The new technologies that seem to symbolize
and support globalization processes, give a previously unavailable power to
individuals with access to them.
Through technologies such as the Internet, individuals (including
children) can mediate or transform their own understandings without the support
of traditional mediators like teachers, parents, or governments (Kennedy, 2006,
p. 298).
I chose to start with this statement for the fact that more
and more children are able to easily
access the “technologies” that Kennedy (2006) speaks of in this statement. If it’s not the computer or the
internet, it’s the television, radio, or simply in the very literature that is
available to children. What provoked
me further is within the line, “individuals (including children) can mediate or
transform their own understandings without the support of…teachers, parents, or
governments”. Initially, I
questioned why would it be so bad to think in these terms? Aren’t we supposed to see children as
autonomous beings, capable of thinking, acting, and deciding for themselves
without any influence from the adults who most often control and dictate how
children should live in general?
However, I began thinking about the materials that are out there and
how, in many cases, racist, sexist, elitist (to name a few) ideologies are
implicitly and explicitly promoted in the digital materials available to
children. It speaks to the idea of
just showing one dimension, one story usually that of a dominant group (Westernized,
white, English speaking, middle class…?)
Do children have the ability to be critical about what they are seeing
or hearing if they are always exposed to such one-sided “popular media” (Jones
Diaz, Beecher & Arthur, 2007)?
If we respond with a ‘no’ to this question does it then justify the roles
of the adults to come and help children learn how to be critical?
For the purpose of this discussion, let’s say that children do
need guidance in critical literacy practice. I know how problematic taking this stance is altogether, but
let’s focus on the fact that the practice of critical literacy is necessary for
the very reason that a lot of the materials that are out there targeting
children’s impressionable minds are propagating inequities, stereotypes, and discrimination
of individuals or groups. Jones
Diaz, Beecher, and Arthur (2007) seems to provide an enhanced (perhaps, a counter-)
argument from the statement I started with, which also justifies the necessity
of children learning why and how to critically analyse what they are seeing,
hearing, reading and so on. They
state,
[r]ather than leaving children and young people
to mediate their own understandings of gender, ‘race’, ethnicity and social
power through interactions with texts of popular culture, educator involvement
can enable ideological and consumer issues associated with popular culture to
be problematized. Educators can
support children to critically examine the ways that dominant discourses are
perpetuated in texts of popular culture.
They can assist children to engage in resistant readings and to produce
alternative texts (Jones Diaz, et al., 2007).
I
believe that there is little control or authority placed on the teacher over
children, rather, children are empowered to see the otherness or what’s possibly
missing within the materials they are exposed to in the “popular media”.
It is
important to note, which Jones Diaz et al. (2007) also emphasize, that we need
to acknowledge why children are drawn to the materials they are exposed to and
how they are interpreting it altogether. I think that with this practice, it highlights
the importance of engaging in an ongoing conversation between children,
teachers, parents, and other community members. It is also important to engage
in such conversations with children regarding the need to be critical because
of what they themselves can proliferate in their actions.
References:
Jones Diaz, C., Beecher, B. & Arthur, L. (2007). Children’s worlds: globalization and critical literacy. In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C.
McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in
childhood: Changing views, challenging practice (2nd ed. pp.
71-86). Marrickville, NSW:
Maclennan & Petty – Elsevier.
Kennedy, A.
(2006). Globalisation,
global English: ‘futures trading’ in early childhood education. Early
Years, 26(3), 295-306. doi:
10.1080/09575140600898472
It is very struggle when I see children using computers or internet in very young ages. I agree that we are now moving into a digital age and computer or internet for children is no longer High Technology but “toys”. Is that appropriate for children to expose to internet in their young ages? Mover, we always concern about what information children can get from internet. Is all of the information appropriate to children? Are we supposed to make decision and take control of what can they access to while children are using internet? When you are questioning about “do children have the ability to be critical about what they are seeing or hearing if they are always exposed to such one-sided “popular media” (Jones Diaz, Beecher & Arthur, 2007), it reminds me when Deborah Britzman in her interview mentions about children used to get quick answers through internet because internet are convenience. When you “click”, you get what you want. She concerns about if children critically think about the credibility about the information they get. Are they able to critique about it? I will also question about if children spend most of their time learning through internet or computer, are they missing the opportunities of learning from ‘lived experiences’? With internet, we can see what is out there in the world that we might not see in our lives. However, we can only see pictures of those experiences, in other words, what we have experienced is looking at the picture, images, other people’s experiences of those places, objects and events we get through internet. Those are not the ‘real’ live experience that we have; therefore, what we learn is from other people’s perspectives. “Why do we bring bugs inside of classroom to learn about bugs? Why don’t we go out to the nature and learn about bugs”? This is a comment that Cristina Delgado brings up in her course, and it perfectly explains my concerns of children learn the world with internet rather than go out and experience the ‘real’ world.
ReplyDeleteMultiliteracies I think provide other possibilities for children to practice literacy learning. With using signs, symbols, movements, facial expressions and dance and computers children are able to communicate with others. In early childhood setting, we value and see children’s body movements, facial expressions as their own way of expressing their feelings. Also, Hill (2007) mentions that “[m]any teachers have explored the potential of computers to engage students with learning difficulties” (p. 65). However, when we move into school system, those multiliteracies are taken away from children because they need to speak properly, they need to write properly and read properly. Children are not usually allowed to present their ideas with drawings or dances. Children can not answer questions with facial expressions; they can not do examinations with body movements. Even though we value with children’s different languages, those possibilities disappear when they enter Secondary School. If children who are unable to “fit in”, they are able as child “at risk”. If this is what is happening, I wonder what the purpose of practices such as multiliteracies is. Are we practicing multiliteracies to prepared children to appropriate writing, reading and speaking skills? We do see dance as language when it is performed in professional exhibitions, but how can we acknowledge that dancing is a form of literacy practice in children’s learning?
ReplyDelete