Submitted by Matt Merrill (not verified) on September 11, 2007 - 12:04.
We have a responsibility to those we teach. Just what that responsibility is has a broad definition in the education community. I am a History teacher, a member of a group in our community that is particularly prone to showing movies in the name of education. As I see the issue, responsibility tends to be interpreted in two ways:
I've got the answers, or I've got the method.
In the "I've got the answer" category, you have teachers that believe they are the sage on the stage. Their beliefs, their data base, and their interpretation is the answer. They tend to use movies and stories and sources that back their answer, in a "see I told you so" fashion. In that case, the student is a mere juror, making rulings based on the perspective of the presenter.
When it comes to movies, in dealing with children so influenced by media, this is often the coup'd grace. It appeals to the idea "well, if it's on film, it must be true". In many of our eras it was the same of the written word. It is dangerous and limiting to put students in that position. First-time learning is an awesome thing, and if that learning is reinforced by the power of media, it is a hard bond to break. I think some of the great propagandist of our time know that secret. After all, Mussolini was an elementary school teacher.
"I have the answer" people normally have a high sense of responsibility to get the message out.
The other side is "I've got the method". In that, the teacher has the responsibility of showing students how to responsibly navigate our media rich society. Sifting through fact and fiction, identifying point of view, and creatively constructing their own conclusions are a few skills to be learned. Those skills are based on methods. It is a scary thing, I know, for content-driven people to comprehend. The idea of giving up content for the ability of the student to explore and learn, but the implications are great. Getting students to buy into taking control of their own learning is also challenging. This way tends to anticipate the fact that the student will be a life-long learner, and that eventually he or she will make his or her own choices on what to watch or read. In that case movies may be used in a very different way, if at all. As a historian I know that no movie is historically accurate, but many speak volumes about how a moment-in-time is interpreted by some in society. That can be very interesting in analyzing a group or society's values and bias.
I found it interesting in the article that a plea was made for creativity by the directors. I am sure they fear censorship. It is, however, a plea made in self-interest.
No art is created for art's sake. We all know these are rich and influential individuals who seek power, fame and reward. That should in itself give us pause to reflect on showing movies in class.
Movies in the Classroom.
Submitted by Matt Merrill (not verified) on September 11, 2007 - 12:04.
We have a responsibility to those we teach. Just what that responsibility is has a broad definition in the education community. I am a History teacher, a member of a group in our community that is particularly prone to showing movies in the name of education. As I see the issue, responsibility tends to be interpreted in two ways:
I've got the answers, or I've got the method.
In the "I've got the answer" category, you have teachers that believe they are the sage on the stage. Their beliefs, their data base, and their interpretation is the answer. They tend to use movies and stories and sources that back their answer, in a "see I told you so" fashion. In that case, the student is a mere juror, making rulings based on the perspective of the presenter.
When it comes to movies, in dealing with children so influenced by media, this is often the coup'd grace. It appeals to the idea "well, if it's on film, it must be true". In many of our eras it was the same of the written word. It is dangerous and limiting to put students in that position. First-time learning is an awesome thing, and if that learning is reinforced by the power of media, it is a hard bond to break. I think some of the great propagandist of our time know that secret. After all, Mussolini was an elementary school teacher.
"I have the answer" people normally have a high sense of responsibility to get the message out.
The other side is "I've got the method". In that, the teacher has the responsibility of showing students how to responsibly navigate our media rich society. Sifting through fact and fiction, identifying point of view, and creatively constructing their own conclusions are a few skills to be learned. Those skills are based on methods. It is a scary thing, I know, for content-driven people to comprehend. The idea of giving up content for the ability of the student to explore and learn, but the implications are great. Getting students to buy into taking control of their own learning is also challenging. This way tends to anticipate the fact that the student will be a life-long learner, and that eventually he or she will make his or her own choices on what to watch or read. In that case movies may be used in a very different way, if at all. As a historian I know that no movie is historically accurate, but many speak volumes about how a moment-in-time is interpreted by some in society. That can be very interesting in analyzing a group or society's values and bias.
I found it interesting in the article that a plea was made for creativity by the directors. I am sure they fear censorship. It is, however, a plea made in self-interest.
No art is created for art's sake. We all know these are rich and influential individuals who seek power, fame and reward. That should in itself give us pause to reflect on showing movies in class.