Response to the RSA Draft on Media Literacy

Response to the Draft of RSA's Recommendations on Media Literacy

(Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures &
Commerce) Submission to the EU Public Media Literacy Consultation)

Submitted by Chuck Lanigan, MA

Instructor and Knowledge Management Consultant, USA

The purpose of education should be to promote mindful communication, collaboration and the sharing of ideas. Teaching facility with electronic mass-media and related technology can be part of this process, but is not the goal.
Leaving the policing of what and how content is presented to the networks and promoters of this media technology is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Their goal (understandably) is to make a buck and (in a free-market society) persuading and sometimes manipulating people to spend their money to buy products and services they may or may not need. Past the basics, I don't believe government regulation is going to provide the answer.
Schools especially should not be in the business of mindlessly (not to say breathlessly) endorsing the use of electronic media and technology. They s/b thinking hard of how to apply it pedagogically, including considering when it assists learning and when it does not. To paraphrase the question Neil Postman asks in 'Building a Bridge to the 18th Century, we should be asking "What does this technology give me? What does it take away?" I would then add, "How do we direct the use of it and educate students appropriately to maximize the benefit.
Postman says the perennial problem addressed historically by the printing press, telegraph, radio and television of providing people with access to information has been solved. Now the challenge is teaching people to ask good questions about the relevance, value and accuracy of that info. w/in particular contexts – teaching higher-order thinking, literacy and problem-solving beyond decoding and comprehension.
So providing access to vast amounts of undifferentiated info. on its own via mass media no longer has much inherent value. In fact this creates problems of information overload.
Most folks can easily create blogs, send e-mail and upload content. The tools for these are straightforward and not too difficult to master. You can learn the basics of creating a web page or a PowerPoint slideshow, w/ animated transitions in half an hour. So why do we invest so much attention (and money) on belaboring "computing" and "keyboarding" skills (except that these sound like we're accomplishing something). See Clifford Stoll.
Much of what is placed online, YouTube notwithstanding, is text. So why do we think media literacy is qualitatively different from standard literacy? Is the difference not simply the amount, ease and type of info. which can be contributed and accessed from a variety of sources. These sources are good, bad and indifferent, accurate or inaccurate, meaningful or superfluous. and place a premium on the ability to articulate ideas, support arguments, read for meaning, consistency and bias.
I buy Postman's argument that the old-fashioned rhetorical skills, logic and social niceties of the Enlightenment become more important than ever w/ the explosion of mass media. I know this is a tough sell in this day and age of untrammeled post-modernist irony.
The use of social networking sites and promotion of online discourse via mass media implies children and adults have something meaningful to say or share and the basis (a shared interest and intent) and ability to relate to each other across social and individual boundaries. The technology does not imbue them with this ability. The meaningful application of these tools assumes that students (and teachers) develop ideas and knowledge to share and gain the ability to articulate, judge veracity and merits of info. available to them.
There seems to be a disturbing trend toward teaching subjects (chemistry, science) exclusively as a virtual or computer mediated-experience – rather than allowing students to confront the world directly, form hypotheses and learn how it works in person. Interactive simulations, on-line games, etc. abstract reality and give students a false sense of mastery and understanding since these virtual worlds are set up and controlled by instructional designers and programmers. (Read an excellent article titled 'Charlotte's Webpage' in Orion Magazine.)
A recent New York Times article reported the donation of 150 dollar laptops w/ network cards to school children in S. America. This event was extolled because it will allow disadvantaged schoolchildren to participate in the wonders of the Internet. For what purpose? To bid on E-bay? Are the school administrators and teachers trained on how to use these tools to the best advantage? Is anyone thinking about now the content presented and interactions fostered will complement existing teaching methods (if at all) and serve the interests of the students and their culture?
We should teach students about the possibilities, limits and evolution of mass media; as well as the impact of these technologies have on discourse and on our society. itself. (Read Postman in 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' and Standage's 'The Victorian Internet'.
Real media literacy must involve parents and caregivers and encourage (if not require) accountability in raising children who are discerning, responsible and engaged with the world and with others around them, whether in-person or virtually. The children will grow up to participate, contribute and take active responsibility (and have the skills) for making decisions based on the information available to them -- whatever the source.

Some References:

Garfield, Bob

You Tube vs. Boob Tube, Wired Magazine http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.12/youtube_pr.html

Lanigan, Chuck

Information versus Knowledge: Prospects for a Capable Population in the 21st Century, September 12, 2006 presentation at the Unitarian Church, Pittsburgh PA

http://waysofknowing.home.comcast.net/WebDocs/Information%20vs%20Knowledge%20September%2012th%202006.htm