze and become better readers, but also to produce with these new tools and become 21st century writers” (p. 115).
In my opinion, these alternative media literacy assignments will definitely challenge students to develop critical media literacy skills, visual literacy skills, and enable students to deconstruct as well as produce a variety of multimodal and multimedia texts.
My overall opinion is that Jenkins is more willing to accommodate the way schools are and teach critical media literacy from the operational and cultural dimension standpoint. Jenkins is not asking students and teachers to challenge the existing “socio-historical construction” (using Green’s terminology) or power structure the way Garcia, Seglem, and Share are. Jenkins is trying to work within the system and with the schools to teach and develop in students these critical media literacies.
I also think that Garcia, Seglem, and Share (2013) are correct in noting that the schools and related mass media are using educational practices that mirror the ideology of the current social and power structure. It is not by accident that schools teach a certain way and rely on the existing media power structure to communicate particular messages -- in terms of ideology and power -- to teachers and students who are engaged in an educational system that has a particular social and power structure.
I personally think that it will be politically difficult (but not impossible) for teachers and students to challenge the existing educational system and the types and kinds of media messages that emanate from the present mass media culture (or dare I say, mass media power structure/empire!). The existing social/power structure will not willingly allow (and never has really allowed -- except by court order) students to produce their own media messages (even though we have the first amendment) in order to be able to challenge the media messages from the existing power structure and educational establishment -- because it weakens the authority and influence of those in these power structures. It is really that simple, but it is made to look extremely complicated and legalistic. Anyway, that's my opinion.
References
Durrant, C., & Green, B. Literacy and the new technologies in school education: Meeting the l(IT)eracy challenge? Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/literacy+and+the+new+technologies+in+school+education%3a+meeting+the...-a063132991
Garcia, A., Seglem, R., & Share, J. (2013). Transforming
teaching and learning through critical media literacy pedagogy. Learning
Landscapes, 6(2), 109-124. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.learninglandscapes.ca%2Fimages%2Fdocuments%2Fll-no12%2Fgarcia.pdf&ei=IFYLVbXPHMyzyATMj4LwDQ&usg=AFQjCNE9nV6nnhkXCYSba8DSFLUl96vs3w&bvm=bv.88528373,d.aWw
Jenkins, H.J. Confronting the challenges of participatory
culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Retrieved from:
http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/10932/Confronting_the_Challenges_of_Participatory_Culture.pdf?x-r=pcfile_d
