5472 2-1-09

A rationale for the teaching of media, film, and television studies in a secondary education classroom.

Before we discuss the merits of multi-media curriculum in the secondary classroom in general, and the English class in particular, I think it’s important to identify the skills which we hope a high school student will possess when he graduates, and are typically addressed in an English class:

1.) An ability to derive meaning from a complex text, and the ability to critically think about and respond to this same text. (This is the fundamental motivation behind the study of literature).

2.) The ability to articulately communicate complex ideas through both the written and spoken word. (This is the fundamental motivation behind composition and speech classes).

3.) A complete understanding of the motivation of voice, point-of-view, audience, and purpose when contemplating a “literary” work.

I personally believe that Shakespeare’s plays can stand on their own merits, and should be studied, whether or not he helps me attain the two above goals. I also think that a working knowledge of iambic pentameter and a healthy loathing of the passive voice are essential qualities in a complete human being; however, these are not really the reasons I teach. I remain aware that most of my students will never need to possess the knowledge that Gatsby’s real name was James Gatz, or that Othello strangled Desdemona, or that Langston Hughes thought the soul of a black man could be suitably compared to a river. Once they leave my classroom, each of those choice tidbits of knowledge (so dear to me!) are next to useless to any contributing member of modern society. But the three goals I mentioned above are ABSOLUTELY required in a modern society. (Anyone who thinks that Shakespeare is hard ought to read a mortgage agreement).

So, where are my students most likely to encounter a complex text which requires a critical response? Will their lives outside of school involve laborious readings of Victorian novels? Or will they be more likely to need to ponder the layered meanings of an attorney’s e-mail? Or the diatribe of an articulate and erudite political commentator?

When my students communicate through the written word, will they be writing five paragraph essays? Or will they be writing e-mails to their congressman, editorial staff, or employer? When they need articulate spoken language, will they be speaking aloud to a group of students? Or will they be leaving voicemails for clients, tele-conferencing, or presenting a PowerPoint?

When they are presented with a work, wherein it is necessary to understand the point of view, audience, or purpose, what is the likelihood they’ll be reading an essay by some pundit? What is the likelihood they’ll be watching a political speech on Youtube? Or just watching a standard news program? What is the likelihood they’ll be watching a Scorsese film?

The idea of a “return to basics” in education is just short of ludicrous. While I agree that a fundamental grasp of grammar, spelling, and punctuation are necessary, neglecting electronic literacy in the 21st century is tantamount to asking our students to use quill pens and inkwells. We live in a world of Web 2.0. We live in a world of television and film. The fundamental way in which the modern student will experience literacy in his lifetime is in front of a computer or television or movie screen. To train a student to read ONLY books and write ONLY essays is the equivalent to preparing her for a job in a buggy whip factory.

I mean, seriously, you are reading this on a blog. Mightn’t it be logical to teach our students the same kinds of skills we utilize daily?