Journal criticisms

Overall, each article makes a valid point on modern culture and the digital era we currently live in. As I have grown up in this world, being accustom to this technological culture, I haven’t realised the extent that previous generations have had to adjust.

Journal one criticism
My disagreement with the first article is that I don’t entirely believe that there is nothing new under the sun. I agree with the point made that technology and culture develop, but the internet and television are two mediums I think stand out in there own right. The author also argues that new media has the task of “mapping out new media audiences”. I don’t believe this is entirely true, as often, there aren’t new audiences, but new ideologies and audience expectations, so it is more a mapping out of new ways to appeal to an existing audience.

Journal two criticism
My disagreement with this article is that it claims that children and young people don’t learn through printed texts in this day and age. Yes this is partially true, but it makes out that young people ‘don’t’ learn this way, as opposed to ‘choosing’ not too. The journal implies that today’s generation has moved on from traditional methods of learning, which isn’t wrong, but I feel that culture has developed so this way of learning is one of many, as it is still used in schools and suchlike. It also highlights how older generations deem text talk, and communicating online as needless, whereas, although I think there is a time and a place for it, it is another way of expressing yourself, in a way I’m sure older generations did by keeping diaries etc.

Journal three criticism
My first criticism with this journal is simply that it only focuses on 16 girls for the research. I know it is qualitative, but I think to get suitable and concrete results, more opinions are people are needed. My other criticism is that the article contradicts itself over the issue of power. In an early section, I think girls have more power online than the journal gives credit for. I feel that girls are more likely to express themselves and use the power of sexuality online. Although the article goes on to say how girls do have power, it uses an example of how boys can “trick girls” into doing things online, implying boys have power online. But later on, it gives examples of how girls make digs at boys online and provoke them, suggesting girls have the power. So this makes it confusing and contradictory.

Journal four criticism
My disagreement with this journal is the divide it puts between each type of learning method. Obviously there are differences between each one, but I see them as being interlinked which this journal doesn’t seem to do. We have the ability to read a printed text, access it online, watch a serialisation on the TV and so on, so who is to say that there is a right and wrong way of doing it? This article and many others highlight the fact modern learning doesn’t involve as much print reading, but surely the fact we have different ways to learn suits everyone better, as opposed to losing our traditional forms?

Journal five criticism
My main disagreement with this article is that the author explains that the gap between teachers and students (natives and immigrants) is down to the teachers to address and narrow. I think part of this is down to the students, because if you want to learn in a certain way, it is surely up to you to instigate this as well. The author is implying that teachers should automatically know what way suits people best, but this is down to the student. And I don’t see anything wrong with students helping to teach the teachers new and innovative learning styles if it suits both parties. If students are able to pass their knowledge on, they would be benefitting themselves as well as others. This is something the journal fails to imply.