Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants

I readily admit it. I don't even rank. I am below the Digital Immigrant. Paper and I have a long standing relationship, but technology? We've always been at odds. So no matter what faults they may bear, however unwilling they are to integrate with the Natives, I have an almost grudging respect for the Digital Immigrants for being able to do what I cannot: walk the digital walk, and talk it's stupid lingo. That being said, I can also understand what I percieve to be frustration coming from Marc Prensky on the subject of non-integrated, out dated teaching methods. While I personally enjoy SOME lectures, I too have fallen victim to the attention span that wishes, just once, that someone would teach me Mathematics in a way that didn't make me want to jump out a window. Kids these days (I never really pictured myself ever uttering that phrase) were born into a world that moves at a staggering pace. It's become much easier to understand information placed in an interesting digital medium, especially since video games seem to dominate books in young childrens lives (much to my dismay). But I digress, the point is that what once worked, may not always work. Trying to resist changing with the times is like fighting the tides, tiring and ultimately a losing battle. If administrators would only work with those who understand kids, learning could be presented in a manner that benefits all involved. This may sound like a silly example, but does anyone remember School House Rock? It sang you information in fun, though slightly outdated now, tunes and enjoyable characters. I could sing/recite the preamble, give details about the revolution, give you at least five examples of interjections and tell you the job of a pronoun without breaking a sweat by the time I was seven. To me, that is a perfect example of a technological media being used for learning purposes in a way that makes learning fun. And please, if you ever need to know about the U.S.'s westward expansion, I have a song for you.

"The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager" by Thomas Hine

The question of what exactly the percieved notions of the teenager are has always been a fight for me. Looking back at my early "teen" years (from my lofty age of 18), I still understand why I found it insulting to be called a teenager. I was quiet, I minded myself, read often, had good grades, never argued with my parents... so why call me a "typical teenager" the one time we don't agree? The few times it happened, I was livid. Thomas Hine makes an excellent point when he says on page four that the teenager "is a social invention". The idea of the "typical teenager" is so vastly different from what it was a century ago, that I personally question the existence of such a group. At the time this country was founded, a woman my age would have been married for a few years and in the process of risking their life to pop out a few dozen kids, only a few of which would survive to live to the age where they could marry and attempt to produce a brood of children of their own. They were considered mature under the stituate that their bodies, their very biological make up, said they were. Today, teens are sexually maturing faster than in past generations, but age strictures pen them in under one label: Teenager. Thomas Hine put it a little more calmly to be sure when he said, "The concept of the teenager rests in turn on the idea of the adolescent as a not quite competent person, beset by stress and hormones". So what is todays teenager exactly? Who the hell knows? But one thing we do know is that it isn't good. The teenager is a sullen, frightening creature, who rebels for fun and thinks they know everything while in truth their head is full of questionable music that dissolves their moral standards and leads them to question their elders and betters. Hine, and myself, don't see a clear solution to the social branding of the teenager. Blame rests on no one instance, no one generation, for its forming. I honestly feel that if the word "teenager" would retire to simply being a description for that fun, anxsty stage you look back on from adulthood and think how silly you were to think your little kid problems carried any weight, then "teenagers" wouldn't be a problem. "Teenagers" as a group label however is unfair and unjustified. Not to mention annoying for those of us who know they will be considered a teenager by their extended families until they collect their pensions and enjoy the senior discount on only half a sandwich, because they're sure they could never finish a whole one. If teenagerism, if you will, were considered an individual trait, I wonder how many true "Teenagers" still exist in every sense of the word? And on the matter of teenage crime, why such a focus on the age group? It's more interesting and morally and socially demanding to focus on the misbehaving children than the ones who do right by themselves and others. As someone around the age of these miscreants, I can't say I'd like to thank the media for lumping me in with young women who commited horrifying deeds just because I attended my senior prom not so long ago. My being a young woman should not be all I am seen to be. The lack of focus on the individual is astonishing. So maybe that's the answer.

Media Literacy, studied within acronyms

The first thing I found during my googled search of media literacy was the CML page, the Center for Media Literacy (http://www.medialit.org/). I must admit it was a comfort to find a source dedicated to something like Media Literacy, when I sometimes fear no one thinks much at all anymore. In fact, to my pleasant surprise, I found a myriad of sites devoted to the understanding and analytical reasoning of the media. I can only surmise that there is far more of a present awareness of stereotypes and underhanded messages within the media than I'd first assumed. So, no more assuming for me. There are many organizations, most large enough to have important sounding acronyms like the previously mentioned CML or NAMLE (National Association for Media Literacy Education) that deal with the idea of Media Literacy. Capital letters aside, each one seemed to share similar messages and goals. Think. Look at what's around you for what it is. Question its purpose, its desires, its very being, because if you don't, it will think for you. Of course, they didn't word it in so crasse a manner, but the point remains the same. Anyone with even the slightest inclination and access to a computer can find a steady stream of exceptionally useful information. Which leaves me wondering, why is the majority of the population still so ignorant upon the subject?

"Unpacking the Myths that Bind Us" by Christensen

Linda Christensen makes a bold statement when in her third paragraph she says, "Our society's culture industry colonizes their [students] minds and teaches them how to act, live, and dream." She seems almost aggrivated throughout her piece with the lack of understanding that accompanies the exposure of young children to material that can direct their minds, minds "unprotected by intellectual armor", to think and feel a certain way without even being cognizant of it. She uses the examples of Disney, Mattel and Nike as industry moguls that sell an image and are leaders in this underhanded alteration of thinking. So she asked her students to question them. She asked them to analyze cartoons and films, to ask a myriad of questions including who plays what kind of character and what motivates the character, how are different races portrayed, etc. Once her students established what stereotypes and ideals are present for themselves, they then all act as a vehicle for change. Changing this damaging stereotypes is the main point of such exercizes. Sharing a deeper understanding for media pieces, and then sharing that understanding with others, is what Christensen shows is the path to the dissolution of the stereotypes that have haunted our society for decades. While I personally agree with Christensen on multiple points, the one thing I'm afraid I didn't quite follow was the lack of any positive imagery present in the media at all. While I'm aware that the main point of her piece was to point out the painful slyness of negative influences, I feel that any attempt at a positive image shouldn't simply be overlooked. Any media piece, whether it be literature, film, or TV, is going to be fraught with unconcious stereotyping. It's unfortunately unavoidable. By saying that a tall, thin, white woman is an unfair portrayal in the media, isn't that the same discrimination we're trying to avoid? On the other hand, does that make that one kind of woman the only woman that should be seen? Not that I'm saying some actual variety and realism in the portrayal of all men and women as individuals with complex personalities and bodies of more than one twiggy shape wouldn't be nice, I just worry that sanitizing such things completely would be an impossible feat. I honestly feel that understanding and recognizing these stereotypes is more important than going on a mission to eradicate them. I feel that the personal development and following of these stereotypes once absorbed is what must be checked. For example, my grandmother grew up in a time where there were women's roles and men's roles. Women cleaned, cooked, stood meekly to one side, and bore and raised children. Men provided, worked with their hands, and bought their wives all the latest cleaning supplies. These ideas, that she learned as a child, she placed upon her children, and continues to do so to this day. Her one daughter was supposed to become a secretary, marry a doctor, quit her job, pop out some kids and clean all day. Not that that is a wrong way to live, but to her, that's the only way a woman can live. It's her duty. I've been exposed to that all of my life, but it is my personal choice to question such restrictions as those. The more questions people ask, the less of an impact the stereotypes within the environment around them have.