This document discusses debates around new approaches to media studies education. It notes that traditional media studies tends to promote expert readings of pop culture, focus on key texts, and privilege avant-garde works. In contrast, newer approaches focus on everyday meanings as constructed by students themselves through engagement with social media. While new approaches emphasize students' own experiences and doing media themselves, some argue it risks being too technology-focused and naïve about media power structures. The document questions whether this debate is helpful or if attitudes toward privacy are fundamentally shifting, noting teenagers may be literate but not wise about media.
Original Description:
Details of Geoff Lealand's talk at the NMAE conference July 2007
This document discusses debates around new approaches to media studies education. It notes that traditional media studies tends to promote expert readings of pop culture, focus on key texts, and privilege avant-garde works. In contrast, newer approaches focus on everyday meanings as constructed by students themselves through engagement with social media. While new approaches emphasize students' own experiences and doing media themselves, some argue it risks being too technology-focused and naïve about media power structures. The document questions whether this debate is helpful or if attitudes toward privacy are fundamentally shifting, noting teenagers may be literate but not wise about media.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
This document discusses debates around new approaches to media studies education. It notes that traditional media studies tends to promote expert readings of pop culture, focus on key texts, and privilege avant-garde works. In contrast, newer approaches focus on everyday meanings as constructed by students themselves through engagement with social media. While new approaches emphasize students' own experiences and doing media themselves, some argue it risks being too technology-focused and naïve about media power structures. The document questions whether this debate is helpful or if attitudes toward privacy are fundamentally shifting, noting teenagers may be literate but not wise about media.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
• Tendency to promote ‘expert’ readings of pop culture
• Celebration of key texts • Privileging avant garde: political agendas • Emphasis on directing student etc
2.0
• Focus on everyday meanings
• Kids doing it themselves • New focus on the massive ‘long tail (YouTube, blogs etc)
FOR
MS involves constant engagement with contemp culture
Fuid investigation; open-ness to new ideas MUCH MEDIA theory becomes self-referential and self-perpetuating (eg MS text books) Good teaching should allow for negotiation btw. Prior learning (students’ own experience) instruction (teacher info re construction, distrib etc) and experiential (doing it)
Established canon of media theory is complex and impenetrable for most
NEW GEN IS MEDIA AND TECH ORIENTED
AGAINST
• new privileging of technology
• echoes older debates re active audiences: diff btw power over media texts /ove media agendas • Plenty of media naïve students – can use it but donlt reall y understand it • Poysemy =
Is this debate helpful or healthy?
Is there a fundamental shift going on re attitudes to privacy? Peter Bazelgate: ‘…teenagers
chattering away online are media literate but not media wise.”