Teachers and students could be encouraged to engage in exchanges about popular cultural digital practices and representations, and to perhaps cultivate a relationship that could be fuelled and nurtured by “constant cultural churn” (Jenkins, 2010) rather than problematised by it. However, as the classroom door closes, the top-down disconnect is so often restored. One suggested ‘innovatory’ scheme for primary schools emanating from current government think tanks is a centrally approved reading book list. Isn’t this a scheme with a distinctive 19th century retrogressive Arnoldian – “best that has been thought and said in the world” – ring to it? “Best”? according to whose scale of values? using what criteria? to achieve what? at the expense of what? for whose benefit ultimately? Michael Rosen, former Children’s Laureate (2007 – 2009), has been vocal in his condemnation of “the state’s view” (ibid) and their prescriptive, rigid literacy strategies. The current Secretary of State for Education might do well to take as a source of inspiration Rosen’s play for voices “Under the Cranes” now transposed into a hybrid, multimodal and critically charged aesthetic experience for screen by Emma-Louise Williams.
Might it be helpful, in the interests of an approach less infused with bias and historical baggage, to eliminate the word Media from school curricula altogether and to replace it with Communication? Over the past several years I have often thought of myself as a primary school ‘media mentor’ and it is a concept which could feasibly gain traction in line with some LEAs’ ‘lead practitioner’ training programmes. The difference being, instead of furthering the perceived training needs of the teacher, I would seek to connect with the student through reflective media chat, to engage in an ongoing dialogue cultivating confidence, curiousity and participation. Similarly Brooks (2011) alludes to a teaching style that values the unconscious learning and imitative processes associated with apprenticeship, referencing a teacher whose goal was:
“… to turn her students into autodidacts. She hoped to give her students a taste of the emotional and sensual pleasure discovery brings – the jolt of pleasure you get when you work hard, suffer a bit and then something clicks. She hoped her students would become addicted to this process.” (2011:82)
With these thoughts in mind I am motivated to explore the impact of digital media production processes on young people’s social, creative, cultural and critical engagement with the world around them. Leander and Franks claim that multimodal theory sidelines to its detriment the affective in favour of the ratiocinative:
“The relations of persons to texts are strategic and rational … rather than embodied, sensual, and involved in personal attachments and cultural affiliation.” (2006:186)
I would like to address that imbalance and argue that media production processes facilitate learning to feel the following in an embodied sense: a good aesthetic decision, a sense of conviction and wonder at seeing connections and uncovering patterns, the self-affirming nature of identity play, the security of collective social interaction and finally the pleasures of artifice, inscription and representation.
Given his extensive writing on the themes of interactive play, rules and spontaneity and their role in the development of children’s thought and language, it is not surprising, in the context of collaborative children’s media production, for references to the work of Lev Vygotsky to emerge (Burn & Durran 2007:13 & Burn 2009:14). Development of a child’s “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky 1978:90) – the space between independent problem-solving capacity and that achieved with guidance – is a highly relevant theoretical concept in this field. Vygotsky believes that “in play a child always behaves beyond his average age” (1978:102); further, a child’s propensity towards mimicry and roleplay – habits ideally developed from infancy – circumscribe his/her capacity to imagine a different reality. The interstitial spaces made available by these imaginative leaps should be identified and exploited by educators and allowed to flourish, paving the way, according to Vygotsky, for higher conceptual thought and abstraction.
Burn and Durran (2007) transpose this theory into the realm of digital video editing. Students borrow ideas and material from available symbolic popular cultural resources and by internalizing, recombining and repurposing audiovisual content they coin the new, brand it as their own and return it to society. The concept of re-presenting sampled audio material has been entirely standard in the realms of professional and amateur popular music mixing for the past few decades, therefore, is it not high digital time to accord similar widespread acceptability in schools to the act of mixing and editing the audiovisual, to Burn & Parker’s “multimodal mixing desk”? (2003b:23) Or might this be regarded by some as the first step on the road to writing’s ruin or the erosion of the film canon?
In terms of interrogating the creative process I am interested in exploring intuition and a sense of the present and what the learning outcomes might be if these sensitivities are given the conditions to thrive. Burn & Durran argue that digital production tends to “the expressive needs of the moment” (2007:160) which chimes with Csikszentmihalyi’s research on flow theory. He suggests that “the autotelic experience” of “flow” (1999:824) is a paradoxical mode where one feels firmly in control whilst surrendering to impulse, exploiting a perfectly pitched configuration of skill, challenge and emotional investment. The above chart is taken from a clip of Csikszentmihalyi’s TED talk 2008 where he explores the various emotional stages conducive to the state of flow: a state in which one seems to abandon a conscious state of experiencing reality and enter a new, highly productive and enjoyable realm of focus.
Taken from the same source, the findings of his empirical research are presented thus:
How does it feel to be in flow?
The benefits of “intrinsic motivation” have been taken up by Daniel Pink in his book: “The Surprising Truth about what motivates us” (2011) in the context of business productivity.
Indeed it is arguable that this theory could apply in any ‘making’ context. Csikszentmihalyi interviews the former US poet laureate, Mark Strand, about the writing process:
“The idea is to be so, so saturated with it that there’s no future or past, it’s just an extended present in which you are … making meaning. And dismantling meaning and remaking it” (Csikszentmihalyi,1999:825, quoting Strand)
Parallel patterns of thought can be seen in Sennett’s theory on the craftsman’s “intuitive leaps” (2008:27). His insights are workable in many contexts, not least in the “synaesthetic experience” (Sefton-Green, 2005:109) afforded by converging production software. Here are the four elements necessary to leaping intuitively, according to Sennett:
a) reformatting – an aspect of reality is materially reworked.
b) adjacency – the juxtaposition of “two unlike domains … the closer they are the more stimulating seems their twined presence” (Sennett, 2008:210). Multiple domains in the case of editing.
c) surprise – “you begin dredging up tacit knowledge into consciousness to do the comparing” and experience “wonder” (ibid: 211). Trusting in the feeling of the right editing decision begets confidence and pleasure.
d) gravity – recognition that leaps do not defy gravity and constraints are something of a constant: “The technical import, like any immigrant, will bring with it its own problems” (M. Cannon, 2011:13 drawing on Sennett 2008:212)
Sennett attends to production, context and human emotion in ways that could begin to suggest an alternative paradigm for the analysis of media texts.