Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend my first professional development workshop at UVic. Thierry Plane, Media Education Specialist at Media Smarts, hosted our workshop. It was free to attend and was organized by Dr. James Nahachewsky and the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the Faculty of Education. Bonus: it will go on my transcript and list the learning outcomes we covered!
I thought I’d share what we learned for those who couldn’t make it and as review for myself.
Who are Media Smarts?
Media Smarts or in French, Habilos Media, is a Canadian non-profit company. It was previously called the Media Awareness Network and came out of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission TV violence initiative in 1994, which was spurred by the 1991 Citizen’s Forum on Canada’s Future (a.k.a. the Spicer Commission). After their research showed that most children were on the internet, the company revised their focus from providing educational resources about media violence to becoming a leader in media and digital literacy (which are two different things – more on that in a bit). They became a non-profit to ensure their stability regardless of the federal government whims.
Media Smarts’ vision is “to ensure that young people have the critical thinking skills to engage with media as active and informed digital citizens.”
Half of what Media Smarts does is research children’s and teens’ Internet use with their program Young Canadians in a Wired World (YCWW), which is Canada’s largest and most comprehensive study of children’s and teen’s Internet use. Their non-corporately funded Canadian research is crucial for everything they do; it grounds their framework and educational resources. All of their research and reports are available here. Thierry recommended we read their report, Connected to Learn: Teachers’ Experiences with Networked Technologies in the Classroom as it largely informs their their Digital Literacy Training Program for Canadian Educators and its Digital literacy Implementation Guide. The other half of what they do is create free K-12 resources (yayyy!) and promote public awareness on the importance of media and digital literacies.
What’s the difference between media literacy and digital literacy?
Media Literacy
Traditionally, media literacy focuses on media consumption rather than media production. It’s about giving kids the critical thinking skills needed to not be passive consumers of media.
The key concepts of media literacy are:
- Media are constructions
- Each medium has a unique aesthetic form
- Media have commercial implications
- Media have social and political implications
- Audiences negotiate meaning
Media Smarts made a playlist of Media Minute videos which I totally plan to use as an introduction to a media and digital literacy in my classroom. Each is followed by a question that you could assign to students.
Digital Literacy
Digital literacy is based on media literacy. But, rather than focusing just on media consumption, it involves learning to access, analyze, evaluate, and produce media and is also about helping kids become active rather than passive consumers of media.
Digital literacy is comprehensive and this is why we are now focusing on it and required to teach it. Consider the equation…
Digital literacy = media literacy concepts + these key concepts:
Digital media are networked.
The real difference between media and digital literacy is that media are now networked, which means everyone and everything is connected. There are no one way connections in digital media. Everyone can participate with media. Data is collected. This means you have to be careful about what you consume and produce. And, authenticity is difficult to evaluate. This concept also involves ethics: what is the ethical responsibility of consuming, sharing, and producing media? Should you share it? What are the consequences? The concept of cybercitizenship comes into play here.
To illustrate this concept Thierry had us take part in an activity where we tried to recognize which viral images and vidoes were real and which were fake. The point was to illustrate how difficult it is to authenticate something you see online, and that there aren’t always clear cut real or fake divisions. This clam, for example, is really on the table, but it’s not really “licking” the salt. It’s actually using its “foot” to move and the salt is irrelevant and potentially harmful.
Another, somewhat terrifying example of this the advent of live face recognition videos. This one made my stomach turn a little bit.
Thierry had us use The New 5 W’s – a list of questions for analyzing viral videos. I, for one, will be printing this out and pasting it on my classroom wall. I also thought what a fun concept to integrate into a Photoshop unit. Have students create “fake” images with an intended purpose and explain their choices (with some serious talk about ethics, copyright, and online sharing!).
Digital media are persistent (permanent) and shareable
This one I am quite aware of and have started becoming very aware of my online activity and presence. The idea is that everything that is transmitted by digital networks is stored somewhere and can be searched for and indexed. Everything that looks temporary can and usually is stored on a server (e.g.: Snapchat) and is accessible not only by the platform company, but theoretically anyone else.
Here’s a great video from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada for illustrating this concept:
Digital media have unexpected audiences
This one’s pretty obvious. What you share online may be seen by people you didn’t intend or expect to see it. Thierry showed us this K-3 lesson plan for illustrating this concept.
What happens via digital media is real, but doesn’t always feel real
It has been proven that we respond to things online as though we were really there. The trouble with using media to interact is that the cues that tell us how people feel are often absent. It’s easy to misconstrue things. For example, if you’ve got a group of friends like mine, you know that emoji’s are necessary, or else your text sass can easily be misconstrued. And it’s also so easy to forget that there is a person on the other end of your interaction when online. Consider massive multiplayer online games (MMOG). Here, kids are often playing against adults – such a weird dynamic, ripe for trouble and abuse if you ask me – and online behaviours, whether negative or not, become normalized and manifest in real interpersonal interactions. So, it’s crucial to teach kids about about empathy.
Digital media experiences are influenced by the architecture of the platforms
As someone who has worked as a graphic designer and artist, this concept was not new to me. I’m constantly considering how my visuals will illicit certain reactions and create meaning for the audience. So, I definitely understand the importance for teaching this concept to my students. Thierry pointed out that in traditional advertising, the point is to influence our thoughts and behaviours. But because with traditional media you were only the receiver, it doesn’t affect your behaviour as much as digital media, which asks you to be both the receiver and the participant. In other words, digital media is performative.
This concept also made me consider how addicted we are to our phones, and how their designs and application designs are created to feed our addiction by producing calculated dopamine responses. Personally, I hope that I work in a school that allows phones with the teacher’s discretion. I can see the practical uses of phones for some very specific and controlled purposes. But, as part of my belief that learning often best takes place when the learner is calm and without distraction, I hope to be able to ask students to put their phones in a designated area during class time.
Thierry showed us this grade 4-6 lesson plan to illustrate this concept and we played the game created to accompany the lesson. The idea behind this lesson is that your representation will affect your behaviour and the behaviours of others in whatever platform you’re using.
How do I access these amazing resources and lesson plans?
All MediaSmarts lessons are available on their website, some with accompanying online games, links, and other resources. They area all available in French too! The best part is all of their lessons are print compatible – meaning you can teach the concepts of digital literacy without needing technology! While it would make sense to use technology to illustrate the applications of these concepts, the reality is that accessing the necessary technology might be difficult for many schools and teachers.
For someone who loves organization, searching for their lesson plans is a dream. USE, UNDERSTAND & CREATE is MediaSmarts’ framework for teaching digital literacy skills. It draws on seven key aspects of digital literacy (illustrated by icons) and is based on the principles that students will use, understand, and create media. The framework provides teachers with supporting lessons and interactive resources that are linked to curriculum outcomes for every province and territory.
Lessons are searchable in the following three ways:
- By the 7 key aspects of digital literacy
- By media literacy outcomes by province/territory and subject. The lessons are laid out to correspond with the subject’s curriculum.
- By refining a search by grade, resource type, topic, and media type.
Arguments for and implications of using technology in the classroom
Thierry made a compelling argument for teaching digital literacy, one that I whole-heartedly agree with. He said, “since children have been using devices for so long, since birth practically, doesn’t it make sense to bring some education into the classroom about how to responsibly and ethically live with and use that technology?” We’re all guilty of poor digital habits – I know I am – so it’s fair to say that children will adopt these habits if they aren’t taught best practices for digital citizens. To ensure that all children learn these key concepts, BC has their developed own Digital Literacy Framework which is integrated into the curriculum.
Thierry noted these positives of evolving technology for education:
- The networked nature of digital media means that students can find information more quickly and easily. Students can access the world outside the classroom.
- The shareable nature of digital media means that students can publish their work for wider audiences. Students can collaborate inside and outside the classroom.
- The reality of digital media means that students can participate as full digital citizens (with proper instruction and guidance). Students can contribute to online communities.
The fact is that kids are not only consumers of media, but producers. To thoughtfully and responsibly produce media requires more skills than simply consuming media does. Thankfully, we now have the resources to do teach this responsibility.
While I absolutely believe in the necessity of teaching these digital literacy skills, I have several qualms about including a good deal of technology in my classroom.
Protected calm
There is an inherent irony in the teacher training program. We are constantly being told about the mental health epidemic affecting students and that their attention spans are shorter than ever. They are bombarded by information, and their personal devices feed the addiction centres of their brains with calculated dopamine boosts. The digital revolution has brought about immediate connectivity and the need for instantaneous responses. Yet, as pre-service teachers we are taught (and expected) to use and embed technology into nearly every aspect of our teaching. Could this not potentially contribute to the mental health problems for students (not to mention teachers who are now expected in this digital culture to be available at the drop of a hat and to be instantaneously digitally connected to not only students but parents)?
As someone who recognizes the inundation of information and connectivity that the digital age has brought, I believe in creating spaces for students where a sense of calm is protected. I would hope that I will be able to create an environment where mindfulness, play, and learning can coexist uninterrupted by the constant barrage of (often unreliable) information and that the Internet and personal devices can bring.
Of course I am not saying that I won’t use technology in my classroom. I am not advocating for completely disregarding the technology that students will use second-naturedly. But technology should be used for intentional, specific purposes and not because it’s simply there. I often find that the tools we’re being taught in the BEd program overcomplicate simple tasks that could be accomplished with a good ol’ fashioned blackboard and human interaction.
I am also concerned by the speed at which learning is expected to occur in this digital age. The common argument is that “anyone can learn anything off the Internet.” Partly true, but this assumption can lead to serious problems. This can be seen with online courses where the temporality of learning isn’t often considered. The volume of material often outweighs the time the student can allocate to their learning. I believe the temporal dissonance that technology brings to learning can be very detrimental.
By slowing down to prioritize human relationships in the classroom, thereby protecting the calm necessary for deep learning, I hope that I will best serve my students. They deserve the protected time to turn off, slow down, and just be.
*I should note that I believe my argument is more tailored to my teachable subjects, Art and English (rather than STEM subjects which largely require integrated educational technology). For example, I believe that the best way to deeply learn through literature is to slow down and participate in meaningful, organic conversations.
Protected practice and preserving the tactile
As an art educator, I believe in the importance of teaching and preserving the tactile. Students deserve protected time to take a break from the intermediary of digital tools, to use their hands and bodies as tools.
Part of my personal pedagogy involves setting aside ample time for students to practice processes and skills without fear of penalization by summative assessment. I was thinking about this the other day in relation to ceramics. As someone who has recently taken a university level ceramics course, I know the stress that can come from learning the entirely foreign and extremely difficult new tactile skill of throwing while under the pressures of the clay’s drying time, the bisque and glaze kiln schedules, the operating hours of the studio, and the assignment’s due date. I remember working at the wheel for hours and getting nothing but mud. I worked well past midnight sometimes with nothing to show for myself but a warped cylinder with no base. The pressures I felt totally disallowed me to enjoy being in the moment, to experience the simple joy of squishing clay through my fingers or to benefit from the meditative effects that I know throwing can have. An example of how I intend to implement protected practice in the art classroom is to offer time for students to learn throwing without require it’s application in an assignment. I would hold throwing demonstrations and offer in and out of class assisted practice times (not for evaluative purposes), demonstrate hand-building techniques, then assign a project (say, produce a vessel that conveys a personal narrative) where students are free to use whichever technique they prefer.
In terms of preserving the tactile, I often think of drawing as a point of concern. I worry about how images created through drawing software (and now AI) are often usurping hand-drawn and designed images. Drawing (by hand and on paper) requires thoughtful deliberateness: knowing where to apply the charcoal (for example) and how much to apply, knowing where to let the white of paper show through, knowing what marks produce what inferences, and how to control and delicately shade a subject. The purposeful act of drawing by hand requires preparation, practice, and expertise that I don’t believe can be mimicked in the same way by using a drawing tablet.
In digital drawing, deleting mistaken marks becomes easy, tracing over a layered image is easy, and complex drawings can be achieved with speed. Also potentially anxiety inducing is how much detail can be applied onscreen. When limited to paper and charcoal, say, you can only achieve as much detail as the tip of the charcoal will allow. In drawing software, the level of detail is limitless and can be as precisely as pixel-by-pixel. While digital drawing skills are valuable for industry (of which I know all too well, having worked in graphic design), the ability to remain focused on a drawing for a sustained and limited period of time (for as long as a live model is posing, for example), to make purposeful marks, and to control the amount of material transferred to the paper, are skills that cannot be replaced by any software. The mental and physical processes required for drawing on paper versus drawing on screen are vastly different, and the benefits that come from drawing on paper cannot be replicated. The mindfulness and calm that can be achieved by simply observing something in the real world, for example, and attempting to transfer it to paper alters the way one moves through the world. I know from practice that drawing has taught me to truly see. Suddenly, a tree becomes more than a daily front yard fixture, it becomes a fascinating study of proportions, light and shadow.
On another note, I’m particularly curious about the haptic dissonance that occurs between reading on screen versus reading on paper. I know that I internalize and understand what I read far more when I read it on paper, am able to tell where I am in a book, and can write little notes to myself on the page. Dr. Nahachewsky and I chatted about this with Thierry after the workshop, and I would really like to investigate the research on this topic to see if prioritizing printed text would best serve my students.
An inclusive solution
Thankfully, after sharing my concerns with Dr. Nahachesky and Thierry after our workshop, Thierry offered me some consoling advice.
As a teacher, you don’t need to be an expert in technology. Your expertise lies in critical thinking, emotional regulation, and managing information, among many other things. Thierry said that’s the great thing about digital media: you don’t have to be an expert in the technologies to teach critical digital literacy. You can teach through the skills you have. And, as MediaSmarts’ lessons often don’t require technology, you don’t even need to use technology to teach the concepts.
In terms of my qualms about largely involving technology in my classroom, Thierry gave me the following questions which I advise any teacher to ask:
Are you teaching the technology? Or is the technology being used to support what you’re teaching and what the students are learning?
And most helpful for me…
Is the technology replacing something richer?
Richness. That is what students deserve. A rich education.
Miss Robinson 