CLM in the real world

The purpose of this blog post is to serve as a reflection assignment to analyze a real world lesson plan through the four lenses of media education approaches, identify which, if any, this lesson plan falls under, and then to determine how this lesson plan may be altered to both incorporate media while also adhering to the exemplifications of a Critical Media Literacy approach.

First, the lesson plan has been provided by a sixth grade teacher from Alpine School District. The lesson plan itself is based on a lesson rubric developed by the school district rather than a framework preferred by the teacher. The lesson in question is a geometry lesson plan that deals with finding the surface area of a three dimensional object, a pyramid in this particular case. Previous to this lesson the students constructed a pyramid frame for a kite out of straws or balsawood and kite string. Now the students are given a certain amount of tissue paper with which to cover their frame. The teacher then let’s the students use their own methods to solve the task of covering the frame with the given amount of tissue paper. While this is going on the teacher will ask probing questions of the students and take note of students whose method leads to the discovery of the algorithm that enables students to complete the task. After a certain point the teacher allows the selected students, whose methods are analogous to the formula, to share their method(s) with the class. While these selected students are sharing the teacher will emphasize parts of the students’ explanations that are important to the formula. It is at this point that the teacher may also introduce specific, essential vocabulary (i.e. surface area vs. volume).

With this lesson plan laid out in some detail it can now be addressed and considered using the various educational approaches. It must be noted that the four approaches that are being discussed have been explicitly stated to apply to media education. There must, and will be, some form of translation from media education to arithmetical education. This translation means there will be some aspects lost or that are ill suited to compare, but, there will hopefully yield some positive and reflective discourse on general education as a result of this translation. Now, each approach will be introduced and some characteristics specific to that approach shall be related in their dealings with media education. After which each approach shall be applied to this specific lesson plan and what an educator of that method might feel about that lesson plan’s activities or pedagogical ideology.

Protectionism, as it pertains to media education, primarily sees the student (and thus media audiences) as passive and media as a force that the student needs to be insulated from. The reasons for this insulation can be multifarious; oversimplification of facts, political biases, and/or domination of cognitive abilities. Of course an exception to this attitude towards media would be the pre-approved literature that deals strictly with the relay of information. Of course the “pre-approved” quality is performed by the majority perspective and is usually a simplification based on that perspective’s bias on reality.
This approach holds much more “traditional” (again traditional to the majority but maybe not a minority) views of pedagogy and the teacher-student relationship. That is to say, in an American education setting, the teacher is a conduit of information which the teacher then pours into the heads of the students. These passive students duty is to memorize, compartmentalize, and regurgitate the information as it has been presented by the teacher. The student’s comprehension of the subject is determined by their ability to how closely they can regurgitate, verbatim, the materials which their teacher has presented.

A protectionist educator might view this lesson plan as an error in the classroom and a violation of the teacher-student relationship. The basis for this view lies in the protectionist idea that the teacher is the most active participant, yet this lesson clearly makes the teacher a passive force in the classroom and allows the students to explore the lesson with little interference. A protectionist might present this lesson in a much different fashion. One way a protectionist might teach this lesson would be to present a pyramid, either from a text, on a display, or perhaps even a model, and then lecture to the students the proper algorithm with which to find the surface area of the pyramid. Then the following exercise might be to give various components and then have the students use those components to find the surface area of different sized pyramids. Although this method has been traditionally the way that students have engaged with this lesson it has also been shown to be a method that has had low information retention amongst students. This first method differs a great deal from the second approach that shall be discussed; Media Arts Education.

Now, Media Arts Education might be a little difficult in clearly translating an expansion into a scholastic subject, if it is read that a primary attribute of Media Arts Education is to teach the subject as a separate entity from all other subjects, it is easier to understand. Another pillar of Media Arts Education is; there exists an appreciation of the subject and the students then replicate (in an artistic setting this would be an opportunity for the student to exercise creative self expression) the subject within a classroom setting.
In this approach the student is still a passive participant. Compared to Protectionism, however, there is a marked increase in the level of engagement as the student is allowed to replicate and create based upon their appreciation of a subject. In this approach, again, the teacher is very active in the students’ engagement with the material, acting as a gatekeeper of information and still offering input based upon quality of reproduction’s adherence to a preapproved rubric. A potential pitfall of this application to education is that, while the student is passive, it greatly depends on their appreciation of the subject. If a student doesn’t appreciate the materials then there is a low level of engagement.
A Media Arts Education adherent instructor might appreciate this lesson plan much more than a Protectionist educator, but the high level of activity amongst the students might still cause trepidation. This isn’t to say that Media Arts Education proponents shun activity, the main portion of conflict lies in the fact that the instructor isn’t the driving force behind the activity. An educator of this tactic might walk the students through the activity before allowing them to replicate it later as either homework or as a separate activity in the lesson. A second way that Media Arts Education differs from this lesson lies in that Media Arts Education still views the teacher as the arbiter of information. This ensures that the teacher is still the ultimate judge on a student’s comprehension of the subject by relying on the student’s ability to replicate the information. Considering this second difference, a Media Arts Education advocate might also consider another revision to the lesson plan. This time, the teacher would provide an example algorithm needed to solve the task to the students and then letting them perform the activity under the instructor’s supervision. While this method does increase the level of active participation amongst the students there is still a strict pedagogy in place.

The third method is the Media Literacy Movement (MLM). This approach deals in trying to get the students to objectively engage the materials. A MLM methodology would be to have the students, engage with the materials outside of a purely literal format and afterwards explore the material through an interactive (preferably media based) activity. It is through this access, analysis, and evaluation that the students learn to communicate the lesson’s objectives effectively. There might be some intertextual connections being made that include other, similar fields but, for the most part, these connections are superficial and applicability of them is limited.

In terms of pedagogy, the MLM line of thought views the student as just as active a participant as the instructor in their education. This is where marked distinctions are being made concerning the democratization of education. However, MLM doesn’t quite make the full step of having a democratic relationship in a student’s education. In MLM, the instructor still has to have a role as gatekeeper by shepherding the students in the direction they feel the students must go in order to have truly learned the lesson.
Since this lesson plan is a great deal like a MLM lesson, an educator who favors this approach would probably have few revisions for this kind of lesson. Any revision for a lesson like this might involve changing superficial elements from building a pyramid out of straw and tissue paper to maxing a box out of paper and balsa wood. Another such change might be that the instructor could provide wooden pyramids and have the students figure out the surface area so the students can know how much paint they need to paint the whole surface. This would satisfy the need for students to become actively engaged in their education and would create a more level field in the student-teacher relationship. However, there is still a lack of a true democratization in the pedagogy. This missing piece lies in the fact that there is still the imposition upon the student of a dominant ideology; it can be of the majority culture, the students’ teacher, the educating institution, or any combination/permutation of those three or more.

The final educational approach is Critical Media Literacy (CML). This last approach, while somewhat related to the previous educational schools of thought, is radically different from those perspectives. CML not only allows the student to actively engage the materials, it encourages the student to question and critically analyze the ideologies, pedagogies, and institutions of power surrounding the materials. The students can then creatively produce something that addresses and alleviates/validates their concerns. After this work is finished the students are to reflect on their work and the subject at hand which they produced the work for. Hopefully questions and reflections like, “How does my work engage the subject?”, “Does it adequately make its case about the subject?” are considered and discussed between the students and teacher. After this reflection and consideration the student is supposed to act on their reflection. This might include a re-analysis of the material which could lead to a decision that the material is worth pursuing, or that it is inconsequential to their education at large. In either case, the student has been exposed to, and been able to engage with the subject on a critical level.
In terms of pedagogy and the relationship between instructor and instructed, CML places the most responsibility on the audience’s role in education, out of the four methods. The instructor, while still responsible for aiding the education and guidance of the students is less of a gatekeeper of information and more of a landmark with which the student uses in research, analysis, and critique of information. Another aspect to role the teacher inhabits in a CLM environment is; the teacher aides in the creative process by either offering technical assistance or by engaging with the creative work critically to help the student come to a clearer understanding of the materials. In CLM the teacher also has the possibilities of learning just as much about the subject matter as the student, thus creating a learning environment for both parties.
A CLM educator, while they would be encouraged to see the students actively engaged in the activity to discover the algorithm needed to carry out the task, would find numerous aspects of the lesson plan either superfluous or in need of revision. One thing that a CLM instructor might prefer, rather than immediately engaging with the material, is having the students critique the material’s sources, “Why is it so important that we learn this?”, “Do we even want to learn this?”, “What might we want to learn instead?”, “How does learning this subject affect me?”. The lesson would also involve making intertextual connections of the material with other materials that might involve history, science, arts, and even other arithmetical subjects. Then there would be a creative production that includes inquiry into the subject, perhaps a short documentary about the necessity of geometry in civil engineering. In the wake of this production there would be some reflection on the production and its relation to the subject and, finally, the resulting action would have already been accomplished in the inquiry about the subject. This kind of lesson would have to have the ability to fluidly address the various aspects of the lesson and assuage many of the students’ reservations about the subject’s validity to a rounded education.

Of course the great difficulty of the CLM approach’s application (even in media education, trying to apply CLM is tough enough) to any of the “core” subjects is how to incorporate the democratization of education that CLM champions without losing the efficiency to cover the materials that exists in, say, a Protectionist or Media Arts Education structure. Now, one way that CLM might be able to apply itself to broader subjects is to carefully integrate media into a lesson plan similar to this example one provided. This not only introduces media (a necessary aspect of a CLM education) but it would also allow for the student to creatively engage with the materials, another necessary part of CLM thought. For instance, an activity a student could take part in might be for the student to create a computer model of a pyramid and, using algorithms provided by the teacher, figure out the surface area of the pyramid in pixels. The mathematical ends may not be what the student is originally interested in, but through the creative production involved in the computer modeling they are able to engage the materials and their own interests. And then in the reflection following the production, the student will hopefully have found a way to act on this information in their own manner. The end result is, the subject matter is not only applied but there is a kind of democratization involved in the learning process.

But nagging questions are posed by critics of CLM, “What if the student isn’t interested in any kind of creative production related to the subject matter?”, “How is the student supposed to learn the lesson and proper application if they feel that they cannot analyze the information?” A CLM approach to the subject is more than content with letting the students critique the necessity of the subject matter if it holds no interest to them. CLM also would welcome a student’s proposal that some information has an inability to be analyzed. In the case of the latter, an activity that this student could engage in might be to make a short podcast covering the necessity of the subject matter in an engineering environment or another field of study, rather than a project on how important that information innately is.

The great separation between CLM and the MLM, Media Arts Education, and Protectionist methods lies in the students and their willingness to engage and critique the subject matter. This doesn’t mean that the teacher becomes subservient to the whims or desires of the students, rather, the students and teachers are allowed to engage one another on the subject, with respect towards each other’s views. And while it is the duty of the student to actively participate in the materials (critiquing is entirely up to them), it is up to the teacher to help the students engage the materials in whatever way they can. Perhaps it is pertinent to come up with a sample lesson or a possible scenario where CLM perspectives may be applied to a core subject.

Here is a possible application of CLM suppositions on a core subject, let’s say history. The lesson might be a focus on imperialism in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. This subject can be engaged with in a manner similar to the following practices. First, there is access to the facts and information pertinent to the subject. Second, there is an analysis that information; this might include precursory motivations (social, political, economical), the lasting after effects (again social, political, economical), and/or, even this event’s relationship to other fields of study (i.e. imperialism and its relationship to Heart of Darkness). The students can then engage in a creative production that includes some (or maybe even all) of their analytical responses to the subject matter which they studied. The fourth part of this lesson plan would include reflection on how the students’ creative work(s) address the issues uncovered in the original access to the information. The final aspect would be for the students to consider (or even to actually prepare for) what kind of future actions they could take to prevent such actions from repeating or how they can become involved in solving the problems caused by imperialism, even though the effects are half a world away from themselves.
In any case, there is the possibility of application of CLM to these “core” subjects in school. But there are many things that need to change about the American (even international) education system before a widespread adoption of a CLM-like education ideology can happen. Using this lesson plan as a template, and some oversimplification, there exists at least the possibility of CLM adoption in classrooms.

        

I love documentary a great deal, and I viewed this assignment not just as an assignment or something that I will get to who to students next semester, but as an opportunity to create something that I am proud of and could show to people outside of a scholastic environment. The main issue that I had with this documentary was in trying to edit together a cohesive story that accomplished the various restrictions placed upon it. These restrictions are; obviously this is for a class so there is a timely fashion which this should have been turned in (it wasn’t) but also I felt like it had to present a subject in a manner that didn’t leave the subjects too open to criticism nor myself, and I also wanted to create a project which I could show to people that aren’t at this university without having to apologize for or qualify the claims I made in the documentary.

As for tricks, I tried to keep the amount to a minimum so that students who are in the high school won’t feel technologically overwhelmed, while still having some technical flair. The most intense trick might have been rewinding and replaying but I think that is a piece of fluff that the students could pull off in either iMovie or Final CutX with a little finagling. Hopefully this has been apparent, but I also wanted to show that this documentary was created without having to go far afield, yes there is some B-roll type of footage that is from far and away but really, found footage can be very applicable and save a director/editor’s life later when piecing it all together.

Finally! A post on culture.

            Ah, the first post in a new month, it should be full of promise, vigor, and hopefully critical debate. I wanted to discuss something both personal to my situation, but also hopefully address broader topics in this listing. What I am speaking on is BYU’s grooming standard and dress code which I have had to have intimate interaction with over this past week. Now, as a student of BYU I have to sign a contract saying that I a) abide by the Honor Code (this includes no smoking, no drinking, and living a chaste life) and b) I abide by the grooming standard/dress code. Now there are some issues with the latter point and that is the crux of this post.

            My particular sticking point with this is the grooming standard which says that men should have hairstyles that are “neat, clean, avoiding extreme styles or colors, and trimmed above the collar…”. I have no problem with neat, clean hair. I even appreciate that no one on BYU campus has been sporting pink liberty spikes. The issue that I have, though, is the hair trimmed above the collar. As some readers may know, I am half Navajo, which means that I have cultural adherences other than Caucasian and other than Utahn LDS culture. One of those cultural imperatives is the wearing of a tsiyeel or a bun. The bun takes a great deal of hair if it is to be worn properly (folded into four sections before being tied at the back of the head) and it also happens to fall into the other three categories that BYU has outlined (a tsiyeel has to be neat, clean, and naturally colored). I have explained this to the Honor Code board and tried to get an exception in order to grow the amount of hair needed to make a bun, but the board has refused this plea, citing that cultural/religious affiliations aren’t valid reasons for an exception. It might not bother many students or faculty at BYU but this attitude certainly disturbs me for a litany of reasons.

            Perhaps to fully understand, and to offer counterpoints to the prevailing attitudes, we ought to go through the grooming standard and have a de-structuring and analysis of what the standard states explicitly, implicitly, and what is reinforcement of cultural imperialism by uninformed individuals. The Honor Code’s opening statement on the grooming standard says:

The dress and grooming of both men and women should always be modest, neat, and clean, consistent with the dignity adherent to representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and any of its institutions of higher education.

Modesty and cleanliness are important values that reflect personal dignity and integrity, through which students, staff, and faculty represent the principles and standards of the Church. Members of the BYU community commit themselves to observe the following standards, which reflect the direction of the Board of Trustees and the Church publication For the Strength of Youth.

Now, let’s deconstruct this general statement and analyze a bit. The first paragraph insinuates that the dress and grooming of individuals who attend Brigham Young University are to reflect the attitudes and stances of the Church. Yet, if we were to examine numerous Church texts from all manner of Church authorities there is not a mandate that is prohibitive of certain grooming practices (growing hair long, keeping a beard, etc.). There are indeed prophets and apostles who admonish modest dress and appearance, yet this is not specific to include hair length or cleanliness.

            This leads to the second paragraph which lets the students know the importance of cleanliness and modesty. I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, cleanliness is next to godliness as the saying goes. What the Honor Code board may not know is that both cleanliness and modesty happen to be standards that Navajo culture exemplify, but why stop there at a single instance? Cleanliness and modesty are attributes that many other religions and cultures exemplify as signs of self respect, religious piety, and/or integrity of character.

            What is going on in this aspect of the discussion is the judgment of character based upon outward appearances. To that my reply comes from three sources: Isaiah 29:20-21, 2^nd Nephi 29:7-9, and from the 1971 opening speech that Dallin Oaks made to the students of BYU. Isaiah 29:20-21 reads

           

 “20… and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought”.

This means that it is unrighteous or ill advised to make people a sinner for a word, yet isn’t that what is happening under this aspect of the grooming standard? Isn’t a justification for an exemption to one (out of four) facet(s) of the grooming standard at least worth consideration? If there existed numerous reasons for exclusion I might be inclined to understand, but, and this is only in my personal case, the only violation being committed is the length of hair, not its neatness, cleanliness, or modesty. Using this scriptural spring board I’d like to offer another piece of evidence, this time from the Book of Mormon.

            In the Book of Mormon (a canonical book of scripture) there is the passage of 2^nd Nephi 29:7-9 which states,

“7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?  

8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also”.

This scripture is used most often as a support for the acceptance and validity of the Book of Mormon as a spiritual document on the same level as the Bible. But it can also be interpreted as all truth comes from God, that no one has all the truth and that God has spoken the truth to diverse peoples and that all those people are His children. That he will speak to them when, how, and why he wills and thus he is no respecter of “nations”. As I, and my family, have always taken this to mean that, those teachings of other faiths that are in agreement with the Gospel (and in some cases are a worthwhile addition to Gospel principles/doctrine) are good, true, and from God. Now a bun is supposed to be a sign given by the gods (or God) to people as a symbol of virtuous, chaste, pure, and charitable living. In a way, the tsiyeel might be considered a kind of Navajo set of temple garments. And as I have studied, prayed, and pondered about the connectivity of these two subjects, I feel that these two practices aren’t in opposition to one another. In fact, they might be considered complimentary, both physical symbols of covenants/promises made to Deity to live worthy lives. But besides this sort of philosophic/metaphysical argument there is a very concrete aspect of this debate in the form of words spoken by an actual BYU president to students concerning this subject.

            As for the third part of my reply, I read through the address that Dallin H. Oaks (now a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) gave to students in 1971, wherein he discussed the grooming standard. He discussed the reasons for application and that these reasons were meant for their season. Which is understandable since there was the counter culture movement which had a substantial arm in the drug community, there was a need to distinguish students from their surrounding environ. But Elder Oaks also explicitly states that he expected those mandates to be changed in the future as society and the university changed. A seeming point of opposition is also one that I would like to use as a support for my own assertion.

            Elder Oaks in his speech noted that, “I think all will agree that dress and grooming standards are not the most important standards required of those who attend this University.” But he qualifies this by quoting D&C 89:3, “…the requirements are ‘adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints (D&C 89:3).’” So, because these are the easiest “commandments” and “requirements” it can be assumed that there is no more discussion about the matter right? Well, D&C 89 is the section that pertains to the Word of Wisdom, a mandate on healthy dietary practices, not grooming standards. And besides that, is there not also violations of this section everyday on BYU campus? The BYU Creamery grill serves up mostly hamburgers, hotdogs, and other meats. Yet, according to this scripture, why would they serve meat at any time besides winter?

            I want to make it clear that I am NOT attempting to correct the leadership of the Church, nor am I falling away in my testimony of what I believe to be true. But what I would rather point out, is that perhaps now is the time that Elder Oaks was referring to. Perhaps now is the time for the standards to be changed, not lowered concerning the grooming standard.

            It is this changing of the standard, not a lowering of the standard, that helps to segue into another aspect of this debate; that of cultural acclimation. Earlier, I had mentioned how I had to be intimately engaged with this rule. The reason why is, I was making a documentary on how a person of a minority culture, engages and cohabitates with the majority while still maintaining an individualistic sense of self. This meant talking about the tsiyeel and the grooming standard besides the points of Native American vs. Mormon biases and interreligious engagement. As part of that documentary I interviewed students about how they felt concerning the grooming standard. Most felt that it was a positive aspect to the university, yet when presented with complications (as I presented it, as a Sikh who wished to attend University) most appreciated the need for religious/cultural diversity at a university that prides itself on its international appeal, and whose unofficial mottos include “The World is Our Campus” and “Enter to Learn, Go Forth to Serve”. There were many who understood the desire to cleave unto traditional religious dogma/cultural mores, yet expressed the opinion of “Our institution, our rules”. This aspect of the discussion disturbs me the most, not only because it demands a kind of uniformity in a world that isn’t made for uniformity, but it also implies a kind of cultural/religious imperialism. There are sincere and well intended reasons behind this attitude, one student remarked how “…if a Sikh or Hassidic Jew came to BYU they might feel out of place and that adherence to the grooming standard would be a way to acculturate them to this environment where they would be a distinct minority.”

            If someone can’t see a problem with this kind of reasoning then there is much discussion that needs to be had. Why should someone subjugate their religious/moral dogmas, which might bring the only comfort in an alien environment, to satisfy a superficial comfort for the people surrounding that individual?  As for the rest of the attitude of our house, our rules; whose rules are those? They certainly aren’t those of the LDS Church, as pointed out earlier, so whose set of rules is BYU operating under? I have considered this and my only serious consideration would be that the rules BYU is guided by are a WASP-ish, White Man’s Burden mentality. I don’t want to charge the university’s faculty, board, students or affiliates with racism, but the mindset that some individuals at the university find themselves in is certainly impacted by it.

            I intend on attempting to get my hair exemption card. I’d like to believe that it would lead to serious discussion and criticism amongst all levels of the university about the principles that BYU is trying to protect without crushing the practices and dogmas of others. But this might be narcissistic to hope for, or even consider. I’ll most likely be shot down, forced to cut my hair until I leave this institution (which is one of my favorites in the whole world), after which I can grow my hair as long/crazy/rebellious as I want. I want to say that I tried though, to leave the university at least saying that I gave it a damn good effort, and maybe a student in the future, perhaps a Native, a Sikh, a Hassidic Jew, or someone will come along and be able to finish the job. I don’t know… but there’s always hope.