E–Learning and Digital Media

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.
Hence, it is essential that educators become cognizant of the significance of critical media
literacy courses, as well as advocate for them in all institutions of learning. I readily acknowledge,
however, that this is often an unpopular position to take in terms of school policies, job security,
emphasis on standardized testing and student resistance to this form of pedagogy. Moreover, this
kind of participatory engaged pedagogy can also lead to ‘burn out’, which appears to have reached
epidemic proportions given the demands related to so-called ‘No Child Left Behind’ legislation and
the continued emphasis on publish or perish within the university realm. Yet the rewards, which

357 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/elea.2011.8.4.357
Rhonda Hammer

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.
In more than 25 years of teaching, some of my greatest pleasures have been afforded to me
through the demonstrations of critical thinking and creative talents of numerous students.
Moreover, it is heartening to hear from so many of them who identify the significance of media
literacy courses in empowering them to pursue their dreams and find the kinds of employment
which allow them to use their creativity. Hence, teaching critical media literacy can be, as bell
hooks (1994) describes it, a liberatory experience for both teachers and students. Yet, ironically, the
scarcity of culturally critical media literacy classes, especially those that involve media production,
owes much to the general lack of support in regard to the credibility afforded to such courses. This
dearth is also due to the limited technological support provided for these kinds of courses, which is

358
Critical Media Literacy as Engaged Pedagogy

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.
For example, according to a 2005 study, many 8-18-year-olds are devoting 8 hours, 30 minutes
a day to media-related activity, while college students aged 18-24 spend ‘an average of 11 hours a
day involved in some sort of media or digital communications’ (Rideout et al, 2005). A more recent
2010 study, by the non-profit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, reports that media consumption
by a number of 8-18-year-olds has radically increased to the equivalent of 10 hours, 45 minutes a
day, due to media multitasking. Given that members of an entire generation are dedicating more
time to entertainment media/digital interaction than to that required by a full-time job, it would
seem to be only common sense that schools be aggressively educating students in this regard.
Moreover, they should also be developing curricula to assist students to better understand and
navigate what is considered to be the most powerful and influential ideological institution
mediating our everyday experiences and perceptions of the world.

359
Rhonda Hammer

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)
And for even those students who are seemingly literate in new media, further study often reveals
that it is the entertainment, gaming, gambling, consumer and interactive dimensions of the Web
with which they are particularly familiar. In actuality, these same students often lack the abilities to
be able to critically assess the media which occupies so much of their lives and relationships, as well

360
Critical Media Literacy as Engaged Pedagogy

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
The course comprises a 3-hour seminar and 90-minute weekly lab (although the bulk of the
production work takes place outside of the scheduled periods) taught over 10 weeks. Students are

361
Rhonda Hammer

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.
Moreover, the enthusiasm and pride they take in their productions is contagious. And it is
within this context that there is a revolutionary shift in student and faculty attitudes, which
transforms the classroom into a challenging, provocative and entertaining forum. As bell hooks

362
Critical Media Literacy as Engaged Pedagogy

(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

Correspondence: rhammer@ucla.edu

363