My blog is an extension of what I posted on the class moodle:
Borrowing from David Lazear’s definition of multimodal learning, “In a nutshell it means that the more different ways you learn something the more you will really learn it! The more different ways you learn something, the more you will remember it! The more different ways you learn something, the more you will genuinely understand it!”
Furthermore, Lazear writes, “In formal education you basically learn to learn in two or three ways--the famous “reading, and writing, and ‘rithmetic” ways which are at the heart of most of the learning we did in school.” This week’s video assignments dispelled these traditional forms of learning, and entailed applying other senses such as listening and seeing to the learning process.
After viewing Channel One, specifically the interviews and Pop and Presidential Quizzes, I concluded that although the videos were definitely age-appropriate, each was effective in its execution in trying to impart a particular message related to either health/fitness to quick facts. Also, with this week’s assignments, we saw different types of literacy. The means by which the messages were broadcasted whether through print, video coupled with sound, or listening afforded the viewer a different lens through which to try and understand what message with being conveyed. For example, Channel One, YouTube (Antibullying) required the viewer to listen and watch, rather than just applying one sense, especially since it was important to really take note of the word “acceptance” that was written on each child’s shirt, coupled with the music therein. Collectively, each video represented forms of mulitmodel literacy.
YouthRadio.com seemed to have more of teen/adult content, ranging from education, health to media, albeit students ran these programs.
Collectively, I think the strategies employed by each types of videos whether it be film, music, or audio, was constructed in an effective way to reach an intended audience.
I am also reminded of John Cornwell’s (2008) article “Is technology ruining children?: Technology is molding a generation of children unable to think for themselves or empathize with others? Essentially, Cornwelll ponders if the advancements in technology have lead to kids becoming depended upon technology to write papers, not being able to critically analyze and /or think critically in schools or other settings? Although I think this is a far-reaching conclusion, I can't help bur to also think that the question hold merit, and is still thought provoking! I also wonder about my nephews and nieces who seem to use every form of "the latest" technology to communicate with their friends and families, one another, while becoming very distracted easily when they are asked to do simple task such as their homework, complete a writing assignment, or read a book. I find that they want to know the “quick, simple, easy” method that does not require them to do too much independent work such as going to the library, or spending time to fully develop assignments. I also wonder about my nephews and nieces when they go to college. I wonder if with the advancements in technology that they will become too dependent. Although I think there is value in having access to various forms of technology, there needs to be a balance between technology and creating opportunities for them to think independently and creatively.
From the past few weeks in our Media Literacy class/ discussions, we spent quite a bit of time looking at how youth are being impacted by media technology and what that means for librarians, educators and or parents. Although there is no one simple answer, so far, I have been able to conclude that because youth are very impressionable that as educators/librarians, its equally important to not only use different forms of technology to teach youth, but also create environments free of them as well.
The debate is still out as to whether authors such as Cornwell are correct in impressions of today’s youth.
No comments:
Post a Comment