>Students do seem to be able to actively 'read' media texts (in that they
>can watch and interact with them), but what I think we value as media
>educators is that they develop in such a way as to analyse them
>critically. This is an issue - probably an issue which has developed in
>the context of 'units' and league tables for many educational centres.
>I feel like it's saying that students can read a book, so therefore they
>can have an analytical engagement with Shakespeare. My issue is that
>students can ask questions and conduct, or implement the tools of
>analysis (this connotes etc) but not always interpret such findings and
>formalise a scholarly argument.
>
>
I think this is a key issue. In work that combines Bernsteinian
sociology of education with systemic functional linguistics, several of
us down under are looking at school English, and whether students can
recognise what is required of them and then realise that performance.
All too often the rules of the game are tacit, so only those who already
possess the ability to do what will gain success will indeed succeed.
The underlying principles of the curriculum tend to obscure the content
knowledge. This can only be encouraged further by the way MS2.0 is
described in the short piece on the URL. In the name of being
anti-elitist, so much is done that only aids the effects of the social
reproduction function of cultural reproduction. It reminds me of the
way progressive and constructivist pedagogies are still routinely
claimed to be good for working-class students, as if thirty years of soc
of ed research showing how it systematically disadvantages them by
keeping the rules of the game out of their reach doesn't exist.
With best wishes,
Karl
----
Dr Karl Maton
Department of Sociology & Social Policy
Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney
http://www.KarlMaton.com
|