Historical Understanding and Media literacy
‘Media literacy’ is a term that, for twenty-first century students, is almost a necessity. With a multitude of online sources that can range from credible, to not-so-reliable (almost every website feels sketchy nowadays), it is up to us to decide whether what we are reading can be trusted. The phrase itself lacks a finite definition.
Media plays an important role in almost everybody’s lives. Whether that includes reading the newspaper every morning, or even getting a notification from The New York Times about the latest news, it is a general, almost expected idea to stay informed.
It is routine that popular media will almost always have a bigger impact on one. It will reflect not only what the population agrees with, but also what they remember, what they know, and what they don’t. Media plays a strong role in what the population sees, and what the population believes.
However, how many times have you clicked on a website and wondered whether what you are reading can be trusted? In school, we learn about credible and noncredible sources: ‘if the author shows expertise or experience, the source can be trusted’. How does this play out in researching historical contexts?
The average person may not know about the intricacies of the 'Nagorno-Karabakh conflict', about who did what, what happened where, but they may have watched a BBC video about the atrocities of war, the thousands of children that are stuck in conflict, the millions that are displaced from their homelands.
How many people out of a 100 would further research about the cause, rather than the effect? What role does our own understanding play in this? How does what we experience generate curiosity?
In our twenty-first century education, we are required to engage with multiple media forms. Textbooks, videos, images. The list goes on. But, is there a clear binary to what can be trusted and what cannot? We must acknowledge that all sources of literacy have a purpose, and that purpose may not be education. We are often taught through, and not about the media we use to study. A few educational practices make apparent the interconnected relationship between the media-maker and consumer audience.
This, is where I believe the role of subjects such as global perspectives are fundamental. Far too many people believe everything they see on the screen. This is the era where critical thinking skills are to be prioritised above many other skills. This is the shift in learning from 20 years ago, versus now.
This is why the study of history is more than factual knowledge about the past, but rather a way of knowing and understanding events of the past! It is the development of the skill to evaluate the information in front of you, and realise that everything is not what it seems.
Media plays an important role in almost everybody’s lives. Whether that includes reading the newspaper every morning, or even getting a notification from The New York Times about the latest news, it is a general, almost expected idea to stay informed.
It is routine that popular media will almost always have a bigger impact on one. It will reflect not only what the population agrees with, but also what they remember, what they know, and what they don’t. Media plays a strong role in what the population sees, and what the population believes.
However, how many times have you clicked on a website and wondered whether what you are reading can be trusted? In school, we learn about credible and noncredible sources: ‘if the author shows expertise or experience, the source can be trusted’. How does this play out in researching historical contexts?
The average person may not know about the intricacies of the 'Nagorno-Karabakh conflict', about who did what, what happened where, but they may have watched a BBC video about the atrocities of war, the thousands of children that are stuck in conflict, the millions that are displaced from their homelands.
How many people out of a 100 would further research about the cause, rather than the effect? What role does our own understanding play in this? How does what we experience generate curiosity?
In our twenty-first century education, we are required to engage with multiple media forms. Textbooks, videos, images. The list goes on. But, is there a clear binary to what can be trusted and what cannot? We must acknowledge that all sources of literacy have a purpose, and that purpose may not be education. We are often taught through, and not about the media we use to study. A few educational practices make apparent the interconnected relationship between the media-maker and consumer audience.
This, is where I believe the role of subjects such as global perspectives are fundamental. Far too many people believe everything they see on the screen. This is the era where critical thinking skills are to be prioritised above many other skills. This is the shift in learning from 20 years ago, versus now.
This is why the study of history is more than factual knowledge about the past, but rather a way of knowing and understanding events of the past! It is the development of the skill to evaluate the information in front of you, and realise that everything is not what it seems.
Comments
Post a Comment