Rough Draft of Educational and Outreach Pedagogy for ...



Pedagogy for Socially Relevant Documentaries

The Howard University Post-Film Discussion Method

(Do not quote or distribute)

This article is focused on helping trainers and educators who use socially relevant documentaries to teach history and the social sciences, motivate activists to redress wrong doing and/or challenge community members’ conventional assumptions about society and its’ institutions. After reviewing the evolving importance of documentary in education, models of post-film discussion are reviewed. A best practices model, synthesized from research, personal experience and discussions with documentary film makers is proposed as a starting point for refining the art and practice of using socially relevant documentaries to their fullest potential.

From the Written Word to the Visual World

Despite our rich visual culture, most historians would agree that Western civilization has evolved on the power of the oral and written word. Yet, our generation has witnessed the birth of a new techno-media era, where civilization is being driven by the image or worded picture. The image and the word-assisted picture is becoming the most important medium in learning, particularly in the social sciences, history, and the humanities. Indeed, we have become a nation of visually aided learners and communicators.

Words, whether written or spoken, now loose our attention if they are not accompanied by images. More and more, those images have to be more than static two dimensional representations. Young people want their images, animated and interactive. The word must be embedded in a virtual context for students or adults to “get it”. The endless wealth of powerful visual images, visual montages, and visual narratives means we no longer must take the effort to build the personalized, idiosyncratic inner image. And, indeed, we no longer appear interested in exerting the effort to do so.

Twenty years ago, visually aided learning in secondary school and college was an accommodation made for students with attention deficit disorder or verbal learning disabilities. Today, it is the cutting edge of educational innovation. The shared imagery made possible by documentaries, in particular, is very powerful. Documentaries keep our attention with their aesthetics, didactic density, and entertainment value. It is so easy to learn, to be socialized, to be challenged when we are, at the same time, being immersed in an entertaining medium.

While electronic media (from documentaries to commercials) are designed to engage, they require remarkably little energy on the viewer’s part. Without any effort, the person absorbs a rich visual catalogue, with snippets of attitudes and behaviors that they will likely imitate, even when it seems alien to their complex inner life. Rather than grappling to reconcile two often disparate sources of experience (the virtual media world vs. the experienced world), people learn to live in two worlds and not expect them to jive with one another. They model the image and actions of the “cool” and “interesting” people in movies and on TV. And yet, they carry on with their own private opinions and assumptions about the world, even if they contradict the information they are receiving in the popular media. It is as though the phenomena of cognitive dissonance (the desire to make one’s thoughts, actions, and emotions consonant with one another) does not directly apply to electronic media. For example, most people have watched hundreds of hours of violence on television without triggering a post traumatic stress response (although such phenomena have been documented in a both children and adults). However, when viewing the World Trade Center Towers collapse, many, many people were traumatized by the image “because it was real”… and because they identified with the attack as an attack on them (citizens with a Western ideology). The images sent over the television on 9-11 were horrifying instead of being entertaining, even though, without contextual cues, it was like watching The Towering Inferno. This ability to split one’s emotional reaction based on personally relevant affective-contextual cues explains why rape and murder scenes can be enjoyed while watching The Sopranos and Feed the Hungry PSAs can be joked about and forgotten. Socially relevant documentaries are unique in that they have the potential and power to elicit the entire range of reactions depending on the film-makers and film presenter’s ability to make the situation emotionally relevant to the viewer.

However, when a documentary is compelling and pertinent, and the post-viewing context conducive to de-constructing what was experienced, viewers integrate their own life situation with the situation of those portrayed in the documentary. Indeed, the greatest power of social documentaries lies in their potential to create in the viewer a holistic world view that links the life they are living with the lives of other electronically delivered narratives. When documentary viewings provoke both analysis and synthesis, they are likely to expand one’s values, attitudes and judgments (Thomson, 2002).

When a person watches a documentary without processing it with others, they are prone to make global judgments and simply “accept” or “reject” the message in the visual. However, there is a choice beyond outright rejection and passive manipulation by the image makers. This paper proposes that the documentary presenter and post-film discussion is decisive in determining whether or not personal affective reactions and personal commitments are aroused. That is, the presenter and post-film process help determine the success of a documentary to motivate activists, challenge conventional thinking and prompt long term retention of socially relevant issues. At a time when Orwellian image repetition is increasingly dictating both civil life and intellectual endeavors, higher level cognitive conversations are critical. Any and all pedagogies that can possibly help students and citizens think more critically need to be thoroughly explored.

The Evolving Educators Role: From Lecturer to Archivist to Philosopher

Instead of lecturing, the primary role of the educator, in recent years, has been to find compelling documentaries that illustrate the points the teacher feels are important. Professors have known for years that students will close their lids and drop their pencils if the lecture consists only of orally presented theory and fact. Today’s “smart classroom” helps teachers avoid the pit of student ennui by providing a steady stream of visual aids and interactive devices to flow along side the lecture. Power point slides have given way to multimedia presentations. Students of all ages want to learn by case study and narrative. They want to vicariously experience the phenomena being taught. They want to be able to draw their own conclusions.

With the proper media product, we can engage an audience for greater periods of time with much more difficult subject matter. However, high quality media, alone, is not sufficient to ensure learning. Most often, students (the audience) unthinkingly accepts the conclusions of the documentary or media presentation, if it goes along with their prior world view. They are then able to endorse a simple restatement of the filmmaker’s bias (or purpose). If shown a documentary contrary to their world view, students simply reject the message, even though they are unable to justify their position. They feel it is valid to say, “I don’t believe that. I think the filmmaker was biased”. Unfortunately, there is rarely time set aside for the teacher or presenter to “work with” the stimulus material provided in a documentary. It takes time and an effective pedagogy to make the audience critical consumers who learn how to change their pre-existing opinions by assessing the validity and implications of new messages.

The potential benefits of the visual method of learning by documentary and case study are apparent to almost everyone (e.g. it is enjoyable, much easier to remember, and capable of delivery the same fine performance every time the start button is pushed). The drawbacks are that the products get dated quickly and more importantly, often students do not have time to react, interact, challenge, or integrate the wealth of information and images that they are receiving. Rarely, are the drawbacks of insufficient discussion time mentioned when the role of documentaries in education are discussed. Yet, simply watching documentaries without group discussion is often a vacuous experience. It has been noted by media experts that no matter how forceful a documentary, people are not used to assimilating film messages into existing personal ideologies. Even when the message does fit into their existing personal ideology, they are not motivated to follow through with personal actions, even though they found the issue very compelling and well presented. Social documentaries need an activity set up to channel that energy if “whole person” learning is the goal (Thomson, 2002).

The Socially Relevant Documentary and the Role of Discussion

The classic definition of a documentary as an objective reporting of a social issue based on “real people and real situations”, unscripted and edited for a comprehensive view, is definitely passé. It is now acknowledged that documentaries exist on a multidimensional continuum that ranges from a strict cinema verite style (e.g. Hoop Dreams), to purposely balanced reporting (e.g. Capturing the Friedmans), to purposely unbalanced reporting (e.g. The Triumph of the Will), to that most slippery hybrid, the docudrama, that is sometimes presented as more entertainment than factual (e.g. West Wing) and sometimes billed as more factual/educational than entertaining (e.g. Roots).

The power of all of these different types of documentaries lies in their potential to create a level accessible meeting place that encourages participants to share their reactions and thoughts. They all have the potential, if used properly, for creating changes in social consciousness, developing shared meaning systems and empowering social activists. Still, in order to make a social issue relevant and emotionally personalized, it is important to find the right documentary for the audience. Documentaries, like all media products, vary in terms of visual quality, entertainment value, didactic information, skills presented and motivational push.

Documentary filmmakers have historically made their films with the hope that this powerful medium would motivate and mobilize the viewer to change the injustices, dangers, or tragedies that are the subject of their work. Unfortunately, there have not been big budgets to advertise documentaries and until recently, the genre generated little interest among the general public. Most documentaries are only viewed by other filmmakers at film festivals.

Even when a documentary gets good distribution, just viewing a powerful film does not mobilize individuals to act. It broadens their understanding and feelings about the issue. But to become motivated to channel energy in an activist direction, to go out and actually try to re-dress some social problem, the viewer has to be engaged in interactive outreach after the viewing. All the aroused affect needs to articulated, funneled, and committed before they leave the theater experience. To the extent that educators want to impassion as well as enlighten their students, they also need a pedagogy that gives students a chance to interact with the issue and feel their own way into solutions.

The past few years has seen the birth of foundations and organizations that are being developed specifically to link filmmakers producing social documentaries with NGOs (non-governmental organizations), community groups, colleges, universities and government agencies. The documentary becomes the textbook or manual that educates and motivates. This greatly increases the reach of the film, and delivers it to the audiences most interested in the topic. For example, Judith Helfand is a cofounder of Working Films, an organization that works with documentary film makers to create community outreach campaigns. Similarly, The Community Connections Project, Outreach Extensions, and Active Voice are developing distribution networks for documentaries made by independent filmmakers who have no means of letting educational settings and activist groups know of their film’s existence. Other groups, like is an on-line information clearinghouse that allows non-profits to find the distributors for specific social issue films and videos.

Models of Post-Film Discussion for Socially Relevant Documentaries

Regardless of the type of documentary, all too often, what is seen is quickly reduced to one or two images. Most documentaries shown in educational or training sessions are 40 to 60 minutes long and most classes or meetings are 45 to 90 minutes in length. The logistics of getting the equipment operating also invariably takes more time than expected. Conversation over the shared social reality created by the media is prematurely retarded and narrowed to one or two comments.

Second, there is a general lack of conversation skills within the populace and few are willing to use conversation to broaden or change their attitudes. Most people converse to convert instead of to change their own world view. However, a good documentary allows the viewer to feel as though they have experienced the subject they are viewing. They are uniquely ripe for finding a narrative to explain the experience. If they could be open to hearing diverse viewpoints, at that moment, their own understanding of the issue could be permanently deepened and layered with nuance. At that moment, they are ripe to be prompted to make more complex decisions on how they, themselves, should proceed in regard to the issue.

Most outreach programs use some kind of discussion guide to prepare the audience and try to generate conversation after the film. On the whole, these guides are not very carefully crafted and are rarely beta-tested. They are simply a list of logical stimulus questions to get people started on the conversation.

There is minimal research comparing the effects of different types of post-film discussion methodologies. There are increasingly studies that have assessed discussions that occur on-line after a lecture or presentation (Tallent-Runnels, 2004). Mikulecky (1998) found that web based discussions, with Socratic prompts before each threaded conversation, led to thoughtful responses to fellow students, the synthesis of new thoughts and occasional debates. Smith, Smith and Boone (2000), comparing web based and traditional discussions, found that students had significantly more participation in the guided online discussions than in the traditional open-ended classroom.

I found no definitive articles summarizing the different type of post-film discussions that take place. While far from definitive, I would like to suggest that there are currently four models for documentary discussions

a) Expert Panel: In this model, an expert panel has a post-film discussion in front of the audience and then the audience asks questions of the panel or make their own comments.

b) Written Discussion Guide: In this model, a written set of questions is distributed after the film. Socratic questioning allows the audience to discuss the major issues that were presented. This is similar to the Socratic prompts before each threaded conversation during post-presentation Internet discussions.

c) TV Host: In this model, after the film, members of the audience are asked for comments and simply give their opinions, one by one.

d) Lecture Model: In this model, the teacher/professor/leader gives a talk before the film that primes the viewer to look for certain messages or scenes and to use a particular lens for understanding the narrative. The lecturer may or may not try to re-inforce the films’ themes after the showing.

Most post-film discussions, regardless of model, discuss the overt theme, the most striking images, or within the cinema world, a variety of technical questions and criticisms. Without structure, participants flitter from one person’s comment to another person’s comment without any thread of meaningful exchanges. Unguided post-film discussions are littered with narcissistic posturing and “gottcha” criticisms. The reactions of one person rarely creates a deepening dialogue. Almost always, when one person picks up on another person’s comments it is to disagree with them (usually violently disagree with them). While there is value in this level of dialogue, in that it gets people to verbalize their own position, it is a position that has not blossomed with the full input available from viewing with a diverse audience. While students gain some knowledge hearing other people’s points of views, this is generally considered a lower level cognitive activity than analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information (King, 2002).

Post-film discussions (live or via the internet) have the potential to create new social realities for the participants. Through their interaction with one another, a deeper level of cognitive processing can occur – one that goes beyond the registering of information. The implications, the inconsistencies, the applicability of the information presented in the documentary are discovered best when individuals: a) ask each other thought provoking questions, b) ask for justifications of another’s comments, c) speculate on what might happen if some element of the narrative were altered, d) hypothesize what will happen next, given a certain data set or e) reach conclusions that were previously unstated (Vygotsky, 1978).

In the world of socially relevant documentary, there are five levels where this type of exploration and discussion can and should occur:

a. Social Issue Message: Why was this film made? What was the filmmaker trying to expose? What are the societal implications of the problems or situations presented? Who benefits from this situation? Who suffers? (The task here is COMPREHENSION).

b. Media Literacy: Veracity issues (The task here is EVALUATION of the argument presented). Was this documentary interesting? What parts were beautiful to watch or painful to watch? Did the director capture a “truth” or present a slanted version of the “truth”?

c. Personal Meaning: How did the documentary relate to my life, my experiences, my values, and my politics? (The task here is PERSONAL APPLICABILITY).

d. Generalizability: What other issues are similar to the one exposed in this documentary? Will the solution shown in one documentary work elsewhere? (The task here is ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS)

e. Direction:  What can we (I) do to in relation to this issue for myself or my community? (The task here is COMMUNITY APPLICABILITY).

These discussion levels promote complex thinking that leads to more complex, nuanced, and creative problem solving (Bloom, 1994). Of course, to even get to these discussions, it is first essential that the documentary be appropriate to the goals of the lesson or meeting.

Rigorous research needs to be done to find what type of post-discussion methodogies are most effective with different types of audiences viewing different types of media products. The procedure I am about to propose uses elements from all four post-discussion models. Some parts of the method are based on the psychological principles of social participation, need for air time, and the cognitive need for closure. I have assumed that there is time for an hour discussion after the documentary or that the next class meeting is devoted to discussing the documentary. While this method has not yet been empirically tested, it does begin to operationalize a “best practice” that could be tested. Hopefully, researchers will become interested in assessing what type of discussions are most potent for what type of audience seeing what type of documentary.

The Howard University Post-Film Discussion Method (HU-PFDM)

(Minimum time needed 45 minutes)

STEP 1. VIRGIN EXPOSURE: Do not prime the audience with an agenda, syllabi, or previous readings. Do not introduce the documentary. Just play it. Setting the scene, beforehand, causes people to reflexively narrow their perceptions onto the targeted topics. It also takes precious time away from the conversations that ensue after the viewing.  When entering a documentary without knowing what to look at or what to judge, we keep all channels open in an effort to create the frame. We allow ourselves to have a unique conversation with the film maker and the media piece. The Flaherty Seminar, the best known yearly gathering for documentary film makers and scholars, is well known for its virgin exposure method, which it has been using for nearly 50 years as a way for viewer and artist to have a personal and unique communication, uncontaminated by outside critics (Flaherty, 2004).

STEP 2. EXPERT ANALYSIS:  Once the film has been viewed, go immediately to a prepared analysis of the ideas, messages, contradictions, and questions posed by the media piece.  This is best achieved with a written synopsis or outline hitting major issues. Detailed program notes that address the main themes of the documentary are useful. In a classroom, the professor/leader may summarize his/her take on the film. In this way, participants can recognize their own thoughts and allow new perspectives to be part of the first synthesis. (5 minutes)

STEP 3. AIR TIME. The contrast or differences between one’s own impression of the documentary and the teacher/expert’s vision of the documentary primes participants to share and persuade others of their own particular take of the film. In this step, everyone who chooses can stand witness to what they experienced, what they were confused about, and how they related to the media piece. A most useful way to do this is to adopt the Quaker tradition, where people simply get up if they have something to say. Time limits need to be imposed by a moderator. Regardless of audience size (assuming there are at least 8 viewers), it is often helpful to limit any one person's contribution to no more than 1 minute at this time. (10 minutes).

4. SYNTHESIS BY EXPERT PANEL:

Once everyone who has wanted to talk has had the opportunity, it is time for the moderator/ teacher to respond to what has been said. It is their job to pull together how their own reactions dovetail with the comments that have been made and generate general themes, comments or criticisms. The moderator/teacher should try to stay focused on the big picture, discussing the social message and generalizability themes (5 minutes)

5. ACTIVE DISCUSSION: This is the critical step that deepens one’s understanding. The best method for doing this is to encourage the audience to make one of four types of comments:

What, in particular, was the most persuasive message or scene? Was it strong enough to change their attitudes or feelings about the subject? Would any information or emotional experience change their attitude on the subject?

What would a film with the opposite point of view do or say? Is there any evidence for “the other side” that would destroy the current message?

What more information do they need to know to have an informed opinion on this issue? What was missing from the documentary?

How will they will act or respond differently now that they have had their consciousness raised by this documentary?

(20 minutes) These four questions should be written on a board or made visible to all the participants. Technical comments on the film are inappropriate at this point should be deferred till a later time.

6. MOTIVATION FOR ACTION/CHANGE: The last section of every docu-discussion should focus on the social implications of the media product for the public. What does this say about our society now?  What does it say about where we should put our energies to solve a particular problem?  This is like taking the two dimensional picture that has been drawn in the rest of the discussion and making it three dimensional - you want to make it reach out and touch someone (10 minutes).

These steps are consonant with those proposed by other science based scholars who have been searching for ways to promote social change. The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) promotes a well known four-step method, that includes a) Opening the Door, b) Meeting each other, c) Talking to each other, and d) Working together for change. While SPSSI’s method is very broad and helpful in all types of social activism, it is worthwhile to see how similar the highly focused documentary-to-activism HU model is to the more general SPSSI model.

In our schema, the documentary is the way to “Open the Door”. People open the door to a message by making it visible through print media, electronic media, speakers or music. “Meeting each other” is analogous in our schema to both the Expert Analysis and Air Time methods. In the SPSSI program, this stage is primarily characterized by the presenter getting the audience to see how they are affected or influencing the events in question. In our model, the presenter/experts get to verbally reinforce how the audience is impacted by the issues as well as modeling the pro-active behavior. Also, in the HU model, the audience gets to tell the expert their own take on the issue and the expert has the opportunity to “meet” the audience. The key in both programs is to bring the message home in a way that has relevance for the audience and allows the presenter to be seen as a credible messenger.

In the “Talking to each other phase”, SPSSI advocates marshalling social psychological strategies to influence opinions. The appeal of the presentation, the use of national symbols, and easy methods of active participation are advocated. In the HU model, the Active Discussion in meant to shape opinions but it is much more cognitively oriented. The goal is to build a deeper, more complex picture of the issue that has personal relevance for the viewer. It is a self-constructed message, aided by a Socratic questioning strategy as well as the modeling offered by the presenter. There is a much greater stress on trying to get the audience to interact with each other as they respond to the stimulus questions than in the SPSSI method. “Working Together for Change” is analogous to our “Motivation for Action/Change”. Both look for realistic ways to demonstrate support and make a public commitment.

Thus, we can see that while both models that prompt social activism share basic psychological principles, there still exists a wide range of techniques or strategies that presenters/experts much choose between in each situation. All of those interested in social activism and the use of socially relevant documentaries need to experiment and network with other presenters/experts to find what post-film discussion works as a “best practice model” in their situation.

Bibliography

Bloom, B. S.. 1994. Reflections on the development and use of the taxonomy. In L.W. Anderson & L. A. Sosniak (Eds). Bloom’s taxonomy: A forty year retrospective (pp. 1-8). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Flaherty Seminar, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York. July, 2004. Personal experience.

King, A. 1991. Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 307-317.

King, Alison. 2002. Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote High-Level Cognitive Processing. Theory into Practice. 41, n0 1 33-39. Winter.

Mikulecky, L. 1998. Diversity, discussion, and participation: comparing web based and campus-based adolescent literature classes. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42(2), 84-97.

Smith, S. B., Smith, S. J., & Boone, R. 2000. Increasing access to teacher preparation: The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 37-46.

Tallent-Runnels, M. 2004. Raising the Bar: Encouraging Higher Level Thinking in Online Discussion Forums. Roeper Review 26 no3. 166-171, Spring.

Thomson, Patricia. 2002. Chapter 7. The Catalytic Role of Documentary Outreach. Part of the Film and Video Festival #37 : Why Fund Media



Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wollman, Neil, Foderaro, Maria; Lobenstine, M., Stose, S. 1998. Principles for Promoting Social Change: Effective strategies for influencing attitudes and behaviors.

The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Ann Arbor: MI 48106-1248

 

 

 

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download