Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Teaching Media at the Curriculum Crossroads
Similar to Teaching Media at the Curriculum Crossroads (20)
More from vogmae
More from vogmae (16)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Teaching Media at the Curriculum Crossroads
- 1. at the curriculum crossroads: Teaching Post–Industrial Media Marius Foley, Allan Thomas, Lisa French, Adrian Miles, Rachel Wilson, Matt Loads, Brian Morris School of Media and Communication, RMIT University
- 2. who?
- 3. ‘media’ not ‘media studies’ degree 3 year undergraduate program self initiated radical curriculum redesign roll back due to institutional demands who?
- 4. what?
- 5. writing media editing media broadcast year 1 network media texts texts media integrated film–TV or integrated film–TV or year 2 media radio media radio media production media production year 3 industries project industries project what?
- 6. why?
- 7. recognised media is the site of paradigmatic change from a centralised broadcast to a rhizomatic network model media industries respond with an intensification of their ‘professionalisation’ the professionalisation of media practice being ‘white antted’ by zero costs of production and distribution the rationale of a media degree problematised by digitisation of tools and knowledge why?
- 9. verbal critiques simple technical tasks year 1 oral verbal presentations single media objects verbal assessment partial objects written documentation whole media objects year 2 media with text written reflection professional orientation written analysis inward project documentation all media written reflection year 3 applied media any media group documentation outward & reflection practice - how?
- 10. theory - how?
- 11. what is an edit, what do make sketches that descriptive & year 1 they do, why do they explore these questions problem posing exist? as directed tasks secondary make work that read an introductory year 2 sources & responds to an idea/a text commentaries reading make a work that is an use a theory as basis of idea year 3 primary sources a making/critique of make a work that thinks making ‘inside’ its media theory - how?
- 13. content process broadcast network print literacy post–print literacy places/channels flows/events scheduling ambient strategic tactical INDUSTRIAL POST–INDUSTRIAL
- 14. key questions & issues
- 15. what is media, at this moment? what do we mean by ‘post–industrial?’ what should a media program do, now? & given these problems, how do you teach this? key questions & issues
Editor's Notes
- \n
- 1. rationale for the name change. Not media studies in the AngloAustralian model or context, less theory, less cultural studies, more orientated towards critically/theoretically informed making in the context of media practice.\n2. traditional undergraduate degree structure.\n3. nearly 10 years ago put the entire curriculum ‘on the table’ for interrogation and critique. Outcome was to throw everything out and begin again, with a sort of fin de siecle attitude towards media education in contemporary contexts.\n4. the original structure, which worked well, has been amended as other programs have wanted access to parts of it, and due to the usual institutional demands of being a good ‘citizen’ where we have accommodated a new multi-program communications stream into our curriculum map.\n
- 1. rationale for the name change. Not media studies in the AngloAustralian model or context, less theory, less cultural studies, more orientated towards critically/theoretically informed making in the context of media practice.\n2. traditional undergraduate degree structure.\n3. nearly 10 years ago put the entire curriculum ‘on the table’ for interrogation and critique. Outcome was to throw everything out and begin again, with a sort of fin de siecle attitude towards media education in contemporary contexts.\n4. the original structure, which worked well, has been amended as other programs have wanted access to parts of it, and due to the usual institutional demands of being a good ‘citizen’ where we have accommodated a new multi-program communications stream into our curriculum map.\n
- 1. rationale for the name change. Not media studies in the AngloAustralian model or context, less theory, less cultural studies, more orientated towards critically/theoretically informed making in the context of media practice.\n2. traditional undergraduate degree structure.\n3. nearly 10 years ago put the entire curriculum ‘on the table’ for interrogation and critique. Outcome was to throw everything out and begin again, with a sort of fin de siecle attitude towards media education in contemporary contexts.\n4. the original structure, which worked well, has been amended as other programs have wanted access to parts of it, and due to the usual institutional demands of being a good ‘citizen’ where we have accommodated a new multi-program communications stream into our curriculum map.\n
- 1. rationale for the name change. Not media studies in the AngloAustralian model or context, less theory, less cultural studies, more orientated towards critically/theoretically informed making in the context of media practice.\n2. traditional undergraduate degree structure.\n3. nearly 10 years ago put the entire curriculum ‘on the table’ for interrogation and critique. Outcome was to throw everything out and begin again, with a sort of fin de siecle attitude towards media education in contemporary contexts.\n4. the original structure, which worked well, has been amended as other programs have wanted access to parts of it, and due to the usual institutional demands of being a good ‘citizen’ where we have accommodated a new multi-program communications stream into our curriculum map.\n
- These are the media program specific subjects. In addition there is a 3 year major undertaken which is one subject per semester, and the communication ‘stream’.\n
- 1. arboreal to a rhizomatic model, centres that broadcast out to parts to parts, no longer about wholes, whether programs, experiences, or content. \n2. ‘quality’, of technologies (lighting, editing, performance, script, pick your attribute) are seen to matter much more but these are largely internally (tautologically) defined and to some extent only matter internally - to the industry. Up to a point. the issue is not whether these matter but to separate out quality of experience from technical fetishisation.\n3. anyone can make, and gifted amateurs freely distribute their work. Whole issue of free creative labour, IP and \n4. The reasons why we went to university no longer apply.\n
- 1. arboreal to a rhizomatic model, centres that broadcast out to parts to parts, no longer about wholes, whether programs, experiences, or content. \n2. ‘quality’, of technologies (lighting, editing, performance, script, pick your attribute) are seen to matter much more but these are largely internally (tautologically) defined and to some extent only matter internally - to the industry. Up to a point. the issue is not whether these matter but to separate out quality of experience from technical fetishisation.\n3. anyone can make, and gifted amateurs freely distribute their work. Whole issue of free creative labour, IP and \n4. The reasons why we went to university no longer apply.\n
- 1. arboreal to a rhizomatic model, centres that broadcast out to parts to parts, no longer about wholes, whether programs, experiences, or content. \n2. ‘quality’, of technologies (lighting, editing, performance, script, pick your attribute) are seen to matter much more but these are largely internally (tautologically) defined and to some extent only matter internally - to the industry. Up to a point. the issue is not whether these matter but to separate out quality of experience from technical fetishisation.\n3. anyone can make, and gifted amateurs freely distribute their work. Whole issue of free creative labour, IP and \n4. The reasons why we went to university no longer apply.\n
- 1. arboreal to a rhizomatic model, centres that broadcast out to parts to parts, no longer about wholes, whether programs, experiences, or content. \n2. ‘quality’, of technologies (lighting, editing, performance, script, pick your attribute) are seen to matter much more but these are largely internally (tautologically) defined and to some extent only matter internally - to the industry. Up to a point. the issue is not whether these matter but to separate out quality of experience from technical fetishisation.\n3. anyone can make, and gifted amateurs freely distribute their work. Whole issue of free creative labour, IP and \n4. The reasons why we went to university no longer apply.\n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- \n
- 1. media as ecology, broadcast versus network, curators/aggregators/farmers/navigators, versus content makers and consumers/audiences\n2. Daniel Bell, recognition of know how versus know what. but even heritage media is still in an industrial model, which it was not for Bell.\n3. reiterate that the original rationale for such programs is not very solid. So what is it? \n4. embrace exemplar of the studio - learn through doing, develop a language of critique, range of categories of making (sketch through to studio), development of network literacies, refuse the silo of the university, savvy consumption and creation versus...\n