Page 11 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 11 of 215 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
6
a number of problems, particularly for students in special education.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), authorized in 2001 and put into
effect July 1, 2002,6 dictates school accountability by measuring “Adequate Yearly
Progress” (AYP), based in large part on high-stakes, standardized tests.7 NCLB was
enacted in an effort to address inequality in education by implementing standards for
curricula and instruction, thus “close[ing] the achievement gap and mak[ing] sure all
students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency.”8
Despite its articulated goals related to achieving equity in education, the Act has
been criticized as idealistic and as having the paradoxical effect of contributing to
greater inequality in schools by penalizing already-struggling schools, which are
often schools with large and diverse student bodies.
Standardized methods of assessment become particularly problematic in
relation to special education students. Most special education students technically
are required to meet AYP targets and proficiency standards by 2014, although there
are a few accommodations allowed (e.g. modified achievement standards). However,
subjecting special education students to standardized assessments is in conflict with
the tenets of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),9 which
“…requires students with disabilities to be educated in accordance with individual
education plans that set academic goals in accordance with their particular schooling
needs and capabilities.”10
In the classes I observed at CMS, the students took the standardized tests
required by NCLB, but their scores were not necessarily included in the school’s
Object Description
| Title | Kids as cultural producers: consumption, literacy, and participation |
| Author | Stephenson, Rebecca Herr |
| Author email | rherr@usc.edu; bhs@hri.uci.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Communication |
| School | Annenberg School for Communication |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-25 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-17 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Banet-Weiser, Sarah |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Gross, Larry Seiter, Ellen |
| Abstract | This dissertation looks closely at the practice of digital media production within a group of special education students and their teachers. Using ethnographic methods of extended participant observation and semi-structured interviews with students, teachers, and parents, along with textual analysis of students' media projects, this work examines the types of learning that emerge from making media at school and the ways in which that learning relates to media and technology use in everyday life. Over the course of one school year (2005-2006), the students who are the focus of this dissertation undertook eight different multimedia production projects, ranging from designing PowerPoint presentations to digital video production and stop-motion animation. Through media production, the students found opportunities to practice traditional and digital literacy skills as well as to explore issues of identity and self-expression.; This dissertation provides empirical support for recommendations made by several media literacy scholars to include media production as part of critical media literacy curricula and contributes a unique case study -- one situated in special education -- to a growing body of work on digital literacy. Three interdisciplinary themes--consumption, literacy, and participation -- are used to organize the description and analysis of the students' media production activities. These themes connect the specific production that took place in the classroom to larger discourses about youth, media, technology, education, and access, working to complicate existing constructions of young people as either helpless victims of manipulative media or naturally savvy media and technology users. Instead, this research emphasizes that the relationships kids have with media and technology are complex, dynamic, intrinsically linked to their identities as consumers and participants in society. Media literacy is thus theorized as a tool for understanding and controlling consumption, participation, and the construction of young people as both current and future citizens. |
| Keyword | media literacy; media production; special education; middle school; digital media |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Los Angeles |
| Coverage date | 2005/2006 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1674 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Stephenson, Rebecca Herr |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Stephenson-2393 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume29/etd-Stephenson-2393.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 11 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 6 a number of problems, particularly for students in special education. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), authorized in 2001 and put into effect July 1, 2002,6 dictates school accountability by measuring “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP), based in large part on high-stakes, standardized tests.7 NCLB was enacted in an effort to address inequality in education by implementing standards for curricula and instruction, thus “close[ing] the achievement gap and mak[ing] sure all students, including those who are disadvantaged, achieve academic proficiency.”8 Despite its articulated goals related to achieving equity in education, the Act has been criticized as idealistic and as having the paradoxical effect of contributing to greater inequality in schools by penalizing already-struggling schools, which are often schools with large and diverse student bodies. Standardized methods of assessment become particularly problematic in relation to special education students. Most special education students technically are required to meet AYP targets and proficiency standards by 2014, although there are a few accommodations allowed (e.g. modified achievement standards). However, subjecting special education students to standardized assessments is in conflict with the tenets of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),9 which “…requires students with disabilities to be educated in accordance with individual education plans that set academic goals in accordance with their particular schooling needs and capabilities.”10 In the classes I observed at CMS, the students took the standardized tests required by NCLB, but their scores were not necessarily included in the school’s |
