George Washington would have supported media literacy

As I read Segall and Schmidt s article on the newspaper as a social text, I felt a pang of guilt: “They [newspapers] give teachers a sense of modernizing instruction and relating the curriculum to students lives and interests.” Ooops. Guilty. In my student teaching I used newspapers in nearly every lesson. I prided myself on using a variety of papers and patted myself of the back for hardly touching the textbook and instead bringing in current events. Isn’t this what good teachers do?

Segall, Schmidt and Considine imply it isn’t. Using a newspaper to make yourself feel good that you are leaving the cursed textbook shut and bringing in “real-life” isn’t going to get me teacher of the year. While I do think it is good to bring in current events in the news daily, I never had an explicit lesson on how to approach the news, how to access, analyze and evaluate its message. We discussed bias, certainly, but nothing approaching the TAP model. And for this, the authors would surely revoke my non-existent teaching license.

I really appreciated Considine’s discussion of media literacy and how crucial it is for young people to develop. We are living in a media crazy world, and we should be helping media crazy boys and girls to make sense of that world by looking at the very stuff that floods them with information. If students are drowning in information and starved for knowledge, perhaps media literacy will be their life preserver.

I appreciated the straightforwardness and practicality of the TAP model. I think this could be used with students just as he presents it. I also liked the practicality of representing the TAP approach as a triangle. Straightforward, usable, and not in any way asserting that history teachers should delegate George Washington to the backseat or disregard him altogether (!?!). I love it. I was also happy to see several websites and clear examples of how to approach analyzing media with students. The Cinderella Man example made me think back to how much I took for granted when watching the movie. It is exciting to think that I can go back again and look at it with new, more focused, media-approach savvy eyes, and perhaps bring this to my students in a lesson the Great Depression. Any day that links the Great Depression with Russell Crowe is a good day.

Barton, Levstik, and Wineburg. O my.

I like the idea of using history to train students to just question, full stop. Whether this questioning leads to community organizing or stay-at-home-mom-ing, I'm not interested. It's not my place to dictate how a student should use their skills or make their choices (unless of course, they are doing something which is outright harming themselves or others). Students are individuals who make their own choices and, in the end, will choose to do as they will. I am uncomfortable with Barton and Levstik assertion that the goal of social studies education should be to train students to deliberate over the public good. I’m not a world changer. I just want students to think. In a world of Jersey Shore and Real Housewives of (insert city here), someone certainly needs to. But for the public good? I think it is a little presumptuous. "The public" is so broad and ambiguous, our country so big and diverse, how is anyone to know what is best for everyone, or even most? Can't we say that history educators should train students to be critical consumers of information, to read well, and express themselves amiably? I'm perfectly happy to leave it at that. But tacking on "for the future purposes of the deliberating on the public good" makes me a little uneasy. After a 14-week reality check in Title 1 schools, I'll be honest. I'd be happy if young people just deliberate ANYTHING courteously, respectfully, and with evidence to support their view. Start small and go from there. They are, after all, children. They should be treated with respect, but don’t forget that, if given the opportunity, they will draw boobs on the board and eat pop tarts and Coke for every meal.

I responded much better to Wineburg’s article on historical thinking. I liked the idea of viewing the past as a foreign country, needing “culture shock” or being uncomfortable. I appreciated his assertion that the past is a difference place because people saw differently then: “Much as we try, we can never fully cross the Rubicon that flows between our mind and Caesar’s.” Poetic.

I also agreed with his warning that while it is important for students to find something to identify with or relate to when looking at the past, it shouldn’t be presented as so foreign that kids just throw up their hands. Really, people from the past weren’t SO different from us. They were people; they were no better or worse than we are now. I think we dwell so much on differences, but similarities can be helpful in getting kids to look at the past and connect in some way. If one goal of history education is to deepen or expand one’s view of humanity, this is essential.