Something I want to talk about from the Mizuko Ito, et al. article is the concept that media capitalizes peer-based learning, because, in a way, it does. The white papers don’t expand on this idea too much, so I don’t know what exactly they meant by this but I know that the idea definitely caught my attention and sparked my own thoughts. I don’t know if today’s youth learn how to become “media literate” through peer pressure, I think that youth become pressured to become “media literate” through their peers. What I mean is that I don’t believe the youth are teaching the youth the “ins and outs” of media, I mean that the youth are encouraging each other to use media, therefore, the youth are teaching themselves. Peers are pressuring each other to use the tools that make them become “media literate.”
Therefore, I feel that media is a way for students to become literate in a language all on their own; a way for students to teach themselves…without even realizing they are learning. Aside from high schools offering a typing or computer program course, I believe that students teach themselves most of what they know about media, and they actually do it in a similar way as in-class learning, except without a teacher.
For example,
In class: teacher teaches a concept, student doesn’t understand, teacher provides material for better understanding, student practices.
Media: student discovers a concept, student doesn’t understand, student further researches help for better understanding, student practices.
Honestly, when I really started to think about that idea, becoming “media literate” seems to be beneficial for today’s youth. I understand that some people are salty about technology taking over and I do agree that media is harmful for some aspect of a youth’s life, however, learning a new “language” is a way that media is helping today’s youth become successful. The youth learning how to teach themselves, an idea that is going to benefit them in their futures. When people realize they can find the answer on their own, they are going to be less likely to rely on someone else.
Furthermore, not to mention, TODAY’S YOUTH ARE SURROUNDED BY MEDIA. Therefore, they NEED to become literate in the language if they want any hopes of becoming successful. Hell, included on resumes nowadays is that you are “proficient in Microsoft Word and Excel.” It is basically a must.
My question for you is that now that you’ve considered the idea of media encouraging peer-based learning, as well as individual learning, what are your thoughts? Would you say that the media is helpful in the sense that students are teaching themselves to find answers on their own? Or do you think that the cons outweigh the pros, in the sense that the material the youth may discover when searching away is more harmful than the helpful resources they find and the concepts they teach themselves.
Great post.
I have no evidence to cite for this, but I’d guess that so-called “new media” probably aren’t significantly increasing peer learning or individual learning, relative to each other, a pattern we’ve found elsewhere with generational change.
Now then, let me see if I can summarize some of the assumptions you’ve made and the claims you’re making. Assumption 1) being able to use and figure-out how to use media is a literacy. Claim 2a) youth are teaching themselves how to use new media, Claim 2b) because of peer pressure; Claim/assumption 2c) this is unique to “new media” (not sure about that). My question for you at this point, which is really one way of asking a big question for this course: When you’re using a computer, for example, what is (at) the interface between being able to manipulate hardware/software (first literacy), and being able to apply that literacy meaningfully to learn about other things (second literacies). How does being able to turn the pages of a Dante’s Inferno and being able to decode the words interface with knowing/understanding the story? Because there are certainly ways to understand the story without reading it (someone could tell you, you’ve seen a performance, you’ve heard it). I think about literacy as/in gaps; so, what is (in) that gap between those? People have argued convincingly that reading is just (like) writing. Is that just the relationship between reading and writing, rephrased?
If you want to make an argument along those lines, though, you might argue convergence across the aforementioned gaps. What does it mean when the space between procedural and creative tasks is blurred? “Writing” refers to coming-up with things to write and actually writing them down. My grandfather “wrote” his dissertation, but my grandmother “typed” it for him. My dad “wrote” his, and he “typed” it. People now just “write” them.
PS I wrote a post about media a few weeks ago called “AS IF”. It’s a bit confusing, but I clarified some of what I meant in the comments. That pivoted on the word “media”: are media just some things–movies, MTV, C-SPAN, social networks, wikipedia–or are they essentially everything, where ever there is a “gap”? I’d usually suggest that there’s media between my coffee cup and my desk, but let’s forget that for now. My point is, haven’t there been media everywhere for decades, before the PC? Between me a book? Between me and you? Maybe not in the same ways or to the same extent (I don’t know), but haven’t kids been pressured to learn how to read and talk to each other for a long time? Haven’t literal and social skills been valued for a long time? Think about resumes: “great interpersonal skills” or “excellent analytical skills.”
In best possible circumstances, young people would use the opportunities to learn offered by the internet in order to further their education or gain insights that weren’t provided in their classrooms. I don’t think that’s happening. To me, it seems like the young people who are curious and motivated to learn will seek ways to gain more information on their topics of interest, but those who aren’t as enthused about learning won’t suddenly enjoy gaining or sharing knowledge simply because they can do it more easily.