Volume 8 Number 4 2011 www.wwwords.co.uk/ELEA
Critical Media Literacy as Engaged Pedagogy
RHONDA HAMMER
Departments of Education and Women’s Studies,
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
ABSTRACT Given the escalating role of media and new media in our everyday lives, there is an urgent need for courses in Critical Media Literacy, at all levels of schooling. The empowering nature of these kinds of courses is demonstrated through a discussion of a Critical Media Literacy course taught at UCLA.
Engaged pedagogy begins with the assumption that we learn best when there is an interactive environment. (hooks, 2010, p. 19)
A radical pedagogy, which informs the theoretical and practical realities of progressive courses, aims to promote critical thinking and social justice. bell hooks, a leading scholar in a diversity of fields, asserts that engaged pedagogy ‘produces self-directed learners, teacher and students who are able to participate fully in the production of ideas’ (hooks, 2010, p. 43). She further reminds us that, as teachers, we have a responsibility to introduce and employ critical thinking in our classrooms, which is necessarily in opposition to the hierarchal power order and one-dimensional forms of communication which treat students as passive receivers. Instead, we must demonstrate that knowledge is not value-free, and that we need to explore the context in which it was produced, as well as how it is situated not only in theory, but also in praxis and experience. This, in turn, can provoke conversations between students and teachers which transcend the dominant stereotype, and too often the reality, of education as boring and irrelevant to everyday life.
In this article, I will argue that there is a crucial need to teach courses in critical media literacy, especially given that we are immersed in diverse and sophisticated forms of media culture, from cradle to grave. I will go on to insist that one must distinguish between a critical media literacy perspective and those described as media literacy, which are more prevalent in schools that include media studies in their curriculum. Before expanding upon this distinction, however, it is most important to emphasize that there is a serious dearth of critical courses about our media environment, especially in the USA, at all levels of education, and that this lack contributes to escalating deleterious neo-liberal transformations of what was once considered a democratic system. It is in this sense that one of the most revelatory aspects of a critical media literacy is its concern for the politics of representation, which – briefly described – is how marginalized and dominant relations, including gender, race, class and sexuality, are represented in the media. In addition, a critical media literacy approach is mediated by social justice issues and activist concerns, which are all too rare in US schools.
are reflected in the excellence of student work and classroom involvement, are empowering and allow one to, at least temporarily, transcend the negativity which so often contextualizes progressive instructors’ attempts at change, as well as the neo-liberal, undemocratic constraints imposed upon both teachers and students.
In this article, I will offer an example of a form of engaged or radical pedagogy, discussing a course which I teach called ‘Critical Media Literacy and the Politics of Representation: theory and production’, at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). I argue that not only are these kinds of courses practically applicable to many educational settings, but that they can also inspire students to employ creative potential that is rarely acknowledged within the prison house of most contemporary educational institutions, which famed Brazilian educator Paulo Freire described as the banking system of education. Briefly put, this system of commoditization is characterized as one in which information is deposited and then withdrawn and regurgitated by students for the primary purpose of passing tests. It is, hence, quickly forgotten once it is spent and bears little, if any, resemblance to knowledge or learning. It is, at best, as Stanley Aronowitz (2000) describes it, vocational training and hardly subscribes to that which is considered higher learning. For, as Freire explains:
The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of the world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them. (Freire, 2001, p. 73)
However, a critical consciousness is a necessity for navigating the socio-political and economic complexities which characterize local, national and global culture. Moreover, the escalation of media technologies, which bombard us with seemingly exponential speed and diversity, can distract us from relevant issues if we do not embrace a literacy which goes beyond learning only the technical skills necessary to engage in new media forms. Many argue that radical change and a return to participatory democracy depends not only on a critically informed citizenry, but on one which is also schooled in critical media literacies. For, as Kellner & Share (2007, p. 17) point out, critical media literacy ‘is tied to the project of radical democracy and concerned to develop skills that will enhance democratization and civic participation’.
Teaching Critical Media Literacy
Thus, it is essential that students learn how to understand, interpret and criticize the meaning and messages of media culture. And it is in this sense that I have developed a UCLA course, co-sponsored by the Departments of Education and Women’s Studies, which is both an undergraduate and graduate course, on ‘Critical Media Literacy and the Politics of Representation: theory and production’. The course, which was first introduced in 2002, is designed to meet this challenge through the study of scholarly writings, media analysis and the creation of media texts. This course is a response to what has been described as a literacy crisis, especially in regard to the diversity of media forums which mediate our everyday lives. And the success of this course is best expressed by the students themselves through their group critical media projects.[1] I briefly describe the logistics of this course later on and argue that with a minimum of resources and a hell of a lot of chutzpah, such classes can be successfully incorporated into a multiplicity of programs, departments and curricula.
often only available within specialized programs. As leading media and cultural studies scholar David Buckingham puts it:
I am frustrated by the fact that teachers of media education still seem to be insufficiently recognized and supported. Despite the generally inhospitable climate, there is a great deal of excellent work being done in the field by highly dedicated teachers and committed students. Media education generates a degree of enthusiasm and enjoyment that is all too rare in
contemporary schooling; and it offers a form of educational practice that is not just engaging for students, but also intellectually rigorous, challenging and relevant to their everyday lives. Without being at all uncritical of what goes on, I believe this is something we should affirm and celebrate. (Buckingham, 2003, p. x)
Student Literacies: myths and realities
Escalating illiteracy, the deteriorization and privatization of education, as well as the prohibitive costs of opportunities for post-secondary learning ensure that a participatory democracy, in which the USA was founded, is under constant attack. For example:
[A] 2006 study supported by the Pew Charitable Trust found that 50 percent of college seniors scored below ‘proficient’ levels on a test that required them to do such basic tasks as understand the arguments of newspaper editorials or compare credit-card offers. (Nemko, 2008)
Furthermore, according to the same study, only 20% had basic quantitative skills, while a 2006 federal-commissioned report found that:
Over the past decade, literacy among college graduates has actually declined ... According to the most recent National Assessment of Adult Literacy, for instance, the percentage of college graduates deemed proficient in prose literacy has actually declined from 40 percent to 31 percent in the past decade. (Nemko, 2008)
And, as for Americans in general, official estimates of illiterate citizens are over 40 million and ‘as many as six out of ten American adults have never read a book of any kind’ (Lapham, YEAR?, quoted in hooks, 2010, p. 128). Moreover, studies have also demonstrated that ‘a huge majority of our population in the United States stops reading books after high school graduation [and] still more after they receive undergraduate degrees’ (hooks, 2010, p. 130).
Yet this is not surprising if one considers that it is the corporate mass media which has been elevated to the leading hegemonic source of educator in the USA. Hence, it would seem to be only common sense that we learn to critically engage media. Indeed, given the nature of our contemporary society and global world, it is crucial that all citizens become practically and critically literate in media culture, emergent new media and related developing technological, computer and Web 2.0 digital forms. In fact, many argue that universities in particular have a responsibility to provide students with these kinds of pedagogical skills. It is within this context that many experts argue that critical media literacy courses should be a part of required curricula within all elementary, secondary and post-secondary educational institutions. In fact, the need for these kinds of courses is especially urgent in view of the escalating amount of time students spend engaged with multiple forms of media.
This is especially prescient given that, as Giroux (2010) argues, young people are under assault by ‘a global market economy that punishes all youth by treating them as markets and commodities’, which, in turn, ‘commercializes every aspect of kids’ lives’: ‘Corporations have hit gold with the new media and can inundate young people directly with their market-driven values, desires and identities, all of which are removed from the mediation and watchful eyes of parents and other adults.’
Yet, in the USA, not only do teachers not receive adequate training in media literacy, but many parents, administrators and government officials consider media education – especially since the so-called ‘No Child Left Behind’ edict – as unnecessary and define it, erroneously, as a ‘frill’, which is hardly the case in other countries such as Britain, Canada and Australia (Beach, 2007, p. 1). Thus, within most schools and post-secondary institutions in the USA, it is generally afforded little, if any, respect or credibility. Furthermore, the massive cutbacks in many colleges and universities have even affected those courses and workshops which teach students the necessary rudimentary technological skills they need for pursuing critical media literacy projects.
The failure to teach students these necessary skills is often justified through undocumented, highly inflated assumptions concerning students’ alleged digital abilities. Indeed, numerous experts and studies have argued and demonstrated that this is, in fact, a myth: ‘While popular rhetoric would have us believe that young users are generally savvy with digital media, data ... clearly shows that considerable variation exists among fully wired college students when it comes to various Internet use’ (Hargittai, 2010, p. 108). Hence, we cannot assume that students are already literate in even the most basic technological and digital skills. Indeed, the myths about this competency can prove particularly problematic, for, as Siva Vaidhyanathan demonstrates:
As a professor, I am in the constant company of 18-23 year olds. I have taught at both public and private universities, and I have to report that levels of comfort with, understanding of, and dexterity with digital technology varies greatly within every class. Yet it has not changed in the aggregate in more than 10 years ... Every class has a handful of people with amazing skills and a large number who can’t deal with computers at all. (Vaidhyanathan, 2008)
She goes on to argue that dominant myths concerning students’ media and digital literacy skills are, in reality, elitist and even bigoted in that these presume that all students have access to and/or experiences with digital technology. In fact, there are numerous reliable studies – and progressive pedagogical experts – which demonstrate that there is an escalating racial, ethnic, gender and class divide, or digital inequality, in relation to new technological literacies – including computer science – especially between disenfranchised and affluent youth. This is associated with, but not exclusive to, the schools they attend and their family’s educational background, class and lifestyle, which clearly dispels the ridiculous, widely publicized fallacy that the ‘new generation’ is especially adept at employing new technologies and does not require instruction in this regard.
In fact, sociologist Eszter Hargittai found that a majority of college freshmen lack technological fluency and basic Web-related skills, which was associated in large part with socio-economic status. Demographically speaking, her study demonstrated that women ‘students of Hispanic origin, African American students, and students who had lower levels of education were lacking in these abilities’ (quoted in Rampell, 2008). This is also not surprising given that generally marginalized students (especially Latino/a and African Americans, as well as many women) are not encouraged in their high schools to pursue post-secondary studies in computer science or fields which emphasize digital ‘knowledge-intensive abilities’ (Hargittai, 2008; Margolis, 2008).
Talk of a ‘digital generation’ or people who are ‘born digital’ willfully ignores the vast range of skills, knowledge, and experience of many segments of society. It ignores the needs and perspectives of those young people who are not socially or financially privileged. It presumes a level playing field and equal access to time, knowledge, skills, and technologies. The ethnic, national, gender, and class biases of any sort of generation talk are troubling. And they could not be more obvious than when discussing assumptions about digital media. (Vaidhyanathan, 2008)
as to make informed decisions regarding the credibility of the information which they access. David Parry (2010), Professor of Emerging Media and Communications, argues that:
students are not digital natives who possess some unique set of skills whereby they can magically manipulate the network and gadgets to do whatever they want with outstanding acumen [but rather] for the large part [are] unreflective about the way they use these network technologies, and what is more are unreflective about the ways in which their use (or our use) has already been historically determined and shaped, an unreflective response which gives up power and control over to these systems. (Parry, 2010)
Although it is essential that all citizens become literate in the employment of new media technology, this kind of knowledge is not necessarily empowering or characteristic of a more democratic participatory education, as is demonstrated by – what many believe to be – an overabundance of boring, uncritical PowerPoint presentations. Rather, it is imperative that we distinguish between media literacy, which can tend to celebrate the institutions of commercial media, and critical media literacy alternative modes of production, which provoke critical thinking and practical applications to contextual relations. And it is this distinction which characterizes this course and the critical media literacies which so many students manage to employ in not only their class assignments, but multiple dimensions of their everyday lives.
It is in this sense that proficiencies in critical media literacy must be no different from those required of critical thinking and inquiry in any academic, popular or political pursuit. This necessarily includes the engagement of ‘the politics of representation’, which is loosely described as the manner in which dominant and marginalized people are represented in the media, for ‘[b]eyond simply locating the bias in media this concept helps students recognize the ideological and constructed nature of communication’ (Kellner & Share, 2007, p. 14). Indeed, many of the students on my course are particularly interested in diversities and differences and/or exclusions of representation, as well as social justice issues, which often mediate their final projects. Given that my own background and experiences are within the educational documentary domain, which is a central component of the course, most students produce these kinds of montage-style video projects (although some students have also produced websites or PowerPoint presentations).
Hence, I argue for the importance of teaching critical media literacy from a perspective that seeks to empower students by giving them abilities to read, critique and produce media, which, in turn, teaches them to become active participants rather than ‘sophisticated consumers’ in a highly hypermediated culture and society (Jhally & Lewis, 2006, p. 225). Given the power of the contemporary media and consciousness industry in that it shapes ‘virtually every sphere of public and political life’ (Jhally & Earp, 2006, p. 239), it is more important than ever to – as Marshall McLuhan (1965) coined the phrase almost 50 years ago – ‘understand media’.
Teaching critical media literacy through production constitutes a new form of pedagogy in which students become more aware of how media is constructed, conveys dominant ideologies and is one of the most powerful, often unconscious, sources of education. And these critical skills not only make students aware of how their own views of the world are mediated by media, but also enable them to learn how to critically read, engage and decode media culture. This further empowers them to give voice to their ideas and visions in a diversity of ways, as well as investing them with the kind of communications skills and abilities to work cooperatively, while at the same time asserting their own individuality and creative and organizational talents. For, given the context of the ‘brave new world’ in which we live – one transformed by the corporate, neo-liberal economic meltdown of 2008, in which the employment opportunities of the past are hardly as plentiful, and entrance to graduate and professional programs is highly restricted, expensive and no longer guarantees a successful career – critical media literacies become a mandatory requirement for the understanding of, and engagement within, this complex socio-political economic system. It is within this context that I will briefly describe the development and structure of my UCLA course, ‘Critical Media Literacy and the Politics of Representation: theory and production’.
Course Description
required to complete three technical assignments, a short group final media production and a final paper which describes key concepts of critical media literacy from readings, lectures and media presented in the seminar (and available on reserve) in relation to their group project.
The technical dimensions are taught at an introductory level in the first four of the weekly labs by instructional media personnel and sometimes a teaching assistant. Most of the students have no prior production experience. Yet, before the class is finished, they are proficient in such skills as camera-shooting techniques, lighting, sound, interviewing, editing, narration for voice-overs, storyboarding, scripting and the incorporation of images from other sources (to name a few). Students can also pursue web design, which involves meeting with experts outside of the course lab.
They have also become knowledgeable in some of the scholarly research in the field, which involves learning about not only the practical codes or grammar of media production, but also the theoretical skills necessary to consciously decode it in its multiplicity of forms. In this regard, I have developed a specialized reader, as well as an online website with media and multiple articles from academic, professional and popular forums which directly relate to media (which is constantly updated), discussions and guest lectures. I also make extensive use of the Instructional Media Library films and videos, as well as my own personal collection, which I show in class and also make available on reserve. This often includes a growing ‘gold mine’ of online documentaries. The number and diversity of guest lecturers who have presented in this course is astonishing and includes not only leading academics, but also highly successful producers, directors and artists from the realms of both independent and commercial media, who do so for no honorarium save the respect and appreciation of myself and the students.
The course website also provides for a discussion board in which students can choose from potential topics or ‘pitch’ their own for the final assignment. This process often starts before the course formally begins, and students are required to have broken up into groups and decided upon a general subject and form of media that they want to produce (for example, websites, documentaries, PowerPoint or other artistic endeavors) by the second week of classes. Although we reserve some time in the course to discuss these projects, many of the decisions and the structure of these enterprises takes place through students’ conversations with one another, as well as sometimes myself or one of the various course assistants.
Needless to say, there is a lot of work involved in this class, and students must be prepared to actively participate. Indeed, the form and substance of this course is at odds with most traditional classes and demands that students take on responsibilities which require engaged critical thinking and practice, as well as a heavy workload, which supersedes the worth of the six units they are awarded on its completion (although I have been trying, to no avail, to raise this amount). Yet, each quarter, the course is oversubscribed and has a large waiting list. This raises questions about many of the stereotypes of contemporary students, which include characterizations of them as lazy, passive and solely concerned with high grades by any means necessary. In fact, it would seem to lead us to seriously interrogate the context in which this all takes place and the dominant paradigms of post-secondary learning, which many experts describe as commodity-based vocational training which bears little resemblance to a real education.
Indeed, the brilliance of most of the final productions, which are screened in a small public forum at the end of the class, would belie this myth. For, in these works, students have translated theoretical and practical concepts into a final group educational project, which usually takes the form of a short progressive digital video montage or documentary and often uses media to critique media. Moreover, these productions are always informed by the students’ own standpoints and ‘voice’, and often address issues related to social justice and/or the politics of representation.
In fact, many of the productions are so expertly conceived, in both form and substance, that they are presented in courses both inside and outside UCLA, at academic conferences, art shows, lectures and film and media festivals. Other academics, teachers, students and festival organizers often contact me about many of these projects. It is in this sense that the students have contributed to the growing field of pedagogical media resources and leave the class with something of which they can be proud and show to others.
(1994, p. 10) describes it, to take ‘pleasure in teaching is an act of resistance countering the overwhelming boredom, uninterest, and apathy that so often characterize the way professors and students feel about teaching and learning, about the classroom experience’.
Note
[1] These are accessible through an online website of streaming videos, PowerPoint productions and websites at http://women.ucla.edu/faculty/hammer/cm178/
References
Aronowitz, S. (2000) The Knowledge Factory. Boston: Beacon Press.
Beach, R. (2007) Teaching Media Literacy.com. New York: Teachers College Press.
Buckingham, D. (2003) Media Education: literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. Freire, P. (2001) Pedagogy of the Oppressed,30th anniversary edn. New York: Continuum.
Giroux, H. (2010) A Society Consumed by Locusts: youth in the age of moral and political plagues, Truthout, 5 April.
http://archive.truthout.org/a-society-consumed-locusts-youth-age-moral-and-political-plagues58209
Hargittai, E. (2008) The Digital Reproduction of Inequality, in D. Brusky (Ed.) Social Stratification, pp. 936-944. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Hargittai, E. (2010) Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet Skills and Uses among Members of the ‘Net Generation’, Sociological Inquiry,80(1), 92-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00317.x Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2010) Daily Media Use among Children and Teens up Dramatically from
Five Years Ago. News Release, 20 January. http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia012010nr.cfm hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress: education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. hooks, b. (2010) Teaching Critical Thinking: practical wisdom. New York: Routledge.
Jhally, S. & Earp, J. (2006) Empowering Media Education as a Democratic Imperative, in S. Jhally (Ed.) The Spectacle of Accumulation: essays in culture, media, and politics, pp. 239-267. New York: Peter Lang
Jhally, S. & Lewis, J. (2006) The Struggle for Media Literacy, in S. Jhally, The Spectacle of Accumulation: essays in culture, media, and politics, pp. 225-237. New York: Peter Lang.
Kellner, D. & Share, J. (2007) Critical Media Literacy, Democracy, and the Reconstruction of Education, in D. Macedo & S.R. Steinberg (Eds) Media Literacy: a reader,pp. 3-23. New York: Peter Lang.
Margolis, J. (2008) Introduction: the myth of technology as the ‘great equalizer’, in J. Margolis, Stuck in the Shallow End: education, race, and computing,pp. 1-16. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McLuhan, M. (1965) Understanding Media: the extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nemko, M. (2008) America’s Most Overrated Product: the Bachelor’s degree, Chronicle of Higher Education, 2 May. http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i34/34b01701.htm
Parry, D. (2010) Not so New, Flow, 11(7), 5 February. http://flowtv.org/2010/02/not-so-new-thoughts-on-emerging-mediadavid-parry-university-of-texas-at-dallas/
Rampell, C. (2008) A Sociologist Says Students Aren’t so Web-Wise after All, Chronicle of Higher Education,2 May. http://chronicle.com/article/A-Sociologist-Says-Students/2058
Rideout, V., Roberts, D.F. & Foehr, U.G. (2005) Generation M: media in the lives of 8-18 year-olds. A Kaiser Family Foundation Study, March. http://tinyurl.com/23hr843
Vaidhyanathan, S. (2008) Generational Myth, Chronicle of Higher Education, 19 September. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i04/04b00701.htm
