Marrying the classics and pop culture to create engagement in teens

In chapter two of the Renee Hobbs text (2011), she writes of how language arts instructor Sam Fisher struggled to connect his tenth grade students to themes Arthur Miller’s The Crucible. As a secondary language arts teacher, this section really appealed to me, as I tend to fall into the model of rewarding students with the film version of the text they’ve just battled through, as Hobbs described in chapter two. Sometimes showing the film works, but often, as Hobbs indicated, many students zone out or find movies outdated. It struck me as funny that students perceived the 1996 version of The Crucible to be dated, but now I’m dating myself, as I’ve always wanted to see this “new version” myself, and now it’s already a decade old.

What resonated with me was how Mr. Fisher created a way to tie contemporary teen issues to historical themes/issues in an authentic, relevant way by partnering the text with MTV’s reality series 16 and Pregnant. While the subject was politically loaded, Fisher obviously struck a chord with his students who were so easily engaged and appreciative that their instructor not only listened with interest, but willingly jumped into such nonacademic, unfamiliar territory like MTV, which is ruled by adolescents. Of course, teen pregnancy has been one of the challenges every generation has had to face, but Fisher was genius in the way he connected this generation to the age-old dilemma through the use of the popular reality series.

The possibilities of creating a meaningful interaction of classic texts and popular culture through digital mediums are endless.  The unlikely marriage between a classic like The Crucible and teen pop fodder like MTV’s 16 and Pregnant immediately give teens access, as Hobbs explains in broader context, “media literacy education has long been understood as a mechanism to reduce the gap between the world of the classroom and the living room” (2011, p. 29). As a springboard to Mr. Fisher’s potential assignments with this subject, table 3.1 in the Hicks text offers a plethora of directions to consider for web-based media (2013, p. 37). In the case of The Crucible, it would be a blast to have students create a blog in which their essay features multi-media affordances (hyperlinks, photos, videos, etc.) similar to the Death of a Salesman essays Hicks highlights as examples on pages 51-55.  In addition to these essays, students’ blogs could be highly interactive with their peers with the expectation that students comment on one another’s ideas and post relevant articles. With this approach, students shift the focus from writing for their teacher’s eyes only to writing for a broader audience – and one that specifically influences teens – that of their peers.  I can only imagine how much more invested students would be in a project like this, and it makes me excited to implement in my own classroom.

commons.wikimedia.org

Sources:

Hicks, T. (2013). Crafting digital writing: Composing texts across media and genres. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hobbs, R. (2011). Digital and media literacy: Connecting culture and classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

The one about Brad Pitt and digital citizenship

While the two Hicks chapters about adapting writing, genre studies, and mentor texts to a digital medium felt comfortable and familiar, the CMSI article, particularly the section about “Use of Media in Education vs. Media Literacy Education” (2009) struck a chord, as did the Creative Common Licensing article. It turns out I didn’t know what I didn’t know about being a responsible digital citizen. While I was correct in my understanding that once someone creates a text, photo, song, etc., it is automatically copyrighted, I was incorrect in my assumption that all one needed to do was cite the source when using someone else’s creation. It was eye-opening to read the Creative Commons licensing article which directs the user to search for open, usable content in Google by using an advanced filter. 

For purely educational purposes only, I tried a little experiment searching images of Brad Pitt. When I didn’t filter by license, there were seemingly thousands of photos of every stage of Mr. Pitt’s life. I’m tempted to demonstrate by posting a photo from each of his films, as well as all of the various facial hair stages he has gone through in the past twenty years. While that would make for a much more interesting post, because now I know better, I won’t violate copyright laws. Then again, because this blog post is homework for an educational institution, I’m protected under fair use, which the CMSI article (2009) defines as “the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstances—especially when the cultural or social benefits of the use are predominant.”  Normally, it wouldn’t be appropriate to post a photo that isn’t available through Creative Commons licensing, but under the “Rule of Proportionality” as explained in the CMSI article (2009), I'm taking only what I need under Fair Use to demonstrate my point. With that, I give you one, and only one particularly dashing photo of Mr. Pitt.

photo credit: mubi.com

Continuing with my for-educational-purposes-only Brad Pitt experiment, this time I searched images using the Google filter “labeled for reuse” and was utterly disappointed with the results. No photos from my favorite films. No lovey dovey pics with Angelina. In fact, most of the photos were weird, fan-created drawings or pictures of celebrities who weren't Brad Pitt, or random strangers who happened to share his name. There were only about a dozen actual pictures of him posted, and they weren’t even all that flattering. Like this one.

commons Wikimedia.org
 

I'd venture a guess that most students, and likely most teachers don't realize the nuances and complexities included in being a good digital citizen. I appreciate the inclusion of Creative Commons lesson plans in the supplemental readings posted, as well as the turnitin.com tutorial. Students at Broomfield High School must submit every piece of writing through turnitin.com, and the definitions of the ten different plagiarism categories will be very helpful as I start my long-term substitute position there. Going forward, I will definitely incorporate a lesson on digital citizenship following the Creative Commons template, as misinformation abounds.

Post #1

The Hobbs and Moore chapter that details how a teacher’s motivations can predict what type of digital content they are likely to teach was fascinating and eye-opening.  In reflecting on my own pedagogy, I most likely fall in the “motivators” category, which is defined as “using digital and media literacy activities as a catalyst for their students creative energy, expression, and student voice” (Hobbs & Moore, 2013, p. 31). In any lesson I create, my goal is to make the lesson resonate on a personal level so the students (hopefully) feel ownership and inspiration to go forward. I recognize the choices I’ve made in integrating technology to fall in the “motivators” category for their evocative imagery or ability for students to express themselves or their group with programs such as Padlet. Farthest from my digital identity/motivation is the “techie” category, and I’m thankful to find myself surrounded by plenty of folks who do fall into that niche. I’m not there yet, but the category I most aspire to belong to is the “Teacher 2.0.”  This teacher weaves multiple texts, websites, and media with curriculum content and the students’ funds of knowledge and social media experience to create a holistic approach (p. 44). I’m hopeful in upcoming classes or discussions in this forum that we have the opportunity to see where our peers are in the spectrum of digital motivation.

As a digital immigrant, technology in the classroom inspires me and I genuinely want to incorporate it in the classroom, however, the content must align with the goals of the lesson. The Warschauer & Ware article touched on this point repeatedly, as supported by numerous studies (2008, p. 218 - 219). However, I have a desire to incorporate relevant technology because my students respond so well to it, and technology is such an integral part of their world. Warschauer & Ware mentioned that  “in the United States, 75% of the population now has access to the Internet (Nielsen/Net Ratings, 2004), and more than half of home Internet users have broadband access (Belson, 2005, p 222). As those numbers were released in a study conducted more than a decade ago, I’m curious to what the percentages are in 2016?