no television

Irina Rempt irina at
Wed Jul 23 15:39:29 EDT 2003

On Wednesday 23 July 2003 21:22, Robyn Starkey wrote:

> Speaking as someone who teaches people how to read and write, I would
> offer a more pedagogical and less cynical view of a curriculum which
> requires television and/or movies. That is, in an effort to make
> students media literate, it is nice to teach them how to read texts
> other than books. For the majority of students, who *do* watch at
> least some television, it can be a very valuable exercise to get them
> to analyse programs that they watch, to think about them critically.
> I always make my composition students do some work in watching and
> reading advertisements, to try to decode what the kinds of
> manipulations that advertisers use. I would argue that this kind of
> instruction is also important for students who don't regularly watch
> tv, because they may not be used to analysing in this particular
> mode, even if they are good critical readers of *books*.

Good theory, but not the case here; my best friend is a teacher at that 
school and she's been in on the policy discussions. If only it was that 
way. The students don't analyse programs; they have to watch, say, 2 
hours of non-subtitled English programmes for English comprehension. 
When I was in high school, we got two hours of non-subtitled English 
film and documentary as well, but that was in English class, not set as 


Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin.
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.          Latest: 11-May-2003

To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at

More information about the Dwj mailing list