1) The purpose of this question is to examine the history ...



Situating Media: How will Students Best be Served?

According to the Quebec Education Program (QEP), media now makes up 25 % of the English Language Arts curricula, and in one of the largest school boards in Quebec, a separate grade for Media now appears on the new report cards (LBPSB, 2006). Will this ensure the teaching of Media in the classroom? Taking another approach, the QEP also considers media to be one of the Broad Areas of Learning and a Cross Curricular Competency, integral to all disciplines, but with no actual mandate for the implementation of Media Education. Is English Language Arts the best place for media in the curriculum? To answer the question, the pros and cons of situating Media Education in the English Language Arts will be investigated and assessed using analysis of the Quebec Education Program, a literature review of relevant research, and personal interviews with the creators of the QEP.

Pierre Doyon

McGill University

Comprehensive examination

June 1, 2007

“Media studies or media literacy studies traditionally have been the domain of English and language arts classrooms . . . Given the current drift towards media convergence, media studies, cultural studies and computer and technology studies can no longer be taught independently of each other” (Luke, 2005; p. 132)

“More and more scholars and educators are using terms such as visual literacy,

Media literacy, critical literacy, information literacy and technology literacy to expand the concept of literacy so that visual, electronic, and digital forms of expression and communication are included as objects of study and analysis… Literacy educators no longer “own” the concept of literacy.” (Hobbs, in Print)

These two quotes embody the growing paradigm shift (New London Group, 1996; Burn & Parker, 2003, Kress, 1998, 2003) toward the inevitable redefinition of literacy in lieu of changing conditions of technology. They simultaneously mirror an unspoken debate found in the QEP: should media education be situated in the language arts classroom specifically or as Hobbs suggests does it belong outside the Language Arts? By investigating the pros and cons of situating media in English language Arts (ELA) versus a broad approach to teaching media throughout the curriculum here in Quebec, researchers and pedagogues might gain insights into the larger question of how the study of media and multiple-literacies might be best situated.

The issue of differences between the two approaches becomes critically important: is there a “correct” place to situate media in the high school curriculum? We already know that we must teach through media and by media, but where do we situate it in the curriculum? How do we ensure that differences of culture and language are not barriers to educational success? What are the implications of these differences for pedagogy and curriculum in Quebec and elsewhere?

Although the Quebec Education Program (QEP) attempts to integrate media and multi-literacies into curriculum, sections of the QEP inadvertently advocate a dispersal of media education, media literacy, ICT and critical literacy throughout the curriculum: Media Literacy is presented as one of the Broad Areas of Learning (BAL) to be taught in all subjects (p. 23), while Critical Literacy is found in another (p. 40), while new media & ICT makes up two of the Cross-Curricular Competencies (CCC): uses information; “In secondary school, young people have access to a growing amount of information through the media” (p. 36) and information technology; “the rapid development of knowledge and the increasing accessibility and variety of information sources makes the use of information and communications technologies (ICT) more and more essential” (p. 46). Throughout much of the early part of the QEP, there are no obvious connections made between these elements even though it seems clear that we should be teaching both through media and by media but the other components such as multi-literacy, critical literacy and cultural studies are all over the place.

Noticeably in the QEP, after several chapters advocating this dispersed approach to the teaching of media, multi-literacies and critical thinking throughout the curriculum, there is an offer to consolidate the study of media, cultural studies, and critical thinking in a single domain, the Secondary English Language Arts (SELA). SELA situates media as one of the four competencies of English Language Arts (ELA), and initial drafts of the next phase of the reform advocate an even more vigorous attempt at grouping multi-literacies and critical thinking into SELA2. Multi-modality, critical thinking, and multi-literacy are key components of the SELA program, but is situating these elements of literacy in Language Arts the best approach for students learning in Quebec?

Moreover, why is there such divergence towards the use of media and literacy in the QEP when both approaches acknowledge the need to include media in curriculum? It appears that the answer may be in great part due to political constraints; due to the pressure on the French Language Arts department to defend the French Language in Quebec, there was little time spent in the QEP discussing the use of media in the French Langue Arts.[1] This was not the case in SELA where media has become a cornerstone of the English Language Arts curriculum. This lack of cohesion in the reform has lead to redundancies in the QEP, a potentially dangerous dispersal in responsibility for teaching media outside of ELA, not to mention the ramification for students in the French sector. The reasons for these redundancies might become clarified by investigating the history of media literacy in Quebec.

A Quick History of Media in English Language Arts in Quebec Curriculum

Historically, media has always been closely associated to Language Arts (Luke, 2005). Newsprint consists of description, persuasion and argument, radio has always drawn on rhetoric and broadcasts narratives in the form of “radio plays,” and when film was first seriously studied, early works borrowed from the lexicon of literature to deconstruct film (see question 1). All forms of communication (digital or analogue) involve a series of signs or signifiers to get a message across, and that is what language arts teachers do; teach how to code and decode messages. It is impractical to separate the study of messages based on whether they were presented digitally or analogously (New London Group, 1996). All forms of media use codes and conventions of previous media (McLuhan, 1964), and most print codes were co-opted more than a century ago by university English language departments (Parker, 1981).

Having had more than one hundred years to come up with its own lexicon in regards to communication, the domain of English Language Art easily lends itself to the discussion of any form of media. All forms of media have elements of literature (i.e.: Character, setting, point of view, themes, symbols, metaphors, etc.) which can be taught and learned at varying degrees of complexity. It may also help that “English” as a discipline itself is relatively new, a merging of rhetoric, literature and composition, and has a history of being intertwined with other disciplines including modern history and communications (Parker, 1981) since it lends itself to new ideas. Since the history of culture is necessary for literary scholarship (Bakhtin, 1986) and new media is integral to modern English culture, then it seems perfectly natural that the study of culture would be found in LA and new media would be absorbed into the quilt known as “English Language Arts.”

The psycholinguistics movement begun in the sixties by Saussure, Chomsky and Bloomfield led to a push in the 1970’s to reform the way languages were taught (Thames, 1993; Smith, 2003). A movement to merge separate disciplines of English Composition, English Literature and English Grammar reached momentum by the late seventies, and this approach was adopted in the last reform, The Schools of Quebec: Policy Statement and Plan of Action (1979). In Quebec, all facets of print literacy were unified under the banner of Integrated Language Arts[2] (compare to Alabama Integrated Sciences Program), primarily to address a lack of communication between these departments, redundancies, and gaps in students’ knowledge (Doucet, 2007). Under this new approach, reading was at the core of Language Arts, and there was a stress on the reader as writer and writer as reader. For the first time in Quebec, reading and writing were seen as part of the same process (Doucet, 2007).

During this time, ICT and digital literacy were in their infancy, so the ensuing discussions of media revolved around film and visual literacy only, at the time known as “screen literacy” or “TV education” (REF). From the late 1960's until the mid 1970's, Ontario and Quebec (as well the rest of Canada) developed a series of secondary school Media Literacy projects that showed great promise (Pungente, 2007). Secondary school film courses blossomed in Canada in the late 1960's (Ontario, 1970; Quebec, 1972) although in Quebec, media has always been viewed as an alternative to more traditional literacy.

As a result of the 1964 reform, the Government of Quebec had created a media curriculum designing to aid students on a decidedly work oriented path: “the media activities will involve the content in social studies, technical work in industrial Arts and Woodwork, and the management of resources in Business Education,” (Quebec, 1972; 3), essentially a technical/vocational (tech-voc) model. Later, as a result of budget cuts and the general back-to-the-basics philosophy, this first wave died out in the seventies, but by the 1980's, a new growth of secondary school Media Literacy programs (Pungente, 2007) led to a shift back towards multi-literacy in Quebec and Ontario.

Media did find its way back into the last reform in Quebec (The Schools of Quebec, 1979; Secondary English Language Arts I to V program, 1980) and in this incarnation as well, media was discussed as a way of ensuring “underprivileged” students: including the “Passe-Partout project,” Quebec’s answer to Sesame Street: “a televised series of 125 programs broadcast daily . . . supplemented by a program of of support for parents of four year old children in underdeveloped areas.” (Quebec, 1979; p. 7).

Conversely, media as a source of information was considered but designated as being untenable at the time: “It is true that modern media rapidly provide an incalculable amount of information, their use in the school is, nevertheless, limited” (Quebec, 1979; p; 103), although the program promised to continue with the use of media as a “complimentary teaching material”:

“The ministère intends to continue the production of audio-visual material in two main forms: materials for wide distribution by the media (television, radio, cinema) and learning and teaching materials for use by teachers and students of a less sophisticated type.” (Quebec, 1979; p. 106).

There was no advice given to teachers as to how to use this media and in the ELA, media was seen as “alternative” texts (watch the movie instead of reading the book). Media was not given the same weight as reading print texts and was discounted as “easy” reading for at risk students (Doucet, 2007), which seems to fit well with the general notion of film and TV as entertainment, not to be taken too seriously. More often than not, media was seen as a “springboard” for discussions or entrance into a new unit: “It can be used as a door in,” Michele Luchs, co-writer of the SEAL and SELA2 program stated in a personal interview , “but is should not be used as a replacement to print” (Luchs, 2007).

Ironically, when the “media instead of books” approach was applied, it was discovered that these same weaker students media was supposed to assist, struggled to understand media texts in much the same way as they struggled with print texts (Doucet, 2007). This approach revealed that media literacy has to be taught, and that pedagogues should not assume that media provides a “quick fix” for weaker students. Close to the same time Masterman (1985) radicalized the use of media in teaching, and his works as well as his proponents (Duncan, 1986, 1988; Buckingham, 1985) began to alter perceptions of media and education.

Still, attempts were made to incorporate visual literacy into the program by having visual texts on the Secondary V ELA leaving exam from 1987-1998 (Doucet, 2007).[3] Following the Ontario model, specific courses were offered in Media Literacy, but these were only offered as options in higher grades, so there was little opportunity for the majority of students to learn about media outside their own homes.

Unfortunately for the French sector, much of the information on media being disseminated in Quebec was in English: Duncan’s works were translated to French by 1989 and until 1993, most resources on media in Quebec were in English and it took several years before Duncan’s work was translated (). In the fall of 1992, Jacques Piette, a professor at the Universite de Montreal published a French media text as a response to the Ontario monopoly on Media texts (Pungente, 2007), unfortunately it also followed the indoctrination model, but had a particularly “Made in Quebec” stamp on it.

By September of 1990, a group of French and English speaking secondary teachers, academics, and others interested in Media Literacy, met at the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal to form the Association for Media Education in Quebec (AMEQ), a bilingual grassroots organization composed mainly of teachers from the Quebec school system, co-chaired by Lee Rother. The initial purpose of AMEQ is to provide information, lesson plans and professional development regarding media literacy. Following the Ontario model, AMEQ believes media should be taught from K to 11 and that parents should also be involved in their children’s media literacy (Pungente, 2007).

The AMEQ gives workshops at school boards, workshops for professional development and the occasionally guest lecture at McGill Faculty of Education, as well as sitting on committees at MELS. In 1991, the Montreal-based, Centre for Literacy made a commitment to increase the media component of their collection and to organize workshops and other activities on media education, and in the French sector, the Centre Saint-Pierre, was created as a depository for media with a similar mandate (Pungente, 2007). By 1998, Le Centre de ressources en éducation aux médias (CREM) was formed by the Faculté d'éducation de l'Université du Québec à Montréal: "de développer le la lecture et le jugement critique des élèves et du grand public à l'égard des informations médiatiques." (), and the list of resources available to Quebec educators accelerates; by the end of the nineties: RECIT and even “Bob’s Page” at the Lester B. Pearson web site offers support to teachers who want to use media, but this is offered at the grass roots level only.

On a more academic note, in the early 1990’s a document titled the “Media files” were created by a team comprising of Winston Emery, Frank Tiseo, Lee Rather, Claudia Mitchell, and Judy Brandies. This document was part of a package given out to schools in the early 1990’s (Luchs, 2007) although it is not attached to any formal curriculum outside of the schools that participated in the project[4]. It is comprised of some theory and some activities including script writing, how to make a TV commercial (using 1990’s technology), and critical media viewing. English Quebec’s answer to the work coming out of Ontario, it never was published as a text book, rather it was distributed as a “collated package wrapped in plastic”[5] (Luchs, 2007). Therefore, this document is now difficult to find, and is not common knowledge in Quebec schools although schools directly involved in piloting the program such as Laurier McDonald where Frank Tiseo was in charge of the media lab, and Laurenvale when Lee Rother taught there, it remains to be the foundation of their media program.

By the time the present reform began to be written in the 1990’s, media courses in Quebec were more common, but in the English Sector was often seen as an orphan of the ELA department, usually given to novice teachers[6]. There was some prescribed curriculum for teaching Media literacy, but it was difficult to access and most teachers created their own approaches, which varied extremely. In spite of this, some excellent work was being done in Quebec (Winston Emery’s project, “Dreams,” the Luarenvale initiative, AMEQ, CREM), and the vestiges of the audio-visual approach of the sixties ensured a ready supply of TV and VCRs for those teachers brave enough to use them.

By the time the latest reform began to take shape, ICT was flourishing as everyone wanted to “get on-line,” and the importance of multi-literacy became evident. Massive amounts of “Marois money” (then Minister of Education Marline Marois) were poured into the purchase of hardware and software, (Luchs, 2007), but almost none to teacher training as was the case in the U.S. (Cuban, 2001). During the writing of the new reform (begun in earnest in 1999), ICT became the domain of science, and the term Science and Technology was first used in Quebec education (QEP). In this way, ICT was separated from literacy, and echoing the film curriculum of the late sixties, ICT was seen as a vocational, not a literacy concern. This tradition continues to this day as SELA2 makes little mention of ICT, and although SEAL2 encourages the reading and production of alternative text types, the teaching of ICT seems taken for granted: “SELA2 program promotes the importance of reading and production to develop personal interests;. the use of technology in reading and producing texts . . .” (p. 2), but there is no guide as to how to use technology to produce texts.

However, SELA2 does make a concerted effort to integrate all variety of media as forms of literacy in the model similar to that outlined by Luke,[7] and great examples of projects incorporating media are found in Quebec Secondary schools[8], but is situating media in ELA the best approach or is Hobbs correct in her assertion that media is no longer the domain of literacy? By investigating the pros and cons of situating media in a single subject (ELA) versus a broad approach of dividing elements of media literacy throughout the curriculum here in Quebec, teachers and researchers may gain insights into the larger question of how media and multi-literacies might be integrated into curriculum in Quebec and possible gain insights that might aid in the use of curriculum throughout the world.

Advantages of Media under the auspices of Language Arts

“A text in the SELA program is the product of a process of production and interpretation of meaning(s) expressed in spoken and/or written and/or media discourse, i.e..a product that serves a social purpose or function. Texts frequently combine different languages, discourses and genres, as would be the case with newspapers that combine images, words and symbols as well as written and media discourse, and editorial, feature-story and classified-ad genres. A text may be a class discussion, a poem, a magazine advertisement, a student journal, a Web site.” (QEP, in Press).

The principle argument for media being taught as a form of literacy is that media is already manifest in ELA, and media in many forms has long been used by teachers of Language Arts (see question 1). The reason media and other forms of literacy became embedded in the ELA is obvious given its tradition in teaching semiotics. As mentioned earlier, decoding one text type can give students the strategies needed to read others, and since most discussion of media is made using the syntax of literature, the choice seems obvious. In fact, there was a very deliberate attempt on the part of the SELA team to approach the teaching of media, multi-literacies, multi-modalities with “an eye on a critical literacy” (Luchs, 2007). This was offered as a possible solution to the problem with situating the teaching of media literacy in the CCC and BAL, due to the vagueness of its description and lack of support for teachers with little or no knowledge of new media. Following in the footsteps of the New London Group (1996) and Kress (1996), the authors of SELA and SELA2 recognized that learning any form of media can be seen as literacy, and they advocate a multimodal, multi-literate approach.

In SELA cycle one (grades seven and eight), media is an independent competency, given the same weight as reading, writing and talk, while in Cycle Two (grades nine, ten and eleven), it has been collapsed into the competency of production[9]: “Media Literacy encourages students to be actively involved in both reading and producing media texts” (SELA2, In Press, p. 6). In SELA2, media is ubiquitous, and the authors go out of there way to include the possibility that the text may not always be print. This two tiered approach was deliberate, in an attempt to persuade teachers to actually include Media in their curriculum since Media would be evaluated as a specific competency at the end of cycle I (Doucet, 2007). Once media is integrated into the students’ vernacular, they would have little trouble understanding the codes and conventions of multiple-literacies and this would enable students to choose from several forms of media to produce in the classroom (Luchs, 2007).

SELA2 also acknowledges and claims elements of critical thinking “since SELA is a critical literacy program, its competencies are interdependent and complementary” (p. 7). It goes further into the notion of critical pedagogy by quoting the work of Freire that literacy is ‘reading the world and the word,’ and goes on to state: “language is both a means of communicating feelings, ideas, values beliefs and knowledge and a medium that makes active participation in democratic life and a pluralistic culture possible” (p. 2). However, SELA2 seems to have more than one interpretation of the term critical literacy: in several cases, it is used in the traditional form as outlined by Apple and Pinar, while other times it is used in the sense of critical thinking as applied to literacy (Luchs, 2007). Still, there is a serious attempt to integrate critical thinking into the SELA curriculum that is not found in the BAL or CCC of the QEP, making this model much closer to the model envisioned by Luke (2005) and Hobbs (2007).

References to Cultural Studies that are mentioned in BAL and CCC are also co-opted by SELA, and over three pages (6, 7, and 8), SELA2 basically takes ownership of the study of cultural studies, shifting from the propagation of Quebec culture found in the rest of the QEP to that of more general pop-culture. Buckingham and Sefton-Green’s “Cultural Studies goes to School” is referenced in SELA2, as is the works of Umberto Eco (SELA2; p. 89). SELA2 further claims: “English Language Arts has a long tradition of interdisciplinary study,” and claims that the study of culture is well established in LA, but does not use the term “Cultural Studies,” which is found more frequently in other sections of the QEP.[10]

Still, there is a serious attempt at integrating most components of the curriculum model advocated by Hobbs and Luke; having read the final copy of the Cycle One QEP, the authors of the SELA2 recognized the redundancies that had taken place in the first stage of the reform and attempted to reduce duplication by co-opting many elements of the BAL and CCC into a single domain. Although there is an attempt at rectifying the scattered nature of media through the curriculum by situating them in ELA, there is still a lack of recognition of convergence and segregation of the elements of media: “using the media and ICT to conduct research” (SELA II, 8).

Yet, in the end SELA2’s underlying message remains that literacy is literacy, regardless of media type (Doucet, 2007); work by The New London Group (1996) is quoted, as are works of Freire and other advocates of multi-literacies (Kress 2003, Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). SELA2 makes a serious attempt to place all components of literacy into the same location suggested by the Cox Report in 1959 (Hart, 1991); English Language Arts (ELA). In this way, the essence of curriculum as advocated by Luke and Hobbs is being implemented, not only in regard to media and ICT, but aspects of cultural studies and critical literacy as well.

Problems associated with situating Media in SELA

One of the primary potential drawbacks to situating media in SELA is that this measure might lead to teachers of other disciplines to expect that since media is being covered in SELA, they are exempt from having to teach or use media in their own classes. Responsibility would be shifted to LA, and the only place that media would be taught (as opposed to being taught with) would be the English Language Arts class. Even if this is not the case, there is the problem of the long standing tradition of using the indoctrination approach to teach media in ELA discussed in Question one.

Claiming that: “educators are beginning to help students acquire the skills they need to manage in a media-saturated environment” (), many well meaning sources are actually aiding in the demonizing of media. Standard teacher activities of media literacy include “consumer awareness” activities such as learning methods of propaganda, and “ad-busting.” Barry Duncan’s newest printing of Mass Media and Popular Culture[11] includes a series of exercises to help point out the many forms of manipulation, from “digital doctoring,” to how films distort our perceptions of reality” (Duncan, 2000). Jacques Piette’s French text is no less biased in its approach to teaching media.

The indoctrination approach is the perception that many teachers hold on media, and it is difficult to break from; a majority of teacher resources concerning media found on line concerning media suggest includes the study of propaganda techniques, critiquing, and deconstructing for the goal of spoofing. Examples of this can be found in Duncan (1986, 2000) Hobbs (2003), Piette (1993) and many other resources available in print and on line. Examples of media used as examples in Duncan’s book, Piette’s, and others consist of blatant propaganda, some of the very worst examples of sexism and racism in advertising, and some of the most poorly written ads in the history of media. Imagine a writing course that consisted of reading bad literature, critiquing bad literature and encouraging its ridicule with little or no mention of good literature to balance it out. Is this “critical literacy” or critiquing bad literature?

The “Grandfather” of media literacy in Canada, John Pungente (2007), published an informative web site entitled “The Second Spring: Media Literacy in Canada's Schools,” where he analyses the state of media education in Canada and lists some of the resources available to teachers. By perusing the resources Pungente suggests for teachers, it becomes obvious that the author who brought together the likes of Duncan, Anderson et al. is a strong proponent of the “indoctrination approach” to media like many of his protégés.

The resources Pungente suggests are reputable, including the CBC and NFB, but if we look at the list of possible titles, we observe an ironic media bias: Pungente begins with a reference to the NFB’s “Constructing Reality,” which he states: “deals with truth, fact, objectivity and the nature of propaganda in the media.” In fact, the majority of his site is dedicated to analyzing the media as a disseminator of propaganda and something to protect children from; Pungente cites similar sources and suggests titles such as:

“Warner Brothers assistance in publishing a 1994 media literacy study guide for the animated film, BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM, in Kids World Magazine. This guide dealt honestly with the issues of violence in the movie.”

“YTV’s series of lesson plans for teachers and written by Neil Andersen and other media literacy teachers - YTV News in Class - has dealt with a number of topics including Television and Violence. This lesson plan presents ways of discussing such topics as types of media violence, how to report violence on the news without showing it, and other ways children might have learned violent behavior. It also offers topics for research into the area of media violence as well as suggestions for practical activities.”

“Much Music program Too Much for Much brings in media literacy teachers and students along with station decision makers and cultural critics to discuss why certain videos are not being aired.”

Given this list of titles of resources, few teachers could resist the overwhelming evidence that media is generally negative, if not dangerous, and children must be protected. Of course Pungente is not the only pedagogue supporting this belief: other titles that are popular in Language Arts classrooms include PBS’ Merchants of Cool, available to be viewed for free on line at their web site. On the PBS website, the preamble to Merchants of Cool warns viewers that:

“They (the media) spend their days sifting through reams of market research data. They conduct endless surveys and focus groups. They comb the streets, the schools, and the malls, hot on the trail of the "next big thing" that will snare the attention of their prey . . . They are the merchants of cool: creators and sellers of popular culture who have made teenagers the hottest consumer demographic in America. But are they simply reflecting teen desires or have they begun to manufacture those desires in a bid to secure this lucrative market? And have they gone too far in their attempts to reach the hearts--and wallets--of America's youth?” ()

As educational as the Merchants of Cool is, it paints a bleak image of all forms of media, advocating a conspiracy theory concerning media; “they” will “snare” you, as if teens have no part in their desire to consume, teens are “victims” of media. There is no balance, so again we perceive a decidedly indoctrination approach to the study of media. With these as resources, and the history of the indoctrination approach outlined in Question one, should we be in the least bit surprised that many educators have taken the approach that student should be “protected,” from “the media?” Painting “the media” with a single brush goes against some of the fundamental notions of media literacy and education, namely locking into the prior knowledge of students and using them as a segue to learning. As stated in Literacy for the 21st Century: “Media bashing is not media literacy, however media literacy involves criticizing the media” (p. 21), but this message is often buried in preambles when the teachers are merely looking for pre-made lesson plans, so they often find anti-media lessons, but neglect to read the more academic discussion on the nature of media.

An extreme version of this is situating media in the LA class is that there remains a small minority of English teachers who interpret ELA as English Literature[12] and show a certain amount of disdain for mass media in general. To some, being an English teacher means they are meant to impart the rich history of the English Literary tradition via print. According to feedback given at recent seminars explaining the QEP to teachers, some teachers would prefer to spend every minute of class time reading, writing and speaking about English literature at the expense of the study and discussion of media: “I didn’t buy into media in the last reform and I won’t buy into this one” (irate teacher, QEP Information Seminar, Dorval PQ, April 30, 2007).

For many teachers, all available time and energy is spent teach culture via traditional print text at the expense of multi-literacies. Disseminating the rich history of the English language is indeed a noble calling, but to ignore alternate literacies is to neglect the reality that permeates the minds of students, that the screen has become the preferred mode of communication (Illich, 1985, Kress, 1997, Buckingham 2000, etc.). The arguments against ignoring media in education is powerful (Anderson, 1983; Masterman, 1985; Duncan, 1985, 1989; Buckingham, 1985; Sefton-Greene, Giroux, Kinchloe, 1997, etc.), but many of these teachers do not read the research and will claim (with no empirical support) “that was tried somewhere else but they dropped it because it didn’t work.” (Teacher at seminar given by MEQ, Dorval, May 16th, 2006). It must be considered that once engaged in teaching, many teachers do not have the time and/or motivation to read educational research, choosing instead to focus on learning content rather than pedagogy. Those teachers who are well versed in and love classical English literature may justifiably choose to follow the French Language Art tradition and neglect media, leaving their students at a disadvantage.

A final argument against situating media uniquely in LA is that media is everywhere, and no one discipline can hold monopoly upon it. Monopoly was not the intention of SELA or SELA2 (Luchs, 2007), but to not situate media in a particular domain leaves much to interpretation, and a piecemeal approach to media might be worse than none at all. On the other hand, there might be some advantages to studying media and literacies throughout an integrated media after all.

Advantages to situating Media in the BAL and CCC

All students are subjected to a wide variety of information from a diverse menu of sources; “In secondary school, young people have access to a growing amount of information through the media.” (QEP, 36), Students in all subjects will use media[13] in its various forms in the course of their studies and in their own lives, so it makes sense that media and communications should be taught in every discipline. In less than ten years use of the Internet in Quebec has soared[14]: “from 34% in January 2000, the percentage of Québec adults who regularly surf the Web stood at 72% in November 2006.” (cefrio.qc.ca/english/cefrio.cfm) and now it is commonplace for teachers to simply tell students to “look it up on line” for homework, and even when not instructed to, students will commonly use the internet to help with a great number of homework assignments and projects.

TV, which is providing more and more “edutainment” programming (History Bytes, Time Blazers, etc.), and specialty channels such as History Television, Discovery Channel, National Geographic for Kids, BBC for Kids, etc. provide an alternate to more traditional forms of text based information. It would not be surprising to hear a teacher command her students to, “watch the discovery channel tonight at 7:30 and be ready to discuss it in tomorrow’s biology class.” TV has been a staple in the classroom in Quebec since the 1970’s (MELS, 2008), and with the advent of recording devices (VCR, DVD burners), it is no longer difficult for teachers of all subjects to be able to augment their repertoire of tools to include student’s most familiar (and favorite) media:

“Schools have a responsibility to help students explore the wealth of information that is available, both by organizing the teaching process in an appropriate manner and by placing the necessary material resources at students’ disposal.” (QEP, 36)

In this passage from the QEP, a clear case is made for the teaching of media and communications, an argument that is hard to counter. The QEP is acknowledging the relevance of media in student’s lives outside of school and attempting to tap into that source by teaching students the skills they will need while providing teachers with free resources to teach with. All teachers could use kid friendly media to aid in the teaching of their subject matter, and the differentiation between work and leisure could become blurred, making homework more enjoyable, where the difference between work and play become moot.

Another advantage to having media and communication taught in all classes instead of one specific course is the diversity of approaches might actually aid students by exposing them to a wide variety of attitudes and forms of media. Teachers of different disciplines would have varying stances on what media entailed as a well as a wider variety of tools at their disposal; the subject of social studies in Quebec has a rich bank of media resources including CD-ROMs produced by the Ministry (BIM, role playing games, etc.), computer games produced to help students gain knowledge of content[15] and an overwhelming amount of videos produced by the CBC, Radio Canada and the NFB. Math teachers in Quebec use graphic calculators on a regular basis, science and technology characteristically use software specifically designed for their curriculum (BIM, Mathematics and Science Resource Toolkit, etc.), while MRE typical incorporates videos and Internet research into their curriculum.

Given this wide variety of resources and approached to media, there would be little doubt that all students would benefit as long as the teachers actually teach media directly using the approach discussed by Hobbs, Luke and others (integrating media, ICT and cultural studies) instead of merely using them as means of instruction. It is important that the teachers take the opportunity to focus on the media being used and discuss its implications, limitations, and potential for bias as well as teaching the codes and conventions of various media, and teaching content using media.

An unfortunate misnomer is that many teachers believe they would be giving up subject content to teach media (Doucet, 2007). If this confusion could be clarified, and teachers could properly integrate media into the subject, teaching media in all subjects could inevitably lead to teachers creating interdisciplinary knowledge as well as skills.

The original intent of the notion of CCC and BAL was to provide students with skills that are transferable and necessary across all disciplines (QEP, 2004). This approach can initially implying that it is an inter-subject approach; although this is not frowned upon, the actual intention was to provide skills that could be used across all skills, providing a more holistic approach to curriculum.

The breakdown of disciplines is an essential element to the QEP, following in the footsteps of Apple, Pinar and others. The notion of creating new forms of knowledge by breaking down disciplines and creating interdisciplinary knowledge advocated by Apple, Giroux and others (Pinar, 1995), seems to have been adopted by the Ministry of Education in Quebec, though the vocabulary the QEP uses is “Broad Areas of Learning” and “Cross Curricular Competencies.” (QEP, 2004). There are references to Giroux and Friere, and the BAL and the CCC are the manifestations of critical pedagogy found in the QEP, although we must remember that critical pedagogy in the QEP is not a “pure” version of the models outlined by Pinar, and although there are some references to challenging hemegony, this is not the radical approach advocated by neo-Marxists. This form of “critical pedagogy lite” shares some, but not all of the values espoused in Pinar, Giroux and others, and the QEP concerns itself more with the breakdown of separate disciplines, tolerance and alternate histories rather than challenging the status quo.

Of course it must be remembered that the notion of interdisciplinary curriculum does not belong to the QEP or Giroux. It is not a novel idea; the cross curricular approach was a fundamental part of Dewey’s “third stage” of curriculum: “This (Dewey’s) view of curriculum construed knowledge to be interdisciplinary and instrumental” (Gutek, 1986, p. 107). The dual notions of interdisciplinary pedagogy, and “cross-curricular competencies” creates a more real “lived” curriculum that fits in the constructivist paradigms of Vygotsky and Piaget. It allows for the learner to construct her/his learning and carry that learning through-out several disciplines.

The advantages of an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum is obvious; a single project follows students from class to class creating a more integrated approach to learning that is constructed by the students themselves. The skills taught relate back to the single problem, making the exercise seem more meaningful, and the student realizes that problem solving leads to learning, and certain skills are universal. This leads to lifelong strategies that will carry the student beyond the institutions of education into the workforce and makes students’ learning more intrinsic (QEP, 2004). Since the rewards (grades) are distributed over several subjects thereby diffusing the direct association to a specific class, motivation for learning becomes more general and so the behavior itself becomes rewarding rather than engaging in the behavior for a specific grade.

The disadvantages of such an approach are equally obvious; this type of curriculum demands that there be much more cooperation and coordination between teachers, administrators, and of course the school boards themselves. The idea of “streamed” classes must be replaced by “intact” classes of heterogeneous abilities. Inter-disciplinary projects are uncommon for the very reason that they involve more coordination between teachers, and so teachers request release time to meet and plan (a major point of contention in the ongoing attempts to implement the QEP).

This leads to resistance on the part of school boards who must pay for this release time; many boards use monies set aside for training in the QEP hiring out of province pedagogues (often American) to speak at seminars on the QEP.[16] Often these speakers are not acquainted with the reform or the Quebec Education system, and so the release time is not used effectively to train teachers for the reform. This is coupled by the fact that these seminars leaves little money and time for teachers to meet to work together on inter-disciplinary projects.

Ironically, various forms of media could help solve some of the difficulties associated with inter-disciplinary projects; using the Internet, E-mail, and other forms of networking could lead to work being accessed in several classes. “Virtual classrooms” are easily set up, and allow easy distribution of work and merging of student work. This also means that all teachers have access to all students’ work at any time, and teachers can easily leave messages for simple day-to-day communications with their own students or other teachers.

As long as these conditions are met, it would be possible to incorporate the study of media into all subject courses, and a form of “critical pedagogy lite” could transpire from the reform. However, it is evident that the success or failure of the QEP is dependent upon teacher training and release time, neither of which are being successfully implemented. This may change however, with current recommendations made by the Raportage de Pilotage, (MELS, 2006), which suggests the need for more training for teachers attempting to implement the reform.

The argument against situating Media Literacy in BAL & CCC

As mentioned earlier, this approach will only come to fruition if there is proper teacher training and release time, and the political will to mandate teacher training in media. These issues must be addressed quickly, but unfortunately, the principle training in media given to teachers so far has been in Language Arts (though some other disciplines have been using training sessions to acquaint teachers with new media made available for teaching, but not media education per say). This deficiency will undermine the possibility for the teaching of some, if not all of the cross curricular competencies, but there are other complications as well.

Although there is significant acknowledgment of the importance of the role of media and ICT in education, the Cycle One QEP is a hodge-podge of approaches and references to the use of media in curriculum; references to each subject using media and teaching media without any formal training represents a defacto curriculum of the blind leading the blind. The obvious outcomes of such an approach include diffusion of responsibility, confusion in teachers as to expectations, and inconsistencies between teachers and subjects over the meaning of both media and literacy. Although a single text explains what is expected of teachers concerning the reading and production of media, these references are vague and intentionally left to teacher’s interpretations (Doucet, 2007).

As mentioned earlier, the first problem with situating media literacy in the BAL and CCC is the lack of any visible support or teacher training; although the role of media is made clear in the BAL, and there are some clear goals outlined:

“To enable students to exercise critical, ethical and aesthetic judgment with respect to the media and produce media documents that respect individual and collective rights.” (QEP, 2004; p. 22).

the nature of those goals (learning codes and conventions of various media, aesthetics, property rights and production) are very unique, esoteric, and at times complex issues (property rights and digital media is an ongoing process involving new legislation and court findings that alter notions of individual and collective rights change at a rapid rate).[17] Aesthetics as well is a very arcane study, and production of media is often complex, involving amounts of formal training or at least an extended amount of time spent by the teacher self-training.

The goals outlined by the QEP assume that the teachers already possess this knowledge and are ready to teach it, or have the will to take it up on their own, which is naïve since it places an inordinate amount of pressure on the teachers to take on a great deal of learning on issues outside of their subject domain. By law, 70% of a teacher’s workload is spent in class, while another 15% must be used for class preparation (PTU, 2007). This leaves the teacher with few breaks, barely long enough to eat, read and respond to memos, call and meet parents, read school related E-mails, and deal with daily administrative tasks. Marking takes up any remaining time in the day, so one has to wonder realistically, when will this training take place? Unless a teacher is willing to give up any free time and invest it in a university degree in media, communications, or aesthetics, it is difficult to imagine how an established teacher might gain knowledge of these topics: “The majority of teachers are women which means they already have a job as a homemaker, parent and wife, which means we have four jobs not just one. Which job am I supposed to give up in order to do all this (media training)?” (Teacher, QEP training seminar, Dorval Quebec, April 30, 2007).

In high schools in Quebec, established teachers pride themselves in their subject knowledge, and it is there that they will invest any free time developing. The QEP also includes radical transformation of subject content, so many teachers are frustrated by the demands of learning new content, let alone BAL and CCC, which many feel is not their concern.

Those not established (i.e. new teachers) are often given diverse workloads that involve great amounts of time simply learning content. New Quebec teachers will typically gain knowledge of a subject they are asked to teach, build a bank of resources over a year, and then not be asked to teach that subject the following year. This is frustrating for teachers, and this phenomenon coupled with the fact that the QEP also entails new content to be learned as well as various aspects of media, would make even new teachers reluctant to sign on board to learning the codes and conventions of various media, the mechanics of new media, how to teach them, the ethics and aesthetics of media, etc.

In a perfect world, we might assume that teachers would be capable of taking on this pursuit of knowledge on their own, but this is unrealistic. Although MELS spends large amounts of time training consultants and teachers about reform, most of the training now being given by the MELS for teachers concerns either the philosophy of the reform or discussion of subject-specific curricular. Presently, there is no department directly responsible for the implementation of the BAL or CCC, and the head of the committee that created these elements of the reform recently retired (Doucet, 2007).

Another issue that complicates the notion that teachers of all subjects can be expected to implement media literacy is that of compartmentalization of skills. As progressive as the reform is, the QEP takes the traditional, twentieth century approach of sorting various components of media literacy, multi-literacy, critical pedagogy, and ICT (contrary to the consolidated approach advocated by Luke, Hobbs, and others). Although all of these skills are essential in an information based economy, it is implied in the QEP that teachers of various subjects are expected to teach media literacy, critical literacy, information literacy, and ICT as well as their given subject matter.[18] This policy is in a large part due to the fact that each subject was given their own mandate to create their own curriculum, while the CCC and BAL were written by yet another committee (Doucet, 2007). The “learning how to learn” aspect of the reform includes a great deal of important skills, but several of these could have been collapsed into a single competency (Media literacy, cultural studies and ICT).

In the QEP, explanations’ of these skills is often repetitive; compare Competency One, “uses information,” which refers to “accessibility of numerous and varied information sources” (i.e. new media) and Competency Six, “uses information and communications technologies,” referring to computers. In this era of convergence, where one can watch TV on a phone and surf the net on your TV, why discuss these as separate issues? A single approach to all information gathering could be instituted rather than compartmentalizing. It seems a return to the differentiation of media studies discussed in question one; ICT as separate from media education.

A third confound in the notion of spreading out the teaching of media to all subjects is that of dispersal of responsibility. Explanations of these skills are often vague; in the QEP, discussions of the use of media to glean information as well as using new media to transmit that information is so ephemeral, while seemingly so obvious that they might assume that these skills can easily be picked up (point and click pedagogy):

“The press, books, audio and video cassettes, radio and television programs, multimedia games, the Internet, music and so on provide access to a world of knowledge, thought, sound and images as well as information of all kinds from a wide range of sources” (QEP, 2004; p. 27).

Teachers not themselves acquainted in these skills might assume that these skills could be taught by another novice, or might expect that students either have some form of innate prior knowledge of communication media:

“Students beginning secondary school have varying degrees of competency in this area. They also vary considerably in their views on the educational relevance of these technologies and in their attraction to them. Some students use information and communications technologies regularly and expertly, while others make do with a superficial knowledge and still others have little or no access. A few enthusiasts take advantage of the opportunity to show off, using their competency to engage in unauthorized activities.”

The myth of point and click pedagogy is rampant (OECD quote and ref). The iconic nature of ICT leads students (and teachers) to believe that they are achieving when in actual fact they are not. Skills in filtering information are not general knowledge and it cannot be assumed that teachers have yet learned this themselves.

There is also the problem that many teachers involved will assume someone else is teaching these skills (take the example of basic manners; parents complain that teachers are not teaching manners while teachers complain of parents being guilty of the same thing). If no one person is specifically responsible for the teaching of these skills, how can we expect anyone will teach them? Why would a math teacher who never uses anything more than a graphic calculator take it upon herself to discuss the accuracy of television reality shows? Why would a Geography teacher teach internet retrieval skills to a class visiting the computer lab to find information? Why should a French teacher explain to his class how to evaluate the reliability of a web site? Unless someone is specifically mandated to teach these topics, it is more than likely that these skills will not be taught sufficiently to aid the students.

As if to drive the point home; in regards to the QEP, the “Table de pilotage du renouveau pédagogique,” a committee made up of representatives from the MELS and representatives from teachers unions, parents, school administrators, school boards, private schools and universities that report back to the minister of education recently recommended that there should be no evaluation of either the Broad areas of Learning or the Cross Curricular Competencies because:

“A number of teachers consulted during the 2006 MELS survey found it difficult to incorporate certain cross-curricular competencies and broad areas of learning into their class work and to evaluate the development of these competencies.” (rapportage de pilotage; MESL, 2006)

The resulting brief recommended that the BAL and CCC NOT be evaluated, although they did state that teachers found the competency of “to use information” was easy to implement. The Minister of Education at the time supported the recommendations stating:

“The report highlights certain facts that are disturbing; steps must be taken quickly to correct them. These recommendations are an appropriate response to the observations made by the Table de pilotage. I embrace these recommendations wholeheartedly and request that they be applied immediately.” (Jean-Marc Fournier, Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports, August 24, 2006).

Without any formal evaluation of media, is there any incentive whatsoever for teachers to teach media, ICT or anything else not mandated in spite of the problems of training discussed earlier. It is unfortunate, but evaluation has often been “the tail that wags the dog,” with teachers often “teaching to the test,” a sobering but realistic issue that must be taken into account in pedagogy: that which does not have to be taught will not be taught, therefore in Quebec it seems that media will be situated in Language Arts and any media discussed outside of the ELA classroom will be voluntary on the part of the teacher.

Recommendations

The complications of situating media within all subjects (BAL, CCC) are clear as are the problems with situating media exclusively in ELA. As pointed out, some of the problems associated with implementing media into the QEP are found in both scenarios (teacher training), but the dispersion of media as the responsibility of all subjects seems naïve; people won’t do what they don’t have to, and the similarities to the computer and education fiasco are uncanny.

It might seem obvious to situate media in Language Arts, the traditional seat of how to communicate via any media: “For example, by developing the competencies associated with the Languages subject area students can read documents, master their contents, process the information in them and communicate the results of their research effectively” (SELA, 63), but that could potentially culturally ghettoize the French sector where media is not part of the LA program, but rather lost in the BAL and CCC which we have seen are not specifically mandated and no formal evaluation will ever be made for these competencies (Committee de pilotage, 2006). With no formal assessment, there is little incentive for teachers to actually teach the competencies, so there is little reason to believe that students in the French sector would ever receive formal training in media and multi-literacies. Media will be used to teach, but it will not be taught.

Although Hobbs suggestion that “literacy educators no longer “own” the concept of literacy,” she is falling into the same trap as those in Quebec who would lump media, critical thinking and ICT as a “Broad Area of Learning,” something that teachers will pick up on their own. Unless there is some form of direct responsibility to teach these skills, it is highly unlikely they will be taught at all. The suggestion that all teachers should use and teach media is ideal, but this is far from likely as pointed out by Cuban (2001), Rose (2003), and others. Without proper training, established teachers are unlikely to know what to do with media and ICT, let alone critical thinking and critical pedagogy. There is some potential for new teachers to embrace these notions if these skills become part of the teacher training curriculum, but so far only media is a pre-requisite for a teaching degree, and as yet is not at all teaching colleges in Quebec (REF).

Luke’s perspective of integrating media, ICT and critical thinking under the auspice of Language Arts shows promise and might just work given the predisposition of Language Arts teachers to teach decoding, but in Quebec this model has dire consequences. The implications for the Quebec economy and political situation are staggering: without any direct mandated teaching of media or ICT in the French sector, these competencies are sure to be neglected, while ELA takes it upon itself to teach media and communication to all high school students in the English sector. The digital divide will add a new dimension to the “two solitudes,” exasperating attempts at reducing hemegony based on ancient colonial policies, further straining French-English relations in Quebec.

One obvious but impossible answer is to mandate these changes so that teachers have to teach media and critical literacy. This is not possible given the political realities of a strained relationship between the provincial government and Unions. All attempts at mandating changes have led to fierce resistance by the unions in Quebec, and there is some question as to whether the second cycle reform will even take place; union representatives on the “pilotage” committee steering the reform have demanded a study of the effects thus far on the reform (REF). Ironically, even the Parti Quebecois, original authors of the QEP have taken a decidedly anti-reform stance in the past year (CBC.ca June 2006).

The only reasonable approach is to mandate these competencies in teacher training so that new teachers would enter the classroom well versed in all aspects of these competencies. In fact, this process is already underway[19] although this training makes no mention of “Media,” rather choosing to focus on science and technology.

To truly initiate Luke’s model would necessitate the mandatory teaching of critical literacies, multiliteracies and/or media in universities. The question then becomes is there space for these courses? Who would teach them? Who will pay for their start up costs. Is it not possible that the indoctrination approach to media might permeate university professors and lecturers. To effectively teach media, we need to teach teachers in universities that media is not a dirty word, and that it is merely a form of literacy.

We must also address an issue that is cconspicuously missing from MEQ – ICT as a natural component of media and a push towards the use of technology as part of “production.” Production of new media is conspicuously lacking from “Science and Technology” in the QEP, and without any incentive to introduce media into the QEP due to lack of any evaluation of the BAL and CCC, it is unlikely many teachers will have time to teach media production. The phenomenon of convergence as justification for ICT as just another aspect of media, but a proper study of media must entail direct experience with the mechanics of various media through production (Buckingham, 19???; Buckingham & Sefton-Greene 1995).[20]

Furthermore, the history of media education in Quebec is that of stillborn projects, under-used curriculum and “lost” documents such as the “media files.” One project that might be undertaken is to take an investigative approach to the history of education in Quebec and finding and compiling of the many resources available to avoid redundancies (re-creating the wheel) and making these resources available to teachers in Quebec.

The question of whether media should be taught in Language Arts or in all subjects seems decided in Quebec, at least until a change in government dictates otherwise. Yet the debate is moot, and should continue for many years to come, for no clear answer is forthcoming.

Future Questions

This question has raised more questions than it has answered; by pointing out the inherent flaws in both approaches (media as literacy, media as everywhere), we see that without proper training, media in education will suffer the same fate that computers did (Cuban, 2001). Without a home, can media be properly handled?

Bibliography

Anderson, J.A. (1983). The theoretical lineage of critical viewing curricula. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 64-70.

Anderson, J. (1980). “The theoretical linage of critical viewing Curricula”, Journal of Communication. 30(3): 64-70.

Anderson, Neil. Media Works. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Apple, M. (1986). Teachers and Texts: A Political economy of Class and Gender Relations in Education. NY: Routledge.

Aronowitz, S. and Henry Giroux. (1991). Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture and Social

Criticism. Minneapolis, Minn: University of Minnesota Press.

Aronowitz, S. and Henry Giroux. (1985). Education Under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal and Radical Debate Over Schooling. Mass: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

Aronowitz, S. and Henry Giroux. (1991). Education Still Under Siege. ONT: OISE Press.

Australia (1996) Curriculum Corporation. Teaching Viewing and Visual Texts:

Secondary. Victoria: Prepared by Robyn Quin, Rod Quin and Barrie McMahon.

Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by Carolyn Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1981.

Buckingham, D. (2003) Media Education and the End of the Critical Consumer. Harvard Educational Review. Volume 75. No. 3; p. 309.

Buckingham, D. and Sefton-Green, J. (1994). Cultural Studies Goes to School. Bristol, Pennsylvania: Taylor & Francis.

Center for Media Literacy. (2003). Literacy for the 21st Century. (Feb. 2007) .

Centre francophone d’informatisation des organization Cefrio. No update given (April 23, 2007) .

Chomsky, N. (1997). Media Control: the Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Seven Stories Press: New York.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1-20; 176-197.

Dolby, N. (2003). Popular culture and Democratic practice. Harvard Educational Review. Volume 75. No. 3; p. 263.

Doucet, A. (Coordinator for Evaluation of English Language Arts, MELS). Personal communication, March 18, 2007

Duncan, B. (1989). Mass Media & Popular Culture, Version 1. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Canada Ingram, Roy. Media Focus. Toronto: Copp Clark.

Duncan, B. (1996). Mass Media and Popular Culture. (Version 2) Toronto: Harcourt, Brace.

Duncan, Barry et al. Media Literacy -Resource Guide. Toronto: Ministry of Education, Toronto, 1989.

Giroux, Henry. (1989). Schooling as a form of Cultural Politics: Towards a Pedagogy of and for difference. In Giroux, Henry and McLaren, Peter (Eds.), Critical Pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de l’Éducation. (1979). The Schools of Quebec : Policy Statement and Plan of Action. Gouvernement du Québec.

Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de l’Éducation. (1980). Secondary English Language Arts I to V Program. Gouvernement du Québec.

Gouvernement du Québec. (2004). Commision des programmes d’etudés. Québec Education Program ; Secondary School Education, Cycle One.

Gouvernement du Québec. (in Press). Secondary English Language Arts, Cycle Two. Ministère de l’Éducation,

Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (2006). Overcoming Difficulties: Twelve Recommendations Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, .

Gutek, 1986, p. 107

Hart, A. (1991). Understanding the Media - a practical guide. London; Routledge.

Hobbs, R. (in press) Multiple Visions of Multimedia Literacy: Emerging Areas of Synthesis (accessed Feburary 10, 2007). renee's%20web%20site/Speeches/Hobbs,%20Technology%20and%20Literacy,%2012.3.04.doc

Illich, I. (1992). In the Mirror of the Past. New York : Marion Boyars.

Kincheloe, J. and Well, D. (2004). Critical Thinking and Learning: An Encyclopedia for Parents and Teachers. London: Greenwood Press.

Kincheloe, J., 1997. “Introduction.” In Shirley R. Steinberg and Joe L. Kincheloe, edited, Kinderculture: The Corporate Construction of Childhood. Westview Press.

Kress, Gunther. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Geelong,

Australia: Deakin University, 1985.

Kress, Gunther R. and Theo Van Leeuwen. Reading Images: The Grammar of

Visual Design. London, England: Routledge, 1996.

Kress, G. (1998) ‘Visual and Verbal Models of Representation in Electronically Mediated Communication: the Potentials of New Forms of Text’, in I. Snyder (ed.) Page to Screen: Taking Literacy into the Electronic Era, London, Routledge, pp. 53-79.

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (1996) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design, London, Routledge.

Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse, London, Sage.

Kalantzis, 2000

Luchs, M. Co-author of SELA (Media competency), SELA2 (Production section). Personal communication, April 21, 2007.

Luchs, M. Personal communication May 12, 2007.

Luke, C. (2005). “Re-crafting Media and ICT Literacies” in Adolescents and Literacies in a Digital World. Donna Aleverman (Ed.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Luke, A. (2005). "What Happens to Literacies, Old and New When They're Changed to Policies?" in Adolescents and Literacies in a Digital World. Donna Aleverman (Ed.). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the Media. London: Comedia, 245.

Masterman, L. Center for Media Literacy. 2006. (March 12, 2007).

McLuhan, M. 1965. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Media Awareness Network. (April 12, 2005) .

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Ontario Ministry of Education (1989) "Specific Approaches to Media Literacy," Barry Duncan et al. Media Literacy Resource Guide, Ontario Ministry of Education. Toronto, ON., Canada.

Parker, W. R. (1981). “Where do English Departments come from?” In Tate, G. & Corbett E. (Eds.). The Writing Teachers Sourcebook. Oxford; Oxford University Press.

Pinar, William (Ed.). (1995). Understanding Curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.

Piette, J. (19960, Éducation aux médias et fonction critique, L'Harmattan, Montréal / Paris, 1996.

Pungente, J. (2007). “The Second Spring: Media Literacy in Canada's Schools” Media Literacy Review. Center for Advanced Technology in Education - College of Education, University of Oregon

Rose, E. (2003) User Error: Resisting Computer Culture. Toronto: Between the lines.

Smith, C. (1997). “Integrating the Language Arts.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Digest #120.

Wikipedia. “edutainment.” (May 3, 2007). .

Wiggins, G. & Jay McTighe. (2001). Understanding by Design. New York; Prentice Hall Inc.

-----------------------

[1] Media and ICT is dispersed throughout the BAL and CCC to ensure students do receive some formal training in them (Doucet, 2007).

[2] This was the time of the psycho-linguists and the Whole Language Approach, which gave credence to the notion of media as just another form of literacy. The nature of language is to read and produce, regardless of media.

[3] This practice was dropped in the late nineties and so the stress that had been put on teachers to teach visual media was gone and focus returned to print based literacy.

[4] Interestingly, “the Cultural Studies Files came out at the same time but were difficult to work with (Luchs. 2007)

[5] I received one of these packages in the early nineties; I was teaching a new course misleadingly calls “physical science” which was basically nutrition and fitness. No one had ever taught the course, so I was given the package and told to follow it best I could. There was no formal training involved. According to Michele Luchs, her experience was similar with the “media files.”

[6] Due to the manner at which more academically minded students were streamed into the sciences, media education often became a refuge for students not considered academic stream, similar to the 1960’s model.

[7] In an interview with Michele Luchs, she discussed the fact that the entire SELA2 team participated in a seminar given by Allan Luke in 2006.

[8] Radio programs such as “Sounds like Quebec” is run out of a Quebec city high school, McDonald’s High School has their own (albeit controversial) TV station run by students, and Lion Hill school has a picture book publishing project based on Winston Emery’s “Rainbow of Dreams.” (Luchs, 2007)

[9] The reason for this was that departments working on the QEP were told to reduce the number of subject specific competencies in each subject after the publication of the Cycle One QEP (Committee du pilotage, 2006), although Michele Luchs (2007) insists this was not the case and that they were collapsed deliberately to help teachers realize that media is just another form of production.

[10] It must be cautioned that the approach to cultural studies advocated in the QEP is aimed at secondary students and often revolves around Quebec Culture, not the broader approach discussed in university, so the definition found in the QEP may not please all those involved in the more academic pursuit of Cultural Studies.

[11] Media states: “We are not aware of any U.S media studies textbooks. But we can recommend the excellent Canadian high school textbook by media literacy pioneer Barry Duncan and colleagues, Mass Media & Popular Culture.”

[12] when the last reform attempted to integrate language Arts, some teachers reused to give up teaching Literature for Language Arts (Doucet, 2007

[13] as argued earlier, it seems redundant in this age of convergence to separate ICT from media.

[14] For more recent information on Internet use in Quebec, visit

[15] Most social science courses in Quebec have accompanying DOS based multiple choice drills to prepare for exams, but the open market provides even more choice: Age of Empires III- War Chiefs has several scenarios where players can play as either Iroquois, British or French and can ally themselves with English, Dutch or Spanish to acquire and trade resources; Sid Myers Civilizations allows students to re-create or alter History, etc.,

[16] This was the case this September when the first pedagogical day of the Lester B. Pearson (the largest English Board in Quebec) was spent by teachers attending a seminar given by American pedagogues explaining Wiggins & McTighe’s “backwards design” approach. Although this is in synch with the approach advocated by the QEP, this approach in no way represents the QEP and when asked, the presenters freely admitted little knowledge of the QEP.

[17] Fair Use Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) and Rep. John Doolittle (R-California) on Feb. 27 (, and recent rulings on the rights of teachers and others to burn descramble and rip DVDs are still in litigation

[18] Anecdotally, it is not uncommon for teachers at QEP training sessions to claim that the QEP forces subject matter to take a back seat to the Broad Areas of learning and Cross Curricular Competencies.

[19] “Initial Teacher Training - Most elementary-school teachers find it difficult to plan activities that allow their students to develop the competencies in the Science and Technology program. Fewer than one quarter of teachers work on these competencies often with their students. This situation is not new: similar observations have been made on several occasions in the past. The solution to this problem resides in helping teachers develop new competencies in this area. The Table de pilotage has therefore recommended that the universities, together with the Comité d’agrément des programmes de formation à l’enseignement (CAPFE), be asked to review and, where needed, to revise the initial training curriculum for elementary school teachers in order to better equip them to teach mathematics and science and technology. The Minister made this request to CAPFE on September 19, 2006. CAPFE’s work is already under way. It also recommended that the MELS/Universities Table be asked to suggest orientations for the development of professional development programs and for accompanying mathematics and science and technology teachers. The Minister made this request to the MELS/Universities Table on September 19, 2006. A work-ing committee has already been struck.”

[20] In an earlier version of the QEP created in 2003 but not published, there were direct references to “Producing Power Point, web pages and video.” These references were eventually dropped from the final draft.

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download