Since we agree, let's agree together

My response to Hannah Stone's "Response to 'Scrutinizing the Cybersell" which was written in response to an article by Darren Crovitz 

Hannah and I have each posted individual responses to Crovitz's article. Now I would like to collaborate with Hannah. Is that possible? Is it still collaboration if Hannah isn't here with me? I am going to say yes since Hannah and I will no doubt discuss this.

I chose to respond to Hannah's post for a couple of reasons:

1. I love to read her stuff because she has a great sense of humor that I rather enjoy.
2. She is about 12 years younger than I am, so I look to her for a fresh perspective on things that more closely align with her generation than my own.
3. She is the only person who has posted something I actually have an opinion about which could actually benefit from linking our thoughts on the Cybersell article.

Now that we have established what is going on in this post, let's get to it.

In Hannah's post she mentions previous experience with interpreting media in the classroom, which I find interesting:

I have only had two classes assign an analysis of an advertisement; my American literature class in high school, and my intro to women’s studies class in college. I really enjoyed the assignment both times; I read a lot of magazines, and there are so many ads. Some catch my eye, and a lot of them are just ridiculous. I definitely consider myself to be a feminist, and I believe there is a lot that can be said about any ad from a feminist point-of-view.

First, I am so glad that there is someone else in the world my cohort who actually reads magazines. I was beginning to think I was the only one left. Second, she knows what a feminist point-of-view is. I know Hannah, so I know how smart she is. I don't doubt that she knows what a feminist point-of-view is, especially since she plans to teach soon. Third, she has actually used analysis on an advertisement. For a grade. Twice.


Since Hannah is accustomed to using technology in education because of her youth, I think Hannah is capable of taking what she knows about print media and applying it to digital media. Which is the opposite of what the Crovitz article is expecting. Does that mean that Hannah is just so awesomely awesome that we need to write an article in tribute to her? Well, of course! But that has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make. If Hannah is 10-ish years younger than I am, what can I expect of students who are 10-ish years younger than Hannah? Ms. Awesome (aka Hannah) would have been right out of high school when the Cybersell article came out. So it would stand to reason that Hannah was taught primarily with the old-school teaching style that used technology as a tool in the classroom rather than the focal point of a lesson.

Ms. Awesome makes a point which I similarly addressed. Here is her thought:

Using advertisements in the classroom as a teaching tool is a great idea because it gets students to practice writing, as well as overall communication; they can be descriptive, persuasive, argumentative, analytical, view the ad from various lenses, etc. Much like writing an analytical paper about a novel, writing about an ad requires the student to make an argument about what they see; ads are also subjective, so one person may believe one point is being made while another student thinks the ad is saying something completely different. As long as everyone can argue his or her point effectively, everyone is right.

Here is what I said in my post: 

Here's the down low: take some time to "analyze" some of the websites that are marketed to your students with your students. Who cares if you are critically analyzing The Scarlett Letter or Slim Jim. When students visit any website, they are critical without always realizing it. If the site doesn't engage them, they move on. As educators, why don't we teach them why they feel that way? Why don't we try to make the critical thinkers instead of mindless followers? If we can use websites that students frequent to teach them about literary tools, why aren't we doing it? If we can teach students to see cross-marketing campaigns in the same way we used to teach students to find multiple meanings in a book, doesn't that count as critical analysis? We have to start somewhere. So why not start with the cybersell? That is two areas at which all teens excel: on the Internet and in their consumerism.

My point? We both agree that getting students to think is more important than what they think about. That is obviously an over-simplification of these thoughts, but you get the point. When we relate all of this back to the Cybersell article, I think Crovitz can take his article a step further. We could use virtually ANY medium to get students to analyze "text."

I think the take away from Hannah, Crovitz and any other person advocating critical thinking in schools is this: as educators we have to be open to what we consider a text and accept that critical analysis has to start somewhere.


Oh, Hannah: I am not the kind of person to sign up for a user account with Doritos, but I do had a user account at Starbucks!!!