jmle.org

Gianna Cappello

Dipartimento di Studi su Diritto, Politica e Società, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Italy

Damiano Felini

Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione e del Territorio, Università degli Studi di Parma, Italy

Renee Hobbs [1]

Department of Broadcasting, Telecommunications and Mass Media, Temple University, Philadelphia PA, USA

The field of media literacy education is maturing, as evidenced by the quality of presentations of research and practice shared at the 2010 World Summit on Children and Media in Karlstad.  In this article, we offer our reflections on the opportunities and challenges faced by media literacy educators as we build our global community network, develop a shared theoretical framework that transcends culture and nationality, and return to consider foundational questions about the relationship between power and agency as new visions of digital literacy emerge as educators and creative media professionals explore the new capacities and limitations of the Internet and social media.

One of the most influential and well-known theories on the development of science is that of Thomas S. Kuhn about the structure of scientific revolutions (1962, 1996), who proposes that science does not develop in a linear way, with a step-by-step accumulation of knowledge, but instead, it is a process of continuous revolutions during which one new powerful set of ideas replaces previously accepted ideas. This process is conceptualized as a linear sequence, beginning with a period of consolidation of a paradigm, followed by work conducted as normal science, a period of time during which all the efforts of the scientific community are inside the paradigm. At some point, there comes extraordinary science, a period of time when doubts are raised about the strength of the paradigm. This is followed by a paradigm shift, called a scientific revolution by Kuhn, where the old paradigm is replaced by a new one.

Could the field of media literacy education be entering a period of normal science? The editors of this special joint issue wondered about this possibility after participating in the 2010 World Summit on Children and Media, held in Karlstad, June 14 -17, 2010. The articles included in this special joint issue, a collaborative effort developed by the editors of the Journal of Media Literacy Education (USA) and Media Education: studi, ricerche, buone pratiche (ITALY), offer some evidence that we have reached a phase of generalized agreement upon the definitions, aims and even the core instructional practices of media literacy education, even as this work occurs in a wide variety of settings, including in formal education and in tertiary contexts, and involves stakeholders who share their work on the broad range of issues that align with children, youth, media, and technology. In fact, at the Karlstad World Summit, the depth of focus on media literacy education was due in part to the diversity of participants. Medical professionals, children’s media producers, university scholars, leaders of NGOs, and students came from all the continents to share experiences and learn from each other. In this article, we offer our reflections on the opportunities and challenges faced by media literacy educators as we build our global community network, develop a shared theoretical framework that transcends culture and nationality, and return to consider foundational questions about the relationship between power and agency as new visions of digital literacy emerge as educators and creative media professionals explore the new capacities and limitations of the Internet and social media.

A Global Community Network for Media Literacy Education

Because of important differences in regional, national, and cultural values as well as the institutional systems and regulatory structures of both media industries and education systems, it’s difficult to make generalizations about how various cultural priorities are shaping individual and collaborative actions when it comes to media literacy education. However, participants of the Karlstad conference demonstrated considerable respect for both critical analysis and media production as the centerpost methodologies of practice. Other common themes inflected the work of educators and scholars, among them the power of youth voice as a means of social change, the process of recognizing and resisting demeaning patterns of representation that limit and trivialize the human condition, and the evolution of the dynamic tension between protection and empowerment perspectives in relation to children, youth, media, and society. For many at Karlstad, the rise of the Internet and social media was a key topic of interest as was the institutionalization of youth marketing, the role of active audience theory and digital technology in relationship media literacy, the development of news and current events programming for children and teens, the role of media literacy in supporting practices of democratic citizenship, and strategies for managing the diminishing fiscal and material resources available for children’s media.

Whether working inside or outside systems of institutional power, participants of the Karlstad conference revealed both the value of institutional collaboration and the efficacy of the individual researcher, teacher, media professional, or advocate. However, because media literacy attracts this wide range of stakeholders, the production of new knowledge in the field was not limited to the work of academic scholars. At Karlstad, teachers, administrators, media professionals, and advocates shared their experiences in ways that contributed to new knowledge in the field. Case studies of classroom practice, descriptions of new programs and initiatives, and reports of empirical research provided opportunities for discussion.

In cooperation with NORDICOM and The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, four Research Forums were held during the World Summit. In a refreshing sign of the maturing of the field, there was very little in the way of inflated promotional language and overbroad generalizations about the transformative power of media literacy education at these sessions. In nearly every case, the strengths and limitations of particular projects and research were emphasized. Key characteristics of this work included theoretical framing, careful description of practices or clarity in identifying outcome measures, and precision and integrity in reporting program results, impacts, and consequences. Epistemological values were demonstrated as practitioners’ voices were respected and seen as deserving of power, with little of the hierarchical gamesmanship that can sometimes position theory as superior to practice. At a number of sessions, new knowledge emerged from the inquiry process after the formal presentation was concluded. In a variety of question-and-answer sessions, presenters were encouraged to reflect on their work and members of audience engaged in spirited discussion about particular topics relevant to the design, implementation, and assessment of media literacy programs and initiatives. In informal gatherings hosted by Per Lundgren, Ulla Carlsson, and our Scandinavian colleagues, we had additional opportunities to share ideas and better understand the social, political, and cultural contexts in which we work and live. At the World Summit, scholars and advocates described a variety of small innovative projects, but displayed frustration with the challenge of finding funding to support large-scale research initiatives and the publicity needed to mobilize communities. At the same time, leaders of NGOs described feeling marginalized by government while government officials described the limitations of their power in relation to regulatory solutions to address the implementation of media literacy in the home and school.

The Emergence of a Shared Theoretical Framework

Besides the establishment of a global community network for media literacy education, another sign of what we could say a “normal science period” in our field is the emergence of a globally shared theoretical framework.

Media literacy education is rooted in the work of early 20^th century educational scholars. The practice of cultivating critical thinking among audiences about their everyday exposure to mass media, news, and popular culture has been theoretically significant in the works of intellectuals such as Dewey (1916, 1927), Freinet (1946), Laporta (1957), Gerbner (1959, 1963a, 1963b), Hall and Whannel (1964), Eco (1964), McLuhan (1964), Horkheimer and Adorno (1969), Althusser (1970), Freire (1971), Baacke (1973), Porcher (1974), Postman (1979), and so on. However, what we should note is that both scholars and practitioners did not have a common set of theories, as they were fractionalized among different theoretical roots and disciplinary perspectives: Marxian and neo-Marxian sociology of culture, activism in education, history of communication and culture, critical pedagogy, educational theory, empiricism, etc.

The new millennium has increased consciousness of the public’s role in a mediated society, and with the complicity of political, cultural, and educational organizations and the increased ease of international exchange, a shared theoretical framework for the current paradigm is emerging. In order to summarize the main principles underlying the contemporary media literacy education theory and practice, we identify four main points.

First of all, a more coherent perception of media technology as a dimension of the social environment is a good sign of development in the media literacy education field. Now, we share a less adversarial understanding of the media because we have moved beyond two different powerful but limiting conceptions from early theories of communication. On one hand, we have recovered from the mechanistic idea of the bullet theory (Lasswell 1927) that made us see media as powerful tools that enter our minds to automatically produce bad effects (such as giving us corrupt values or violent behaviors), and damage cognitive skills. On the other hand, we also got over the Marxian idea of the media system as a superstructure aimed at creating and imposing role models, needs, and outlooks to the lower class in order for capitalists to maintain economic control; this conception made us think that “mass”-media limit freedom and social justice and that people had to combat them. Because of these theories, we had— and still have sometimes— a censorial approach aimed at protecting children from the media influence (insisting on TV and internet rating systems, V-chip, parental control software, etc.), and the so-called “inoculation approach” of media education (Halloran and Jones 1992).

Today, we have gained a balance between protection and empowerment approaches to media literacy education. We recognize that children and youth need to understand the media to discern and use visual and interactive languages as well as the alphabetical ones, to develop critical thinking skills on media representation of world and on mediated interactions, to communicate ideas in different formats, and to be responsible for what they do with technology as users and communicators themselves. In one word, we all agree that people and communities really grow up in the media environment in which participatory cultures shape the set of skills and competencies that we need.

Despite the different words we use to name our field (e.g. media education, media literacy, digital literacy, media literacy education, etc.), a second common ground of the current paradigm is the concept of expanded literacy (Felini 2008; Hobbs 2006). We observed in the past two or three decades the progressive shift from a notion of literacy as strictly related to alphabetic and written texts to another notion related to all kind of texts, considered from a communicative point of view; in this way, the unifying elements of our concern are that of audience, authorship, message, meaning, representation, language, etc. This move— made possible by linguistics and semiotics (e.g. Barthes 1957; Eco 1975)— is not just a different approach in media studies: it was a strategy we used to make media literacy education land in a variety of school and educational settings. In fact, the political accent we put in the ’60s and ’70s on critical thinking and on mass media ideology made the admission of media literacy education into school very difficult because many people perceived those goals as unrelated to the duties of school systems. On the contrary, teaching literacy has always been considered one of the primary tasks for educators, and if media are embedded deeply in the concept of literacy, nobody can quarrel if someone teaches about the languages, technologies, and representational systems of the media at school. However, in this way, some of the critical perspective and political power of media education was lost. The critical and revolutionary strength of these ideas was perhaps bartered in order to deepen the reach of media literacy education into existing social institutions. This is another way to conceptualize what “normal science” means in our area nowadays.

In many countries of the world, the school’s and educational center’s gates are now flung wide open to embrace educational technology and its vision of a tool-oriented digital literacy. Governments and private organizations allocate plenty of funding for computing equipment and providing broadband access, defining the new skills we need as the ability to use a keyboard and a mouse for word processing documents and creating spreadsheets, accessing the Internet to find information, and using social media to share ideas. The third common belief we share as media literacy education scholars and practitioners is dissatisfaction with a narrow conceptualization of digital literacy. The conceptual separation between “old” media literacy and “new” digital literacy, which is sometimes trumpeted by scholars for rhetorical emphasis, is based in superficial arguments about children as “digital natives.” Children and teens are able by themselves to use PCs or smartphones, but they often need an adult’s help in developing second-level media skills: for example, in acquiring a reflective stance toward one’s own habits and choices regarding the use of media and technology, in critically understanding a message’s form and content, interacting with people in respectful and responsible ways, using different symbol systems to express their own ideas, etc.

Finally, we could shift to an epistemological or meta-theoretical point of view to observe the constitution of media literacy education as a discipline. Born at the crossroad of several scientific approaches, media literacy education is now an interdisciplinary field where sociology, education, media studies, and psychology meet, sharing conceptual frameworks, vocabulary, and research methods. This meeting is not easy because of some misunderstandings that can occur, but we are learning to take anyone’s best work: we have received a clearer understanding of media literacy education goals and practices from scholars in education and incorporated the linguistic structure of media messages from the field of semiotics. We have benefitted from understanding the media industry and the characteristics of old and new media from communication studies, and drawn from studies of children and youth culture from the field of sociology. The intelligent mix of these contributions and disciplinary points of view is the shared knowledge that media literacy education scholars and practitioners need, use, develop, and continuously improve.

A Return to Foundational Questions

Media literacy education seems now mature enough to have its own set of theories and methods, its own tradition of research and practices, and more recently, thanks also to the advent of digital literacy, its own legitimate presence in both informal and formal institutional contexts of education. The 2010 World Summit in Karlstad made this maturity quite visible. After years of disputes about definitions, traditions, disciplinary boundaries, priorities, it was indeed refreshing to see so many researchers, practitioners, educators, and teachers somehow convene on the fundamental interdisciplinary nature of the movement as a source of great strength as well as the shared theoretical framework for the current paradigm. Yet, we need to be aware that this paradigmatic settlement may bring forth— as it is often the case with the disciplining of a field— a risk of de-politicizing and under-theorizing media literacy education. This may lead to uncritical celebration of consumer sovereignty as well as a proliferation of policy agendas on digital skills as ready-made expertise for the job market, all offered in exchange for the legitimation of media literacy education within institutional settings (schools in primis).

Precisely at the very moment when the field seems to be reaching its status as a normal science, we need to hold tight to a notion of media literacy education as a force for strengthening civic imagination and expanding democratic life in the mediated public sphere (Thompson 1995). As such, it may effectively counteract the current consumerist, instrumentalist, and administrative ideologies, hooked on a language claiming the cost-effectiveness of digital assessments of students’ and teachers’ performance, a language that downsizes schools to mere factories to train a digitally-skilled work force and commodifies knowledge behind a pseudo-progressive discourse of student-centeredness and creativity, of digital empowerment, job standardization, professionalization, and meritocracy.  Of the many developments in recent educational and media research that may lead to this depoliticization/undertheorization of media literacy education, two are particularly significant here: the discovery of the “active” audience and the rapid expansion of digital media in educational contexts.

Neither passive, nor active. Media literacy educators have long since abandoned the notion of a passive child audience in favour of a more active one based on three evidence-based facts: (1) children’s decoding of media texts is quite complex, diversified, and subjective; (2) they need to be listened to in their own terms rather than judged for their inability to use or understand the media in appropriately adult ways; (3) children’s uses of the media must be situated within the broader context of their own family, social, and interpersonal relationships. Despite the important positive consequences of this notion on the work of media literacy educators, it has also quite problematic aspects (Buckingham 2000). To argue that children are active meaning-makers does not necessarily imply that the media cannot influence them! Although they do know a lot about the media, there still remain many areas they need to know more about. Similarly, the idea that we should try to make sense of children’s media experiences in their own terms (adopting an ethnographic approach rather than simply rely on social statistics) can lead media literacy educators to a romantic view of children’s experience based on the naïve assumption that they are an authentic and transparent source of meaning and creativity. According to this view, the analyst/teacher/educator just needs to give them a voice and let them “freely” express themselves, either verbally or through self-made media productions.

In fact, we should transcend the mere phenomenological level of expressive behavior and connect it with the broader macro-social context. There is a real need to pay attention to the social context of childhood and adolescence in relation to media experience: once again, this attention is often superficially developed in terms of empirical and theoretical research, resting on the mere level of description with no capacity nor will to explain how context actually affects children’s media experience. [2]

Beyond techno-utopianism. As for the rapid expansion of digital media in educational contexts, by re-invigorating the political and theoretical vein of media literacy education we can better find ways to criticize the techno-utopist drift inspiring it. The current formulation of digital literacy explicitly brackets out the historical dimension of digital innovation by abstractly identifying it with social change and modernization, glossing over the conditions, the conjunctures and the interests that have led to certain innovations rather than others. Educators, policy makers, media executives and the like do not seem interested in recognizing that in fact in the age of informationalism (Castells 2001), the crucial factor is no longer information per se (nor the mere access to it), but rather the intellectual capacity to select and process it. Adopting a vocational and instrumental vulgate of the concept of digital citizenship (according to which the priority is to “supply” students with the technical skills to succeed in the job market and access the goods and services offered by the state/market), some thought leaders tend to celebrate digital media as thaumaturgical tools for improving education. Yet, as Castells quite convincingly reminds us, “for all the ideology of the potential of new communication technologies in education, health, and cultural enhancement, the prevailing strategy aims at developing a giant electronic entertainment system, considered the safest investment from a business perspective. Thus, while governments and futurologists speak of wiring classrooms, doing surgery at a distance, and tele-consulting the Encyclopedia Britannica, most of the actual construction of the new systems focuses on “video-on-demand”, tele-gambling, and virtual reality theme parks” (Castells 2001, 318).

In both cases— the celebration of the “active” audience and the techno-utopist promises of digital media— the historical determinants and the political/economic context affecting media usage and development are completely bracketed out. This may ultimately contribute to a schism between theory and practice, between the macro-level (media as social institutions structuring social action) and the micro-level (media as material and symbolic resources to be used in everyday life and in the classroom). Therefore, media literacy educators must examine these questions: How do we reconnect the macro with the micro? How do we take full advantage of the digital media’s potential for education without thinking that it is simply a question of having a material access to technology, of cabling all schools and giving each student a laptop? How do we make students interact more (self-) reflexively with media, learning to acquire, select, process, and create information on their own, generating critical knowledge, playing an active and poetic role in the construction of reality, triggering a self-reflexive process of social inclusion and cohesion? How do we hold tight to a critical media literacy education (in the Frankfurtian sense) without falling into the traps of economic and ideological reductionism?  We propose three interconnected directions should be followed:

Continue to emphasize critical reading of the media but always in connection with the students’ lived media experience. In the critical media literacy education classroom the realm of self-reflection about one’s own media use habits and popular culture tastes, together with media production experiences (where students’ can live out practically their subjective experience) must be inextricably interwoven with a theoretical understanding of media as cultural-social-economic institutions. This integration bridges the distance between students’ experience and more abstract ideas, offering them a means of exploring media as machineries of power that simultaneously operate at the level of production— as material and ideological apparata that create cultural commodities under certain contextual conditions— and at the level of consumption— as social catalysers that trigger processes of collective interaction and active subjectivity within diversified lived experiences. Students need to engage media representations (and the social practices they originate in their everyday life) as discourses (i.e. textual constructions embodied in and circulated by non discursive material forces, as Foucault would say) that set the boundaries of how people behave and see themselves/reality/others. While going back to the traditional “demystifying” principle of media literacy education, we definitely need to integrate it with a subtler look at how these discourses are mobilized in everyday life. If media literacy education is to make a real difference to students’ eyes, it needs to establish a strong connection between critical analysis and those media practices where they mostly commit their passion and energy. Indeed, learning has to be meaningful to students in their own terms before it can become critical. Therefore, their media use habits, taste preferences, and lived experiences do become a legitimate object of interest in the media literacy education classroom, yet they must be also critically interrogated (not stigmatized) and used as a resource to make sense of broader modes of knowledge and social structuring. To put it shortly, when media lived experiences are evoked in the media literacy education classroom, we take “a detour through theory” (as Marx would say) and insert them within a process of self-reflection and critique in order for them to become an effective transformative pedagogical resource.

Bring pleasure into the classroom and develop a practice of affective reflexivity. By inserting media lived experience as a legitimate object of study, media literacy educators ultimately address the complex intersection between ideology, pleasure, and sociality, knowing in advance that in fact youth’s everyday engagement with the media is first and foremost defined (if not determined) by affective and socializing investments, apart from (and quite often despite) meaning. Most of the time, media consumption activities are deeply connecting to the pursuit of hobbies and sports, chatting and instant messaging friends, playing games, e-shopping and downloading pop music and movies, as well as enthusiasm for soap operas, reality television shows, pop music celebrities, etc. The recognition of pleasure as an important interpretative category for social action reverses a long-long standing assumption in modern epistemologies based on the Cartesian mind/body split, according to which the production/consumption of culture necessarily and exclusively implies a process of ideological signification and interpretation. We now have come to recognize that media popularity does not lie in its ideological effects, but mostly in the consumerist production of pleasure. As Silverstone (1999) suggests, pleasure is a central dimension in media consumption: the non-rational, the bodily, the erotic, profusely offered by the media, provides an important arena where the boundaries and tensions between seriousness and play, fiction and reality, social roles and subjectivities may be blurred, if only temporarily. Yet, pleasure is also inextricably connected with access, social control, and power. As such, it is both self-determined and “manufactured.” That helps to explain why individuals engage in contradictory activities, appearing to consent to dominant practices while at the same time resisting them— more or less consciously and radically— through appropriating/negotiating/subverting tactics (in de Certeau’s sense) so that they can better cope with their everyday life’s desires, contradictions, frustrations, and problems.

The recognition of pleasure as an important interpretative category for social action reverberates into the educational field contributing to the questioning of the supremacy of the rational dimension of learning (based on logical reasoning) and the parallel confinement of its affective dimension (based on play, pleasure, and the body) to the early years of schooling, to certain disciplines (art, music, or physical education), to the minutes of recess time, to laboratory activities. By integrating critical analysis and lived media experience through practical work in the classroom, students can investigate the affective/pleasurable side of their media consumption and at the same time learn how to question it.

If critical analysis taken in isolation amounts to mere academicism, practical activity taken in isolation may result in a mere self-referential, subjective play, i.e. a kind of unproblematic creativity emanating from an “authentic” self who finds “free” expression in classroom media productions. This idealist/individualist notion of creativity is as influential as it is problematic, especially in educational settings, since it implies and evokes an innate talent that people possess by birth and that cannot be socialized, taught and learnt, analysed, assessed, or evaluated. Developing a practice of affective reflexivity in the classroom (Cappello 2009) means to question this notion by engaging students’ media experience as a legitimate source of pleasure and subjective empowerment, while also learning how it is inevitably “manufactured” by certain discourses and conditions of possibility. Moreover, students can have the chance to experience the social dimension of creativity since they must learn to work in team, share and negotiate hypothesis, choices and solutions, imagine and arrange settings, plots, dialogues, and characters.

Empower the media literacy educator as a scaffolder of learning. What is the role of the media literacy educator throughout this process? In a way s/he must learn to step back and cede to students part of her/his authority and control, both because they frequently have far larger technical skills and also because affective reflexivity is precisely about students experiencing in their own terms critical thinking and creativity. Although this may appear as a form of relinquishing authority, it is in fact a way to radically redefine it, concentrating on its mediating scaffolding function. Crucially, it is still up to teachers to orchestrate classroom activities so that students have equal opportunities (both material and cognitive) to access technology. It is still their task to help them set their own targets, resolve disputes, allocate and manage responsibilities and resources, conduct an effective intra and inter-group communication, work within the deadlines, etc. But most of all, it is still up to teachers to integrate production/practical work with the broader pedagogical and critical questions the activity is intended to explore (again, bridging the micro and the macro). While “having fun” with authoring their own productions, students are encouraged to distance themselves from them, to evaluate them critically, to reflect upon their consequences. As such, they will ultimately develop meta-cognitive self-reflection and a systematic capacity to read the media, write (with) the media, and also the ability to meta-reflect on the processes of reading and writing per se in order to understand and analyse their own experience as readers and writers. As a consequence, students build a more self-reflexive attitude towards their own media preferences, to understand more critically how the media products and practices they so passionately invest in are in fact the result of complex economic, social, and cultural processes that resonate in their daily lives defining and organizing them in a certain manner. That is, ultimately, what (media literacy) education is all about: students reaching their own conclusions on a certain issue by going through a process of deconstruction/ reconstruction of knowledge, learning and social action, a process constantly and thoughtfully scaffolded by the crucial, authoritative (never authoritarian), intervention of the teacher in the classroom so that they learn to situate their media experiences within wider social and cultural contexts.

Conclusion

Today, scholarship and practice in media literacy education is developing signs of “normality” in both the Kuhnian sense of the word as well as in the increasingly global communication environment that is helping advance the field of media literacy education internationally. The world community of media literacy scholars and practitioners is discovering its fundamental global and interdisciplinary nature as a source of great strength. At Karlstad, there was evidence of deep appreciation of diverse approaches to media literacy education and multiple epistemologies for advancing new knowledge in the field. We’re grateful to the conference organizers and our Scandinavian hosts for helping to advance the field through productive conferences like the World Summit on Children and Media in Karlstad. The papers in the special joint issue reflect the diversity of research paradigms and methods now emerging globally, as scientific communities from a variety of disciplines contribute to a robust dialogue. As we can see with the contributors to this volume, when the case study method is used with integrity, it supports the development of reflective practitioners as well as creating new knowledge about best practices. We are particularly impressed with the quality of work coming from the next generation— the newest crop of young scholars who bring important fresh perspectives to the work and who do not feel bounded by the disciplinary or institutional divides that the older generation upholds. In this volume, we see new forms of inquiry under development by new scholars and practitioners. As demonstrated by this first-ever joint special issue, we anticipate that increased opportunities for cross-national sharing among media literacy educators and scholars will continue to advance the field in the years ahead.

References

Althusser L. 1970. “Idéologie et appareils idéologiques d’Etat”. Le Pensée 151: 3-38.

Baake D. 1973. Kommunikation und Kompetenz. München, Germany: Juventa Verlag.

Barthes R. 1957. Mythologies. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.

Buckingham D. 2000. After the Death of Childhood. Growing up in the Age of Electronic Media. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Cappello G. 2009. Nascosti nella luce. Media, minori e media education. Milan: Franco Angeli.

Castells M. 2001. The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dewey J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: MacMillan.

———. 1927. The Public and its Problems. New York: Holt.

Eco U. 1964. Apocalittici e integrati. Milan: Bompiani.

———. 1975. Trattato di semiotica generale. Milan: Bompiani.

Felini D. 2008. “Crossing the Bridge: Literacy between School Education and Contemporary Cultures.” In Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the Communicative and Visual Arts vol. 2, edited by J. Flood, S. Brice Heath and D. Lapp, 19-26.  New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Freinet C. 1946. L’école moderne française. Gap, France: Ophrys.

Freire P. 1971. Pedagogia do oprimido. Rio de Janeiro : Paz Terra.

Gerbner G. 1959. “Education and the Challenge of Mass Culture”. Audio-Visual Communication Review 7: 264-278. http://www.asc.upenn.edu/gerbner/archive.aspx?sectionID=39&packageID=167.

Gerbner G. 1963a. “Smaller Than Life: Teachers and Schools in the Mass Media”. Phi Delta Kappan 44: 202-205. http://www.asc.upenn.edu/gerbner/archive.aspx?sectionID=39&packageID=12.

———. 1963b. “A Theory of Communication and its Implications For Teaching.” In The Nature of Teaching, University of Wisconsin – School of Education, Milwaukee, 1-15. http://www.asc.upenn.edu/gerbner/archive.aspx?sectionID=39&packageID=12.

Hall S., and P. Whannel. 1964. The Popular Arts. London: Hutchinson.

Halloran J.D., and M. Jones. 1992. “The Inoculation Approach.” In Media Education: An Introduction, edited by  M. Alvarado and O. Boyd Barret, 10-13. London: British Film Institute.

Hobbs, R. 2006. “Multiple Visions of Multimedia Literacy: Emerging Areas of Synthesis.”  In Handbook of Literacy and Technology, edited by Michael McKenna, Linda Labbo, Ron Kieffer and David Reinking, 15 – 28. International Reading Association. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Horkheimer and Adorno. 1969. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Frankfurt, Germany: Fischer Verlag.

Kuhn T.S. 1962, 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laporta R. 1957. Cinema ed Età Evolutiva. Florence: La Nuova Italia.

Lasswell H.D. 1927. Propaganda Technique in the World War. Paul, Trench & Trubner New York: Knopf.

McLuhan M. 1964. Understanding Media. New York: McGraw Hill.

Porcher L. 1974. L’éducation Parallèle. Paris: Larousse.

Postman N. 1979. Teaching as a Conserving Activity. New York: Delacorte.

Silverstone R. 1999. Why Study the Media? London: Sage.

Thompson J.B. 1995. The Media and Modernity. A Social Theory of the Media. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

---

[1] The Authors discussed and agreed together on the structure and the content of the article. However, section 1 was written by Renee Hobbs, section 2 by Damiano Felini, and section 3 by Gianna Cappello.

[2] An interesting exception is the extensive and well-designed research study currently being conducted by Sonia Livingstone and Leslie Hadden on European children’s uses of the internet both in terms of risks and opportunities [for details and downloads see www.eukidsonline.it].

Michael Dezuanni & Prue Miles
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, AUSTRALIA

The 5^th World Summit on Media for Children and Youth held in Karlstad, Sweden in June 2010 provided a unique media literacy experience for approximately thirty young people from diverse backgrounds through participation in the Global Youth Media Council. This article focuses on the Summit’s aim to give young people a ‘voice’ through intercultural dialogue about media reform. The accounts of four young Australians are discussed in order to consider how successful the Summit was in achieving this goal. The article concludes by making recommendations for future international media literacy conferences involving young people. It also advocates for the expansion of the Global Youth Media Council concept as a grass roots movement to involve more young people in discussions about media reform.

Introduction

The 5^th World Summit on Media for Children and Youth held in Karlstad, Sweden in June 2010 provided a unique media literacy experience for approximately thirty young people from diverse backgrounds through participation in the Global Youth Media Council (GYMC). The council aimed to provide its young participants with an opportunity to present their views on global media and youth in the early 21^st century. The GYMC brought together youth from approximately twenty countries, including Sweden, Angola, Australia, Bolivia, Germany, Qatar, the USA, and the UK. These represented a range of economically rich and poor countries and included female and male students aged from about fourteen to twenty one. Rarely has a group like this gathered to discuss the impact of media on young people’s lives. The GYMC ran in parallel with the main World Summit sessions, and culminated with a fifteen-minute presentation of recommendations to the Summit delegates during the closing ceremony.

This article discusses the GYMC as a unique media literacy experience and discusses the types of media learning it enabled. It focuses on the Summit’s aim to give young people a ‘voice’ and an opportunity to experience international and intercultural dialogue about media reform. In particular, the article considers the concepts of voice and identity and the extent to which the Summit successfully allowed young people’s ideas to be heard. It explores these ideas by focussing closely on the experiences of the young Australians involved in GYMC. The article concludes by making recommendations for improvements at future international conferences in which young people are involved in discussions about global media.

Australian Youth Council on Mass Media

The Australian Youth Council on Mass Media was formed in response to a request from the Swedish organisers the 5^th World Summit on Media for Children and Youth for media education organizations in different parts of the world to involve young people in local dialogues about global media. In response, the Queensland chapter of Australian Teachers of Media conducted a competition inviting students to video tape a two-minute ‘piece to camera’ discussing what they believed to be the most important issues facing young people and their experiences of the media. Entries were received from around Australia and six young people were chosen to travel to Brisbane to take part in a two-day workshop held during a media teachers’ conference in May 2009. At this workshop, the students worked in teams to produce two “One minute wonder” videos (See Figure 1) [hyperlink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbSE1rAU5Dc] commenting on the relationship between young people and media. At the end of the second day, the students were required to screen their videos and take part in a question and answer session with teachers during the final session of the conference.

Figure 1: One minute wonder produced by students from the Australian Youth Council on Mass Media

The production of these videos [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixwjw7CIGB8] provided the students with an opportunity to work together to discuss the issues they believed to be central to the relationship between young people and media and to use the short video form to express these ideas to an adult audience. In this sense, the students entered a dialogue with each other and with a broader audience about the media. As Goodman has argued, media production is an important means of engaging young people in dialogue about media (Goodman and Greene 2003). Each of the videos focused on the ways in which the media tend to construct problematic, negative, or marginalising representations of young people. It is worth noting that prior to these two workshop days, these six students had not previously met and had to undertake quite a bit of negotiation to develop their ideas. The dialogue about their ideas was extended when the videos were screened to teachers at the conference and the students were required to answer questions about content of the videos.

After this experience, the students were invited to take part in the trip to Sweden to be part of the Global Youth Media Council. Four students accepted this invitation and began to take part in online conversations via a Facebook group with the members of other youth media councils from around the world. This involved responding to a series of questions about national media posted by members of Sweden’s youth media council. Less formal conversations between members of the youth councils also began as individuals ‘friended’ each other in the social networking space. At the local level, the Australian students were required to undertake fundraising activities in their school communities to pay for their international flights and accommodation in Sweden. The students also received generous sponsorship from a local film distribution company and a charitable trust with an interest in international educational experiences for young people.

The Global Youth Media Council

The Global Youth Media Council took place in parallel to the main program at the 5^th World Summit on Media for Children and Youth. While media educators, teachers, policy makers and industry representatives met for a series of keynote presentations and discussions, the 30 members of the Youth Council met each afternoon as a small group to discuss and respond to issues relating to young people and global media. During the mornings, members of the Youth Council took part in the main Summit sessions, attending keynote presentations and practical production workshops. In addition, the Australian youth delegates wrote a series of articles based on interviews with the keynote speakers, which were then published in the summit newsletter and posted online. Each afternoon, the Youth Council met to develop a series of recommendations to be presented during the Summit’s closing ceremony, which took the form of both statements and as a series of short media productions. These sessions were facilitated by a youth advocacy specialist from the United Kingdom assisted by several members of the UK Youth Council.

The first three days of the Youth Council workshops consisted of a series of organised activities to facilitate dialogue to allow young people from different countries to present their views on the media issues relevant in their countries. A broad range of issues and concerns were discussed in robust, long, and complex conversations before they were distilled into six main recommendations (see Figures 2, 3, and 4). The Youth Council members also took part in an ‘action’ in which they marched through the main Summit at lunch time, chanting and asking Summit delegates to sign a petition supporting their recommendations. This process reflected a version of media literacy education in which new knowledge and awareness leads to social action (Hobbs 1998).

Figure 2: Members of the Global Youth Media Council discussing issues and recommendations for improvements in youth for media.

The final two days involved practical production activities in which the students worked in teams to:

• produce a press release, logo, and website, including a petition to be signed in support of the GYMC’s campaign [http://globalyouthmediacouncil.com/];
• an animation [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpcosLRNPQQ] focused on global youth internet access;
• and a video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVqryi1qUI] depicting global youths’ lack of voice in global media debates.

These media productions were intended to involve young people in the process of using media to further their involvement in the dialogue about media issues and to take their message to a broader audience. The centrepiece of these productions was a campaign called “Are you with us?” in which the GYMC called on the Summit delegates and people beyond the Summit to implement their six recommendations. The members of the council agreed to promote the campaign back in each of their own countries, using the media productions as resources.

Figure 3: Six issues related to young people and global youth emerged through discussion and debate.

Figure 5: Members of the Global Youth Media Council producing an animation (top) and presenting as part of the closing ceremony at the 5^th World Summit of Media for Children and Youth (bottom).

The culmination for the Global Youth Media Council was involvement in the Summit closing ceremony. This was one of the highlights of the Summit and brought the youth council together with the adult delegates at the Summit (Figure 5). The final presentation can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVSkI-CbCmw

The Australian Delegates

The four young Australians who took part in the Global Youth Media Council were from a diverse range of backgrounds. Three of the students had not previously travelled overseas and all four students spoke of the trip to Sweden as an opportunity of a lifetime. Apart from their interest in young people and global media, these students had little in common. The group was made up of a sixteen-year-old female student from Cairns in far north Queensland; a seventeen-year-old female student from the mining community of Mt. Isa in remote north western Queensland; a sixteen-year-old male student from Brisbane, a city of 1 million people located in South East Queensland; and a fourteen-year-old male student from Melbourne, a city of 3 million people in Victoria in the southern part of Australia. All these students were considered to be ‘high achievers’ in their schools and all had performed well in the initial competition and during the production workshops leading up to the trip to Sweden. All the students also shared relatively high-level media production skills and were familiar with using video cameras and video editing software. These students were used to ‘geeking out’ with media production (Ito 2010).

Despite their diverse backgrounds, the students worked very well together and formed a cohesive team as they navigated the preparation for the trip, the long international flights, the international location and the challenging workshops. The students worked hard to make a significant contribution to discussions during the GYMC sessions and were substantially involved in the creative output of the group and the development of the six key recommendations. In this sense, it might be said that the students effectively represented an Australian perspective on global media and youth. The students also generously took part in a series of interviews to reflect on their involvement in the trip and these interviews form the data to be discussed throughout the rest of this article.

Data Collection, Method of Analysis and Theoretical Framework

The two authors of this article are the adults who accompanied the Australian students to Sweden. We conducted a series of informal interviews with the students using portable ‘flip’ video cameras. The first set of interviews was conducted after the group arrived in Sweden, but prior to the beginning of the World Summit sessions. Students were asked about their experiences of the trip to that point and their expectations and hopes for the Global Youth Council sessions. The second set of interviews was conducted at the end of the week, during the journey back to Australia. At this point, the students were handed the cameras and asked to interview each other about their experiences at the Summit. This qualitative data was analysed to identify and interpret commonly held views of the four students about their experiences of the GYMC. In this way the analysis aims to elucidate the ways in which the students’ experiences of intercultural dialogue about global media experiences provided opportunities for them to voice their opinions and to learn from each other. The analysis aims to identify what the students learnt about the media; about other young people’s experiences of the media; and how this impacted each of the students. Through this analysis, the article aims to shed new light on the possibilities for media literacy education through intercultural dialogue in globalized contexts.

The article draws on a key theory to consider the Global Youth Media Council as a space in which young people’s voices potentially have influence and in which young people discover new ways of being that are potentially transformative and agentive. This is Foucault’s theory of heterotopias which he describes as spaces that are potentially non-hegemonic (Foucault and Miskowiec 1986). He argues that these spaces “are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted” (24). Heterotopias are potentially spaces in which voices that are usually marginalised may be brought into the centre and in which no one voice is considered to represent ‘the truth.’ This article argues that the Global Youth Media Council was a heterotopic space that allowed young people more freedom to speak and more power to act than they usually have in their schools and in the societies in which they live. It provided them with the opportunity to perform identity work in non-normative ways in a space that provided freedom to vary from social and cultural norms. This theory provides a way to think about the space and opportunity provided by the GYMC for young people to speak safely, present their ‘voice’ and challenge their own and others’ thinking about global media cultures. From this perspective, the GYMC might be understood as providing an alternative to young people’s frequent experience of being marginalised by social and cultural debate about the relationship between young people and media (Kenway and Bullen 2001).

Adults often speak on behalf of young people and develop perspectives that purport to protect their best interests without actually consulting them (Buckingham 2000). Young people’s opinions and perspectives are often considered to be less valuable than those of adults, particularly educators, policy makers, and ‘opinion’ leaders as represented in the mainstream media. Research has also shown that young people often create normative systems in which it is not ‘safe’ or acceptable to challenge mainstream views about social and cultural processes (Dezuanni 2009). That is, it can be socially and culturally risky within peer groups for young people to present alternative opinions about media and popular culture. The GYMC aimed to redress these problems by providing young people an opportunity to have a dialogue in a safe space and then ‘speak back’ to an international adult audience

Media Education, Intercultural Dialogue and Identity Work

Media education has a long history of exploring intercultural concepts through its focus on media representations of people, places, and ideas. The academic field of Cultural Studies has influenced media education through its focus on gender, ethnicity, class, and national cultures (Williamson 1990; Hall and Open University 1997). It is typical, for example, for media education students to conduct visual analysis of media texts to identify the values and beliefs underlying the construction and reception of the texts. Media education, however, has focused less on the role of intercultural dialogue as a strategy for learning about how the media deals with cultural difference. While discussion and conversation about issues is common in media classrooms, these dialogues usually occur within closed classrooms in which the conversations occur within peer groups and the institutional expectations of the school. Dezuanni (2010) argues that this positions young people such that it is risky for them to speak openly and honestly with their peers and teachers. From this perspective, the Global Youth Media Council provided a potentially unique opportunity for its young participants to step outside their comfort zones in an unfamiliar context that provided an opportunity to be open to cultural diversity. The GYMC provided a heterotopic space in which it was less risky to explore a diversity of opinions and ideas.

The desire for the Youth Council to provide a unique (and less risky) space was evident during the first interview conducted with members of the Australian Youth Media Council, which took place over lunch in Karlstad before the first Summit sessions. The students had just arrived on the train from Stockholm and were very excited about taking part in the Summit. It is clear from their responses that there was a lot of expectation for what the experience should be able to provide:

Teacher: What do you think the conference is going to be like?

Adam: I think it’s going to be really interesting to hear what people from all over the world have got to say about media and kids and give their opinions and all that. And, um, yeah, I think it’s going to be a really good experience.

Mark: I think the main thing I want to get out of it is talking to other people our own age from around the world. And just, sort of conversing with them about, you know, whether they are facing the same sort of issues on different sides of the world. And yeah, just finding out that, sort of, cultural shock value of how your media is different to mine and how do they compare? What’s the same, what’s different? I think that’s the main reason I wanted to come to this international Summit. […] We can see and analyse and all that sort of thing, what’s in front of our face. But what’s in the faces of others is a different thing.

Danielle: I am keen to learn more about the cultural, like the diversity and stuff. Yeah, what Mark said about learning about other people’s… like what they see. That’s pretty interesting. Yeah, I just think it will be a good experience. […]. I’m keen for it to break stereotypes of other countries. Like through the country, you just sort of have assumptions about what they do and what they are like and how they talk and stuff. And I think it would be interesting to see if that’s true or not.

Amanda: I am really looking forward to the workshops, like just looking forward to learning about all sorts of different things. Cause I’m going to be a teacher, just learning about, like with different cultures and stuff like that, so you get other people’s input. It will be a good experience to have come here, like being my first international trip and then telling my students in the future that I’ve been to a conference.

At least two common ideas come out of the students’ answers. Firstly, they want to learn about other young people’s media experiences and they believe that the Summit will provide a unique experience that is generally less possible via classroom based media education experiences. These students seem to have a positive disposition to the idea of intercultural dialogue. It is likely that the students’ previous experiences of submitting to the competition, taking part in the workshop in Brisbane and meeting other international Youth Council members through Facebook has oriented them towards this perspective. They recognise this as a unique opportunity to learn about the media and other young people’s experiences of it. Mark’s comment that “what’s in the faces of others is a different thing” suggests openness to the idea that there are limits to what he can learn from analysing his own situation. The idea that what others “see” might be different from one’s own perspective demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of what the Summit might offer as a learning experience. It also suggests a willingness to treat other young people’s perspectives and ideas with respect and that Mark recognises limitations of his own knowledge. It is interesting that later in the interview all the Australian students expressed a degree of anxiety about whether or not the other students would be able to speak English and the possibility that this might hinder their possibilities for having a meaningful exchange of ideas.

The second common idea to come out of the students’ responses is that they want to explore the idea of cultural diversity and seem excited to have the opportunity to learn about other people. Danielle’s comment that she wants to “break stereotypes of other countries” suggests that she wants to have a deeper understanding of other young people’s cultures and experiences. She recognises the limitations of her own understanding of people from other countries and wants to rectify this. She seems willing to have her ideas challenged. Amanda recognises the educational potential of the Summit from the perspective of a future teacher. In 2010, she was in her first year as a university student undertaking a pre-service teacher education course. Her perspective that the Summit will expose her to other people’s “input” suggests that she believes she has a lot to learn from the experience. It is interesting that prior to taking part in the Summit, the students’ construction of the Summit was that it would be a unique educational opportunity and an opportunity to challenge themselves. They have not, for example, constructed it as an opportunity to voice their own opinions or to challenge the global media status quo. They have conceived of the Summit very much as a heterotopia in which young people will come together to exchange ideas in a free and supportive way that will enable them to become more informed and better people.

Post Summit Reflections

On the final day of the Summit, the Australian members of the Global Youth Council said their goodbyes to their new international friends and got back on the train to Stockholm. The teachers handed the flip cams to the students and asked them to interview each other to reflect on their experiences of the Summit. The following exchange was recorded by Danielle as she asked Mark some initial questions:

Danielle: As this is a reflection, why don’t you reflect for the camera?

Mark: The conference was quite good, I thought. It was a really well put together four days, I think, Even though I found it to be quite ironic that it was a conference for youth and children and media but most of the people there were adults. I’m just saying. But even as a young person being there at a conference, it was focused mainly at teachers. But it was really good. I found it to be quite a good learning experience.

Danielle: So if they could improve it what do you reckon they should do?

Mark: I reckon invite more kids… invite more kids… cause they’re the future of media, I guess. They [the teachers] need to appreciate that more…rather than just take it back to the classroom. Have them [the students] get a first-hand experience.

Mark’s interpretation of the experience suggests that while he enjoyed himself and learnt a lot he was disappointed that the main Summit agenda tended to exclude young people and that the Youth Council sessions were not considered to be a key aspect of the Summit. His recommendation is for more young people to be invited to the conference. It should be noted that the GYMC included about 30 young people and the Summit included several hundred delegates. Mark’s comments therefore reflect the reality that the youth council members were significantly overwhelmed by the sheer number of adults. It is also the case that the GYMC sessions occurred in a location relatively remote from the main Summit sessions and that few adults at the Summit were aware that they were taking place. There was no interaction between the GYMC and the main delegates except for the closing ceremony presentation. Therefore, the Youth Council members were not really in dialogue with the adults at all. Mark’s point is that more kids should be invited so that they can experience the knowledge developed in a conference context, rather than teachers simply talking to each other about what to take back to the classroom. As mentioned above, during one lunchtime the GYMC members took part in an ‘action’ during which they marched on the Summit delegates while they were having lunch, to increase the sense that they had a ‘voice’ during the Summit. In this context, Mark’s comments might be seen as representing the voice of a sixteen-year-old teenager who feels like an outsider in the main, adult-oriented, Summit agenda.

Despite Mark’s disappointment at feeling somewhat marginalised by the main Summit agenda, he gained a great deal from his involvement in the Youth Council sessions, as indicated in the following exchange:

Danielle: What do you think you are going to take back to Australia?

Mark: A wealth of knowledge about… on youth and media… really, and that’s not being, you know, pompous…yeah, really, and a lot more understanding about global perspectives on youth and media.

Danielle: Do you think that our campaign is going to be successful?

Mark: I think it will be as successful as we make it. And I really, really, really believe in it. I think it’s going to be a winner.

Danielle: Is your heart and soul in it? Are you emotional for our campaign like I was?

Mark: Oh, well, I didn’t cry when were all about to leave. But I think the reason I didn’t cry was because I know I am still going to be connected to those people through the campaign. And I am going to make it a point to be further involved in it and not just go home and leave it.

Danielle: How are you going to take it to – are you going to go to the papers or whatever?

Mark: Ah, yeah, the two main outlets I’m going for are children’s television and that’s probably going to be through Carbon media and ABC 3. And also youth radio, 4ZZZ. So I’ve got two main connections there. And also I have a reporter who took interest in me before I went to the conference.

Danielle: So, if you could pick one favourite thing about this entire trip, what do you think it is?

Mark: I’m going to say the first young Swedish people that we met as a youth council on the first day. A bunch of them came up and we just started chatting and it was the first international connection that I made and it led to many more. Yeah – it was terrific.

Danielle: Peace out!

Mark has clearly gained a great deal from the Youth Council sessions, including knowledge about other young people’s media experiences and inspiration to try to effect change on his return to Australia. His repetition that he “really” believes in the campaign developed by the GYMC suggests that he is passionate about it. As a media education experience, the GYMC has provided Mark with a host of new knowledge about the key media related issues facing young people around the world, which he is unlikely to have had an opportunity to develop in his usual classroom experiences. In addition, it is clear that the GYMC provided Mark with a cause and community to identify with. While he felt like an outsider in the broader Summit context, his reflection suggests he felt like an insider within this group of international friends, who share his passion for media reform. He was very pleased to be able to make these friends and to be accepted within the group. He feels empowered by this connection and wants to take the campaign back to his home country and to continue the dialogue about young people and media in a broader context. He is serious enough about this to have considered some avenues for action on his return to Australia. For Mark, whose reflections were similar to the other Australian delegates’ reflections, the GYMC was informative and inspirational.

Media Learning and the Global Youth Media Council

The GYMC provided a unique media literacy education experience for the four young Australians discussed in this article because they learnt about global media issues through intercultural dialogue and through their involvement in sustained media production. The authors of this article believe that intercultural dialogue enabled the development of connected and deep knowledge about the media. It was connected in the sense that it allowed the students to hear the first hand experiences of other young people, providing them with insights and understandings they would be less likely to develop in their school classrooms. They gained depth of knowledge through making comparisons across countries and by going through the process of distilling commonalities and differences to develop their set of recommendations for media reform. During discussions led by other young people, they learnt about the complex ways in which the media operates in different parts of the world and the differences and similarities to the Australian context. This learning aligns to the media education ‘key concepts’ of ‘institutions and industries’. They also learn about media ‘audiences’ through their consideration of the relationships between young people and the media in different countries and the extent to which young people have access to the means of production.

The students also developed their media literacies through sustained media production experiences leading up to and during the Summit. As noted above, in the lead up to the Summit they produced videos of themselves talking about the media and ‘one minute wonder’ videos about young people and media. During the trip to Sweden and the Summit, they documented their travel through photography and video production; they took part in practical workshops; they planned and wrote articles for the Summit newsletter; and they produced various aspects of the GYMC campaign. The students each developed a range of skills and knowledge about forms of media production. More importantly they learnt how to use their media production skills to contribute to dialogue and debate on an issue highly relevant to them.  It could be argued that media literacy education has no more important goal than to enable young people to use the tools provided by digital media to take part in ‘conversations’ about media power, identities, and cultural diversity.

Conclusion: From the Margins to the Centre and Back Again

The members of the Australia Youth Media Council travelled around the world by plane and train with the objective of spending several days talking with other young people about their experiences with the media. They left their communities and their comfort zones to embark on an adventure with the ultimate aim of improving the relationship between media and young people. They travelled on the modern day equivalents of boats to undertake a process not dissimilar to the journeys undertaken by generations of people seeking to understand difference and explore ‘the unknown’. Foucault argues, “The ship is the heterotopia par excellence. In civilisations without boats, dreams dry up, espionage takes the place of adventure, and the police take the place of pirates” (Foucault and Miskowiec 1986). The Global Youth Media Council sessions in Karlstad allowed a group of thirty young people to dream of better media futures, to be adventurous and step outside their comfort zones, and to ‘steal’ ideas and techniques from the mainstream media to spread their message. The GYMC, however, did come to an end and the campaign for media reform has not been as successful as the four young Australians would have hoped. While they learnt a great deal from their experience, subsequent conversations with them suggest that they are disappointed about the outcome of their campaign.

The problem with heterotopias is that by definition they exist in contrast to everyday spaces and as the young participants returned to their schools and lives, it has not been easy for them to stay connected to the ‘cause’, despite being connected through social networking tools like Facebook. The Global Youth Council on Media existed in a particular time and space and there has been little to support the young participants in their quest for media reform. The remaining part of this article makes several recommendations for how the organisers of future international media education conferences that include young people might support youth delegates to have greater success during beyond the end of the conference.

The first recommendation is that youth involvement in adult conferences should be more integrated with the main conference agenda so that the young participants are not marginalised. As Mark points out, it is ironic that a conference about young people should not include more young people and make them part of the main conference. There should be more dialogue between young people and adults, not just between young people and between adults.

Secondly, the highly successful model used as the basis for the Global Youth Media Council should be used to create dispersed and ongoing dialogues between young people and adults about global media. The Karlstad experience showed that there is a great deal to be gained from bringing young people from diverse international backgrounds together to discuss the media related issues facing young people. The Australian experience of developing a local Youth Media Council also showed that it is beneficial to involve young people in more localised contexts in conversations and through creative work about media. It would be ideal to spread this model to create an ongoing dialogue about youth and media.

Finally, international gatherings of young people should occur more frequently. The authors of this article believe that an ongoing and more regular ‘space’ for dialogue about youth and media needs to be developed for genuine change to be possible. This is more likely to occur if young people and sympathetic adults work together to create this space at local and international levels and also through more scaffolded and directed use of online social networking. The World Summit on Media for Children and Youth occurs every three to four years. It would be ideal if an international Global Youth Council event took place every one to two years that involved young people from previous years mentoring other young people through the process. The campaign developed in Karlstad has stalled because it relies on individual young people in marginalised positions going back to their communities to take on powerful media companies. Reform would be more possible if young people believed they were supported in ongoing ways by a global movement that is built from the ground up in local contexts and supported through an international online network of colleagues. To put it another way, the type of heterotopic space developed through the Global Youth Media Council in Karlstad needs to be extended and networked. This is the only way that young people will be brought to the centre of discussions about young people and media in a sustained way.

References

Buckingham, David. 2000. After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Dezuanni, Michael. 2009. Boys ‘Doing’ and ‘Undoing’ Media Education: New Possibilities for Theory and Practice. Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology.

Dezuanni, Michael. 2010. “Digital Media Literacy: Connecting Young People’s Identities, Creative Production and Learning About Video Games.” In Adolescents’ Online Literacies: Connecting Classrooms, Media, and Paradigms, edited by D. E. Alvermann, 125 – 144. New York: Peter Lang.

Foucault, Michel, and Jay Miskowiec. 1986. “Of Other Spaces.” Diacritics 16 (1 Spring): 22-27.

Goodman, Steven, and Maxine Greene. 2003. Teaching Youth Media: A Critical Guide to Literacy, Video Production and Social Change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hall, Stuart, and Open University. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, Culture, Media and Identities. London: Sage in association with the Open University.

Hobbs, Renee. 1998. “Building Citizenship Skills Through Media Literacy Education.” In The Public Voice in a Democracy at Risk, edited by Michael Salvador and Patricia Sias, 57 –76. Westport, CT: Praeger Press.

Ito, Mizuko. 2010. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Kenway, Jane, and Elizabeth Bullen. 2001. Consuming Children: Education-entertainment-advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Williamson, Judith. 1990. Consuming Passions: The Dynamics of Popular Culture. London: Marion Boyars.

Samantha Hardy, Phra John Paramai Dhanissaro and Worakate Thangsurbkul

Peace Revolution, Pathum Thani, THAILAND

This paper describes a project called Peace Revolution [http://peacerevolution.net], which provides an opportunity for young people from around the world to learn and share positive messages and activities relating to peace. The Peace Revolution project aims to empower young people via a unique process related to youth development, helping young people to make informed and moral choices about how they live their lives and actively participate in society. Through its online social platform, Peace Revolution aims to promote the practice of inner peace as a common denominator for people throughout the world, build cross-cultural partnerships and ultimately, through individual change and cooperation with others, establish an international network of active agents for change.

In an increasingly globalised world, mass media and popular culture have significant potential for both positive and negative impact on young people. Unfortunately, it is often the media’s potential to negatively impact on youth that gets the most airplay.  A large amount of literature exists on the relationship between media and conflict; however, very little evidence is available that explores the role of media in contributing to peace-building.  While media literacy education provides a variety of strategies to analyze mass media and explore potentially harmful effects on media consumers (Hogan and Bar-on 1999), another appealing way is to use media production to help young people create media that has a positive impact on ethical and personal development. Given the rapid change of world politics and world security, understanding the power of the media, the impact the media has on influencing public perception and how it could contribute to assisting audiences to become more culturally fluent is of particular importance.

This paper describes a project called Peace Revolution, which provides an opportunity for young people from around the world to learn and share positive messages and activities relating to peace. As part of the larger project, Peace Revolution also offered a fellowship program specifically for media professionals in 2011 that aimed to provide an opportunity for those who work as journalists, film producers, scriptwriters, art directors, independent producers, media educators or any field related to media to experience peace media and journalism (sometimes known as conflict-sensitive journalism (Howard 2010)).

The information age is characterized by an ever-growing number of connections between people around the world resulting in communication across different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Professionals in this field ought to have responsibilities to be accurate and honest. They ought not to incite prejudice, hatred, or violence. More importantly, they have the opportunity to promote peace and reconciliation. This concept of peace media and journalism is an important ingredient in creating a superior standard of the media (World Peace Initative 2011). It is important that we find ways to develop connections between peace theory, intercultural communication, cultural fluency and the media industry whose written words and broadcasts help shape popular ideas about culture.

The research literature on media effects shows that the power of the media can influence beliefs, opinions and attitudes of people, which can eventually translate into action (Bratic 2006). The Peace Revolution project aims to empower young people via a unique process related to youth development (Hamilton, Hamilton and Pittman 2004), helping young people to make informed and moral choices about how they live their lives and actively participate in society.

Evidence from cognitive behavioural research and social learning theory suggests that people can acquire both information and attitudes from the media (Bratic 2006). The media can be a powerful tool in communicating cultural awareness and is an important source of cultural production and information. Journalism can therefore play a vital role in furthering our understanding of ourselves and our own culture in relation to others. Through its online social platform, Peace Revolution aims to promote the practice of inner peace as a common denominator for people throughout the world, build cross-cultural partnerships and ultimately, through individual change and cooperation with others, establish an international network of active agents for change.

What is Peace Revolution?

Established in 2008, Peace Revolution [hyperlink http://peacerevolution.net] is a global program that strives to bring peace to the world through supporting individuals to find peace within: Peace In Peace Out.  The World Peace Initiative, based in Hong Kong, runs the program but the main activities take place in Thailand and are supported by the Dhammakaya Foundation. Founded by Dhammajayo Bhikkhu, Phrarajbhavanavisudh (born as Chaiyaboon Suthipol in Thailand), he has spent decades devoted to promoting world peace and youth development. The project is ongoing and involves participants from all over the world.  The project is staffed by a core team of eight, and supported by a large team of volunteers and interns from around the globe.  The project is aimed at youth between the ages of 18 and 30.

The core principle of the program is that it is only when individuals experience inner peace (Peace In) that sustainable world peace can happen (Peace Out). The program therefore aims to promote personal and moral development. Participants of the program denoted as Peace Rebels are inspired and trained to create a transformation for themselves and then society. In order to achieve this mission, a social network platform has been launched to create an interactive, Internet-based self-development program that will help people understand themselves more fully.

The Peace Revolution program includes an online interactive platform to educate Peace Rebels about inner peace using a meditation technique; provide an environment for sharing their inner peace practice; engage participants in self-development and reflection; and allow Peace Rebels to continue to network and engage with each other in relation to their future peace work. There is an offline component in which Peace Rebels develop peace projects, denoted as Special Ops, to undertake in their own location. A face-to-face component includes a meditation retreat to educate Peace Rebels in advanced inner peace techniques; an opportunity to experience inter-culture and observe some Thai Buddhist events; and an opportunity to engage in collaborative peace building activities. The online interactive platform encourages Peace Rebels to share their positive experiences and publish stories of their offline Special Ops to inspire others and stimulate similar peace projects around the world.

In 2011, the face-to-face component incorporated a new program that provides in-depth workshops related to ethical media production to selected media professionals worldwide. This program develops Peace Rebels’ media literacy by motivating and assisting young people to access, analyze, evaluate, and produce communication in a variety of forms (Aufderheide 1993), inspiring a peace journalism approach through media that is oriented to peace and truth, with a people-centered and solution-centered orientation (McGoldrick 2008, 86).

The information age is characterized by an ever-growing number of connections between people around the world resulting in communication across different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. The program connects journalists together online from around the globe and aims to utilize the online medium to create and share inner peace with the world.  It also highlights what previous authors have described as an “essential and influential aspect of these programs: positive youth development” (Young 2011). Peace Rebels develop a sense of group identity by interacting and identifying with other young peace activists; they also develop relationships with influential and positive role models through their interactions with volunteering human assistants denoted as Peace Coaches. Finally, they develop a positive sense of themselves after critically analyzing the messages provided to them by the broader society.

Today with the rise of computer-mediated communication and global interactions, possessing the skills that constitute cultural fluency are essential in order to achieve understanding and acceptance of other cultures.  By connecting with likeminded people online, sharing stories, and receiving feedback from coaches, participants are learning to experience inner-peace and developing new ways to shape their everyday relationships with family, friends, and the community.

The Youth Development Process

The Peace Revolution’s Youth Development Process is centered on the following key terms: inner peace education, self-development program, Special Ops, fellowship program and peace coach training. Inner peace education is based on the premise that for Peace Rebels to attain peace at both the individual and community levels they must start with the transformation of one’s self. They are provided with a range of resources to assist them to learn how to practice Inner Peace Time (abbreviated as IPT) such as guided meditation videos and sound files in six different languages and different styles to appeal to the different preferences of the rebels, and other peace related media such as regular live guided meditation broadcasts on an Internet-based channel.

Peace Rebels are asked to practice their IPT skills every day and complete an online meditation journal. While it can be relatively difficult for Peace Rebels to indicate their meditation progress (especially those who have never meditated before) the system provides a simple visual IPT Tracking Scale (Figure 1) to assist Peace Rebels to mark their progress.  As the Peace Rebels move the button along the scale the image changes to represent visually the rebel’s state of mind.  The objective of using this IPT Tracking Scale is not for participants to compare their meditation results with others; rather, it is intended to focus Peace Rebels on evaluating their own results and therefore to develop better concentration in their everyday life. Peace Rebels can also describe their meditation experience daily on an IPT Journal and they may choose to share their positive messages on the website, which can be subsequently shared on Facebook, Twitter or other social network sites by other Peace Rebels. This sub-process allows Peace Rebels to provide positive messages and activities relating to their personal IPT experience.

Figure 1: IPT Tracking Scale

Self Development

In media, journalists often bring many biases, hidden and unintentional, to their coverage. Journalists are said to approach their work ‘tabula rasa’ checking their personal, political, moral and religious convictions at the newsroom door. The Peace Revolution Self-development program encourages Peace Rebels to explore these aspects of themselves in their peace activist work and in their media production.  The self-development program includes three sections: inner peace education previously mentioned, self-discipline, and daily entry. Peace Rebels are asked to maintain the five acts of self-discipline during the 42-day program.  These acts of self-discipline correlate to the five precepts in the Buddhist philosophy:  (1) not killing; (2) not stealing; (3) not engaging in sexual misconduct; (4) not lying; and (5) not taking intoxicants. In the self-discipline section, Peace Rebels complete a daily checklist to record whether or not they have maintained each of the five acts of self-discipline for that day. They also have the opportunity to comment on any issues that they had in relation to maintaining the acts of self-discipline.  Peace Rebels receive feedback and advice from their Peace Coaches in order to encourage deeper self-reflection and continuous improvement.

The Daily Entry section consists of a set of questions (shown in Table 1) to encourage peace rebels to look more closely at themselves, their behavior and their relationships with others. The length of the self-development program is based on the conventional wisdom that a new habit can be developed when a certain behavior is repeated for 21 days. The Peace Revolution self-development program focuses Peace Rebels’ attention on positive habits for at least 21 days in relation to self, family, friends and society.

Each Peace Rebel is allocated a group of Peace Coaches, who are experienced meditators who follow the rebel’s progress throughout the program and provide regular encouragement and support.  Peace Rebels can ask their Peace Coaches any questions they have through the online platform. This sub-process enables Peace Rebels to learn more about proper ethical conduct and help them have a better understanding about consequences of having respect for others’ life, property, family, sincerity and integrity, which is considered a basic human value.

Special Ops

Peace Rebels in the online program are encouraged and guided to share inner peace with their families, friends, and community through various offline activities. The idea is for the participants to find a way to combine Peace In with other Peace Out activities in their society. Some examples of Special Ops are holding a group meditation for family, friends, or people in the community, creative activities, peace journalism, or volunteering.  A completed Special Ops must be posted online on the Peace Revolution website along side with various form of media that Peace Rebels learn to produce by themselves such as photos, videos, and reports, as well as feedback forms from participants denoted as “Special Ops Enforcer Forms.” A Special Ops Directory (World Peace Initiative 2011) contains Special Ops posted by other Peace Rebels (some outstanding examples, such as the meditation for refugees, are shown in Figure 2).  Peace Rebels learn how to publish their activities by combining photos, videos, and a report that describes their inner peace activities.

Figure 2:  Fraide Emmanuel Kikibi used what he learned from the website to provide Inner Peace Education along side with humanitarian relief to the children in the Nakivaleand Kisura refugee camp in Uganda

Identifying with others is an important theme in developing cultural fluency. Special Ops encourages participants to share their experiences with others by publishing their experiences in the Special Ops directory. These stories are written for an extremely diverse international audience, and as such need to be constructed so listeners find common ground with others unlike themselves. Peace coaches can assist peace rebels in telling their story and reflecting on their experiences. This reflective practice and constructive feedback allows rebels to develop their communication skills and capacity to convey messages through popular media in a way that can inspire and influence others.

A new challenge for cultural fluency as a guide to effective intercultural communication is, “to generate approaches of investigation on how people from different cultures and speaking different languages actually influence each other in specific intercultural contexts” (McGoldrick 2008, 86). When participants from different cultures communicate they often don’t share the same ground rules of communication and interaction. At the most fundamental level each individual’s interpretation of the world is different. Today with the rise of computer-mediated communication and global interactions, possessing the skills that constitute cultural fluency are essential in order to achieve understanding and acceptance of other cultures.

The Fellowship Program

Peace Rebels who have completed the online program and are committed to the cause of peace are invited to join offline fellowship to attend one of the meditation retreats in Thailand. The meditation retreat provides Peace Rebels with an opportunity to experience a deepening of their Inner Peace, particularly by interacting with very experienced meditators and teaching monks who can provide them with individual support and advice about their meditation practice. At the conference, Peace Rebels also have the opportunity to participate in interactive workshops with other Peace Rebels, to network and to develop ideas for future peace activities. The highlighted topics include meditation and mediation, community-based peace projects and promoting peace campaigns through media and IT.

Some Peace Rebels who benefit from the self-development program might want to contribute to the future of the project. While there are many ways to contribute, being a Peace Coach can be a way that they can do from home or any places that has an Internet connection. This process makes sure that the system will always have enough Peace Coaches to give positive advice to new joining Peace Rebels. The training process provides know-how for potential Peace Coaches on how to encourage new Peace Rebels to continue and complete their self-development. A Peace Coach quiz must be completed for any Peace Rebel to be qualified as a Peace Coach. As illustrated in Figure 3, the first fellowship was organized for seven days in January 2011. There were media professionals from India, Pakistan, England, Zimbabwe and the United States. The program included a meditation retreat and workshops that emphasized how to truly discover oneself and the world through the unbiased mind, which is trained using a meditation technique.

Figure 3: The Peace Revolution for Media Professionals in January 2011

One participant is Emma Brewin, age 26 from England. She is working as a writer and multimedia producer for The Sunday Times newspaper. Emma experienced a lot of changes after joining the online self-development program. She wrote, “Through meditation I have managed to observe myself in ways I have never done before. It has given me a perspective on myself, like holding a mirror up to myself. Stilling my mind has helped me develop my thoughts, feelings, and consciousness. Peace in is so relevant to journalists and the media. People in the media industry have immense responsibility, so building their ethics and consciousness is very important. I have shared the philosophy of this program on my blog. In addition, I have a website that I was previously using for gossip. However, I now want to switch it from a gossip website to a media responsibility one or perhaps a meditation site for media professionals.” She also completed a Special Ops project by writing an article describing her experience in the self-development after following it for about two months (Brewin 2010).

After joining the seven-day fellowship program, Emma has developed a viewpoint towards peace media and journalism. She wrote, “Why not take the opportunity to create new content that’s relevant to more people, that’s unbiased, that’s constructive? Quite a lot of news is negative – you know bomb blast, war and murders, child abuse. Why not take the time to look at the world more constructively and also I think it’s time to really assess media responsibility?”

Another participant, Olga Muhwati, works as a media and communication liaison of African Arts Journalists’ Network in Zimbabwe. She acknowledged the benefits of the online self-development program and the offline fellowship program. She said, “It was gradual, it was happening while I was doing the online course (self-development program), but the difference is with the online course I was still in my world. In my profession, the five acts of discipline are very important just on a day-to-day basis for better health and a better state of mind. I think journalists live in a world where they are condemned a lot. You know if you are calmer, and you are not affected by what you are reporting on, your work will probably just speak for itself.”

Peace Revolution is a project that aims to empower young people via a youth development process to make informed and ethical choices about how they live their lives and actively participate in society. The process allows Peace Rebels to provide positive messages and activities relating to their personal IPT experience. The self-development program enables Peace Rebels to learn more about proper ethical conduct and help them have a better understanding about consequences of having respect in others’ life, property, family, sincerity and integrity, which is considered a basic human value. While media alone is not sufficient to achieve peaceful outcomes to conflicts, it has the potential to be a great aid in addressing problems of communication. The media can be a productive institution in the pursuit of peace-building.

The Special Ops process provides a way for participants to communicate their initiatives by including descriptive writing, videos and photos of their inner peace activities (World Peace Initiative 2011). The fellowship experience for media professionals lets Peace Rebels explore peace media and journalism and discuss challenges that media professionals experience when reporting promotes prejudice, hatred, or violence. The peace coaching training helps coaches encourage new Peace Rebels to continue and complete their self-development and provides contemporary guidance on the implementation of peace-promoting media projects. Although the process is clearly a form of youth development, it can be relevant to media professionals in any age range.

References

Aufderheide, Patricia. 1993. “Conference Report.” National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Bratic, V. 2006. “Media Effects During Violent Conflict: Evaluating Media Contributions to Peace Building.”  Conflict & Communication Online 5(1): 1-11.

Brewin, Emma. 2010. “Preparing for My Media & Meditation Retreat”. December 28. http://community.ejc.net/profiles/blogs/preparing-for-my-media-amp

Hamilton, Stephen F., Mary Agnes Hamilton, and Karen Pittman. 2004. “Principles for Youth Development.” In The Youth Development Handbook: Coming of Age in American Communities, edited by Stephen F. Hamilton and Mary Agnes Hamilton, 2-33. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Hogan, Marjorie, and Miriam Bar-on. 1999. “Media Education.” Pediatrics 104(2): 341-343.

Howard, R (n.d). Conflict Sensitive Journalism in Practice. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 2010.

McGoldrick, A. 2008. “Psychological Effects of War Journalism and Peace Journalism.” Peace & Policy 13: 86–98.

World Peace Initative. 2011. Fellowship for Media Professionals. http://www.peacerevolution.net/docs/en/peace-revolution-fellowship-for-media-professionals

World Peace Initiative. 2011. Special Ops Directory. June 25. http://www.peacerevolution.net/modules/members/rebel-profile?filter=special-ops

Young, Joslyn Sarles. 2011. “The Other Side of Media Literacy Education: Possible Selves, Social Capital, and Positive Youth Development.” Journal of Media Literacy Education 2(3): 230-237.

Alberto Parola
Faculty of Education, University of Turin, Turin, ITALY

Maria Ranieri
Faculty of Education, University of Florence, Florence, ITALY

This paper presents and discusses the results of OnAir, a European project on Media Education funded by the European Commission. This two-year project aimed at collecting, documenting, and developing media education practices across Europe, especially in Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. In particular, the paper focuses on the role of documentation in improving teachers’ practical knowledge and highlights the challenging aspects at stake in this process. The analysis of collected data reveals that documentation of media education practices is often poor both in terms of information about instructional practices and in teacher reflection on their actions. Stronger collaboration between teachers and researchers may be needed to support the kind of careful documentation that leads to effective practice. The development of adequate tools that teachers can easily use during their own activities may also facilitate improved levels of documentation.

Introduction

Over the last ten years the European Union (EC) has promoted several initiatives in order to en- courage the development of digital and media literacy in the EU Member States (Celot and Tornero 2008). Groups of experts were formed to define actions, surveys were carried out, and a set of recommendations were published. For example, in December 2006 the European Parliament (EP) and the Council released two recommendations. In the Recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (2006/962/EC), a new framework for key competences was outlined and digital competence was included among the competences for lifelong learning. Here digital competence is defined as involving “the confident and critical use of Information Society Technology (IST) for work, leisure and communication. It is underpinned by basic skills in ICT: the use of computers to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information, and to communicate and participate in collaborative net- works via the Internet” (European Parliament 2006, L. 394/16). At the same time, the EP published the Recommendation on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity (European Parliament 2006), where the following aspects are emphasized: the need for teacher train- ing on media literacy; the inclusion of media literacy in the curriculum to enhance children’s capacity of self- protection; and promote responsible attitudes among all users.

At the same time a variety of impressive research projects for a better understanding of the impact of digital media on the life of minors were implemented. One of the most important is the research project EU Kids Online (http://www.eukidsonline.net), which focuses on the relationship between the media and minors both in terms of protection as well as empowerment. As a matter of fact, digital media introduce risks (exposure to dangerous or scarcely reliable content; connections with strangers, privacy, cyberbullying and cyberstalking; illegal downloading, gambling etc.), but also offer opportunities, such as accessing information resources, participating in social networks and interest groups, ex- changing information; forms of civic engagement and content creation activities (Staksrud et al. 2009; Hasebrink et al. 2008).

Other research areas also deserve further development, particularly on the pedagogical-educational and assessment levels (Ceretti et al. 2006; Trinchero 2008). There is a need to promote greater pedagogical awareness among educators and teachers regarding the aims and ways of implementing media education (ME) through the elaboration of appropriate educational models to develop students’ media and digital competences. This dimension has recently been highlighted by various scholars (Calvani 2010; Jacquinot 2009), who underline the need to define more clear teaching and evaluation models within the field of media literacy education.

The research study here presented stems from the wide framework we have outlined above and was carried out within the OnAir European project [http://www.onair.medmediaeducation.it/]. In this paper, we introduce the overall aims and structure of the project and discuss its main results related to the documentation of ME practices and the promotion of media competences. Indeed, documentation stands as a key step towards a better understanding of teaching practices in ME and their development. However, as we shall see, due to lack of time, research skills, and experience, in several situations during the project teachers were not able to effectively document their own work in the classroom. As we show in this paper, teachers may not have the habit of taking notes on their activities and of engaging in reflective writing about their practice. Little attention is devoted to the evaluation of learning processes, suggesting that teachers may not be able to effectively improve their work in the pedagogy of me- dia education itself.

How can these challenging situations be tack- led? How can teachers and educators be supported in the crucial activity of documenting ME practices? We shall explore these questions at the end of the paper. Let us first focus on the overall context of the research project and its main results.

The Research Context: Aims, Partners, and Structure

The OnAir project was funded by the European Commission within the Life Long Learning Program 2008/2010. It was promoted by the Faculty of Commu- nication of the University La Sapienza (Rome, Italy) and by MED, the Italian Association of Media Educa- tion. Other partners were: INFOREF (Belgium), Zinev Art Technologies (Bulgaria), Pixel (Italy), Easy Tech- nology (Italy), Kaunas University of Technology (Lith- uania), WSinf (Poland), ActiveWatch-Media Monitoring Agency (Romania).

The partners were selected on the basis of the following criteria: (1) preference to active organizations in countries that have recently joined the European Union, particularly Eastern European countries (in order to enhance European integration, the EU tends to favour projects with considerable participation by eastern countries); (2) non-profit organizations (universities, agencies, associations) working within the media and education field able to involve schools, school principals, teachers and pupils; and (3) past experience in research on media and media literacy education. The role played by the Italian agency Pixel, which has been working in European project design and management for years, was crucial in building the partnership. This organization was responsible for the preliminary contacts between the partners and for the ensuing organizational coordination.

This partnership has two characteristics worth mentioning. First of all, it involves Eastern European countries where ME does not have a long tradition, but various extremely interesting initiatives are starting up in the sector. An example is the ActiveWatch-Media Monitoring Agency, a human rights organization that advocates for free communication in the public interest and, among other things, engages in developing media consumers’ critical sense towards media messages.

Secondly, one of the promoters of the project is MED, the Italian Association of Media Education, a non-profit organization established in 1996 in Rome, which involves academics, media professionals and a number of teachers with the aim of promoting research, study, and experimentation in the field of media education, media studies, and pedagogy. The work carried out by MED in these past fifteen years has provided the basis for the very conception of the project, whose aims can be summarised theoretically, developmentally, and in terms of the educational program itself. On a theoretical level, researchers consider media educational practices as research objects, reflecting on pedagogical models and teaching instruments used in the field of ME, and defining tools for the documentation and evaluation of practices. On a developmental level, MED aims to improve teachers and schools’ attitudes towards research and experimentation through the promotion of already existing ME practices and involving teachers in the design and development of new ME materials. Finally, on a training level, the aim is to foster teachers’ capacities of “exploiting” the potential of digital media, mainly for the appeal they have on new generations: with and through new media, teachers should be able to motivate younger generations in rediscovering and in appreciating the importance of writing abilities and of the ability needed to become aware users of media.

The structure of the study was organised in two main research areas, one focusing on sociological aspects (Cappello and Cortoni 2011) and the other on pedagogical issues and practices (Parola and Ranieri 2010, 2011; see also Hobbs 2011). Here we shall focus on the educational aspects of the research, which was managed by Italian researchers and supported by the teachers and students of the schools involved in the project.

The pedagogical research was articulated into three main phases and for each phase specific tools and materials were developed as shown in Table 1.

ME Practices, Trends and Perspectives

The first phase of this project involved the collection of already existing ME practices, involved all partners (except the firm which dealt with the overall management of the project), and required a common understanding of the theoretical and methodological background and specific procedures.

We shared a media competencies framework on which to base the choice of ME practices. Based on the previous theoretical work carried out by MED’s researchers (Ceretti et al. 2006), four main areas were identified: (1) reading the media: the ability to read media and decode media languages; (2) writing the media: the capacity of producing media texts and of using digital instruments for creative purposes; (3) critical understanding and evaluation of the media: the complex attitude of observing media contents and objects from a distance; (4) media consumption awareness: the capacity of creating awareness as to choices in the consumption of media understanding the explicit and implicit media messages in different situations.

After having clarified concepts and terms, a second step was to create a methodological tool to gather information on teaching practices and document the underlying processes. The tool, called the Case Study Form, was developed by MED researchers and then shared and discussed with partners. The form was divided into a general section which included title, abstract, topic, areas of competence, and media used; and an analytical section which included a description of objectives and purposes, teaching methods, documentation and evaluation strategies, results, challenges, lesson learnt, transferability, future development and the context of the experience.

Table 1: Overview of the OnAir Research Process

Phase 1 – Collection, Analysis and Evaluation of ME Practices
The aim of this phase was to identify, collect, document, and evaluate ME practices and experiences carried out in the national contexts of the countries involved in the project. The purpose was twofold: on one hand, analyzing all the collected practices, to discover trends in ME practices with a focus on media skills/competences and pedagogical issues, and reflect on a possible agenda for future research; on the other hand, the aim was to enhance teachers’ work, by selecting and disseminating significant ME experiences carried out in schools through the creation of an online database. To accomplish these complex objectives partners shared a common media competence framework,
a set of indicators to collect information on ME practices and criteria to evaluate them.

Phase 2 – Designing and Developing Online ME Teaching Materials
The purpose of this phase was to plan and develop ME modules, taking into consideration the results of the analysis of practices collected in the previous phase. Eight modules were created regarding different media competence areas and based on the instructional principles derived from the experiential learning cycle (Pfeiffer & Jones 1985). Each module included a description of the teaching/learning processes, teaching tools and materials, and a short video-presentation where teachers involved in the project presented the structure of the activities.

Phase 3 – Testing ME Teaching Materials and Practices
In each country, a pilot group of teachers tested the teaching materials which were created in phase 2 in order to evaluate theory quality and effectiveness. The experimentation was supported by a team of researchers, who provided methodological tools (e.g., questionnaires, guidelines for interviews and focus groups, evaluation forms, observation forms, etc.) and guidelines. The purpose was to define possible criteria to evaluate and validate ME practices as well as to provide guidelines for the development of effective ME actions.

A third step in the process was to define explicit criteria for the selection of practices to be documented. The criteria taken into consideration were the pertinence to the context (i.e., the school and formal learning); the target addressed (i.e., students aged 6-16); and the media competences considered in the project (i.e., reading and writing media, critical understanding and evaluation of the media, media consumption awareness). Finally, we placed a priority to experiences and projects with good documentation of planning, development, and materials used.

After having shared concepts, tools, and selection criteria, the partners also defined a strategy to search for ME practices that could potentially be included in the collection. Each partner had the task to collect fifty ME practices developed in its country. This was an ambitious goal that could not be achieved by randomly selecting a sample of schools and asking them to fill in the Case Study Form. As it is commonly known, ME in European schools is not widespread, so in order to find experienced teachers in the field each partner had to consult not only schools but also multiple national databases and associations. When cooperating teachers were found, each partner checked whether the ME experience was consistent with the criteria mentioned above.

The next step was to show teachers how to complete the Case Study Form to document their work and to start collecting information. The process was coordinated by partners within the individual countries. Teachers were asked to fill in the form by providing as much information as possible and writing down their reflections. Moreover, they were required to produce ‘pieces of evidence’ of their courses such as students’ products, logbooks, photos or video documenting meaningful situations (e.g., interaction among students during a discussion group or students’ reactions to external inputs coming from the teachers or experts).

The teachers found the task of documenting their work using an online form quite demanding for several reasons. Indeed, as seen above, the form included a number of items requiring a large amount of information. As a result, the practice of documentation was time consuming, and time is a precious and scarce resource for teachers. Moreover, teachers are not used to taking precise notes about their work. Whether we like it or not, the activity of writing about teaching practices seems to pertain more to researchers rather than to teachers themselves.

For all these reasons, teachers played alternative roles in the project as both researchers and as informants. As researchers, teachers documented their own practices, generally as independent work done alone by filling in the form. Teachers who were unable to complete the form served as informants as the information they provided to researchers was input into the online form.

At the end of the process more than 300 ME practices were collected in the six partner countries. These materials were published in English on the on- line database of the OnAir portal [http://www.onair.medmediaeducation.it/] which is freely accessible. Figure 1 shows an example of a completed database entry. Database fields included: name of author(s), teaching methods, media skills, media, media issues, curriculum/ subject area, partner who uploaded the file, abstract, full description, and space for comments from external persons.

Figure 1. A screenshot of a record of the OnAir data base (http://www.onair.medmediaeducation.it/casestudies.aspx)

The practices collected in this way underwent a quantitative analysis through a long and complex encoding procedure, and they were also analysed, discussed, and assessed by expert teachers on the basis of a common set of indicators (for a full analysis of the results see Parola & Ranieri 2011).

Some trends emerged from the quantitative analysis. We first examined the range of competencies that were identified most frequently. Among the typical objectives of the media education practices, the most frequent ones are related to media writing and reading skills, while skills related to media consumption are the least frequent ones, irrespective of the specific national contexts. On one hand, these results seem to suggest that teachers apply media education practices when they are combined with the development of skills that are more easily referable to the traditional curriculum. On the other hand, they could be also indicative of the difficulty teachers may experience when structuring teaching activities designed to foster increased awareness of media consumption. If this is a difficulty, it could be overcome by developing more tools to ad- dress teachers’ lack of familiarity with this area. It may be a challenge for teachers when addressing ME within the school context because topics such as exploration of mass media, popular culture, home media, and use of technology may not seem to be “appropriate” topics for discussion.

A second point that deserves attention is the fact that the so-called digital media are clearly prevalent: computers and Web 1.0/2.0 seem to dominate school media practices. In order to reflect on this point and its implications we should also mention another element related to the large number of media education practices oriented at media production, which is probably a consequence of the proliferation of user-friendly digital tools for media creation. At the same time, it should also be pointed out that classic media education topics, like analysis of stereotypes and of representation or the study of media like cinema, are almost completely lacking from among the collection of lesson plans collected in this study.

We believe that the prevalence of media education activities oriented towards production accompanied by the almost total absence of attention towards the classic issues posed in ME should make us reflect. Considered on its own, the first point could, to a certain extent, be interpreted positively. It could mean that the idea of ME as totally and exclusively oriented to the critical analysis and understanding of media has been completely surpassed. For a long time it was believed that the main objective of ME was to demystify the ideological dimensions of media representations, thus developing critical sense. This preference for critical analysis led to a substantial devaluation of “production-creation” activities, because they were considered of no pedagogical value. As Cappello (2010, n.p.) explains, “Animated by a general Frankfurtian suspicion of the deceptive pleasures of popular culture, media educators have long believed that any kind of media production in the classroom was a form of ‘technicism’, of ‘cultural reproduction’, of ‘deference and conformity’ to dominant media practices.”

This view has been widely criticized by several scholars (Cappello 2009, 2010; Livingstone and Had- don 2008; Buckingham 2003). According to the new approaches to ME, the risk of ‘technicism’ still lingers on, but media creation cannot be reduced to just using devices and technological tools. Media have a symbolic value that play a crucial role in the lives of young people and children by providing them with opportunities for creative self-expression and play (Cappello 2010). It is in light of this argument that the presence of a high number of media production activities can be interpreted positively.

However, this same fact accompanied by the lack of attention for classic topics like analysis of representations raises some doubts. It seems as though media education practices within the school context have all been limited to “practical production.” But practical production on its own is not enough. It is only by joining theory to practice, critical analysis to media production, that the dangers – which are still lurking – of limiting activities to simple technical training can be avoided.

For example, among the collected practices we found some product-oriented experiences where the final production was brilliant in terms of technical performance but there were no traces of student contribution. In this case, it seems that the concern to create techni- cally impressive products prevailed over the attention towards the quality of learning processes and students’ participation. Another example where the production activity can be trivial is when the ability of writing digital texts is reduced to the mere ability of using software to edit online texts. Among the practices we collected in the OnAir project we found some projects on digital writing where the emphasis was on learning how to use the technical functionalities of social software such as blogs or wikis rather than understanding the rhetoric that characterizes these software and how media languages can be mastered.

Two more elements stand out in the data collected. The first one regards the scarce attention given to documentation of media education activities carried out in class. We know that documentation is far from being simple and that it presents the teacher with a real challenge: how can a teaching experience be described? How can a multidimensional and complex activity like teaching be translated into words? As Castoldi (2010) observes, finding appropriate answers to these questions constitutes a challenge that comes up in relation to any practical knowledge, and media education knowledge is practical knowledge. At the same time, if it is deemed necessary to enhance and improve research around practices, documentation becomes inevitable, especially in the perspective pursued in this study and inspired by research-action. And yet, the documentation field is still weak. We have noticed such a weakness on different occasions. In the phase of collecting practices and case studies, the structured form was deemed too analytical, requiring too many words and details. We had quite a bit of difficulty in recovering the number of forms we required and we also had to prepare a shorter version. In the analysis phase we very often found that teachers had not documented the experience and, presumably, had not analyzed it either. After all, even information in the forms about the critical issues that emerged during the process of the activity is not much.

Let us finally consider assessment. Most of the collected experiences did not plan any tools explicitly and consciously aimed at assessing students’ learning. We are all interested in carrying out learning activities that are effective, but few of us focus on the problem of assessment and the construction of adequate tools. As Bisogno (1995, p. 94) reminds us to consider documentation as “knowing what was done to be able to do,” we ask to consider assessment as “evaluating carefully what was done to be able to do better.” Below we present some findings in our assessment of the best instructional practices in critical competence, civic journalism, digital citizenship, creativity in media production, and community building.

Examples of Good Practice

The evaluation process was managed at the local level by each partner within a national context and involved expert teachers not directly involved in the documentation activity. Teachers discussed the practices according to a common set of pre-defined criteria
ranging from the educational objectives to the feasibility of the experience, from the accuracy of the documentation to the quality of the production. Other criteria could have been taken into consideration. However, the significance of the initiative lies in having directly involved the teachers in the evaluation process and in having made the evaluation criteria explicit. In each country partners identified and contacted about 15- 20 experienced teachers. In Italy, for example, we involved supervisor teachers working at the Faculty of Education of the University of Florence and the Faculty of Education of the University of Turin. A first meeting was organized to explain the objectives of the activity and the expected results, and to provide teachers with all the documentation about the ME practices and an evaluation grid. Each teacher analyzed and evaluated the practice individually. About fifteen days later, an- other meeting was organised where teachers discussed the practices they analysed in small groups and com- pared their evaluations. During the analysis of concrete practices they also discussed the criteria suggested for the evaluation. The aim of the group discussions was to negotiate a shared view on the evaluation judgments, and to analyze the strong and weak points of the ME practices.

At the end of the evaluation process almost all the evaluators agreed that documenting, analyzing, evaluating, and disseminating teaching practices, especially in new domains such as those related to ME, is fundamental. Due to lack of time, teachers are not used to sharing their experiences with colleagues and reflecting on their own practices in order to improve them.
Among the analyzed practices, some proved to be particularly relevant regarding both the topic dealt with and the teaching approach followed (see also Bruni 2010). We addressed four themes: (a) critical competence, civic journalism, and digital citizenship; (b) creativity and media production; (c) media education and curriculum; and (d) media education and community building.

Critical competence, civic journalism, and digital citizenship

Two Italian practices were focused on topics related to critical thinking and civic journalism, e.g. “From Digital Naïf to (partially) Critical Surfers” by Marco Guastavigna, aiming at promoting students’ cultural competence and awareness regarding the Net, and “The Historical Newspaper – Asti 1861” by Patrizia Vajola and Carla Cavallotto, focusing on the creation of a newspaper about news related to an imaginary day of a symbolic date of the past. These projects are detailed
below.

The first project was carried out in autumn 2009 in a vocational school in Turin (i.e., the IIS Beccari) involving one class of students aged 13 – 14. Having realized that his students were ingenuous about the use of Facebook and YouTube, Mr. Guastavigna decided to involve them in a media literacy education process to teach an aware and critical use of these social media. In particular, the project focused on issues such as the presence of advertising within social networks, the risks of posting personal information, the implications of sharing images, video, and media products in general, the existence of an etiquette to be followed online, and the opposition to cyberbullying.

In the introductory phase, audiovisual materials on the subject were shown to the pupils. Some of these materials were borrowed from campaigns by the social network itself. Students were then asked to find more examples through navigation and management of their profiles, and to analyze Facebook’s and You- Tube’s terms of use. The additional material they found was then shared and analysed in class. At the end of the process students realized that they had been totally un- prepared in terms of ethical and social implications of media use.

The second project was carried out in the IIS Vittorio Alfieri in Asti by Patrizia Vayola and Carla Cavalletto. This experience is based on the creation and production of a newspaper, involving students aged 17 – 18 from vocational and high school institutes in the design and production of an imaginary issue of a historical journal, dating back to a specific year in Italian history (i.e. 1861, which represents the symbolic year of the Italian unification), and written following the stylistic and linguistic strategies of today’s journalism. The workshop laboratory on the study of the Italian Risorgimento allowed students to look into various types of newspaper texts with the aim of developing writing skills for passing the high school leaving examination, which requires students to compose essays or other short written texts.

Many features of this activity rendered it an effective ME practice, including the following:

• accessing both analogical and digital sources
• using different modes and techniques of group work
• the creation of an editing staff
• the realization of a product that could be disseminated locally
• an attempt to go beyond the traditional school report style and connect with the demands of narrative journalism;
• the transition from the dummy to the actual layout
• the opportunity provided to the students to implement their knowledge and enable them to become protagonists in the construction of their knowledge by adding consistent integrative information
• the possibility of working on vocabulary by creating clear and accessible messages and eliminating the trivial use of language
• the opportunity to work on the acquisitions of both disciplinary and transversal competences.

As stated by the teachers who designed and developed the learning experience, it also increased mutual respect among students and empowered at-risk students or students with learning difficulties. These students were given the opportunity to raise their self-esteem thanks to the improvement of their ability and skills.

Creativity and media production

Production and creativity are some of the key words of the project “Literature in Virtual Dimension – Interdisciplinary Contest,” promoted and managed by Corina Oprescu and other teachers of the Zinca Golescu College in Pitesti (Romania) for five years. This is a competition for students from 9th to 12th grade, and open to the participation of young people by involving organizations in the area. The aim is to produce multimedia educational materials on literature through an interdisciplinary approach based on various communication tools. The media outputs range from web pages to video clips, magazines, or photo reports. Students are guided through various steps, from the organization of the groups to the development of a work plan, from the search for information to the design of a multimedia product, up to the implementation through specific software. In the final event, all products are officially presented by the working group, and submitted for evaluation by an application committee composed of teachers and professionals. The organisers believe that the competitive context, coupled with the collaborative mode of production, is an added value to stimulate and engage young people, who can build on their skills and expertise.

Media education and the curriculum

The issue of the relationship between ME and the curriculum has been much debated. As is widely known, there are several approaches to the issue. Here we focus on two projects: an optional course carried out in Romania entitled “Teaching Competence in Mass Media,” and an interdisciplinary course in Bulgaria en- titled “Media in High School Education: Opportunities and Challenges.” The first course (35 hours), managed by Lavinia Rizoiu, was delivered in Pitesti, Romania during the 2008/2009 school year to the students of the Zinca Golescu upper secondary school who were 17-18 years old. It focused on traditional ME topics, cover- ing different areas: from the identification of the types of messages to their critical analysis, from knowledge of production techniques to the identification of stereotypes and prejudices, from the creation of media texts to democratic participation. The instructional practices of textual analysis, brainstorming, simulations, role-playing, and production activities in groups were used. A fair level of technical knowledge was noted among pupils, who worked on photographic and video production, developing a critical attitude and an awareness of ethics.

The second project, coordinated by Elena Sayanova, was aimed at the implementation of ME into the curriculum. It took place between 2005 and 2008 in Stoychev Nicola High School in Razlog (Bulgaria) , involving more than 100 classes, with the availability of specific funding, albeit insignificant. The initial stages of the project were addressed to teachers. Teachers received special training and worked both on how to integrate the ME programmes and on the methodologies to be adopted. Through well-coordinated work, it was possible to achieve an interdisciplinary learning experience that explored connections between music, physics, ICT, social studies, languages, and literature designed for students and media literacy skills–acquisition of citizenship. The activities that were proposed during the course ranged from writing newspaper articles to analyzing online communication and video games, from investigation of stereotypes to risk behaviours related to the use of media products. The biggest challenge in the project was the strong initial resistance by teachers, but thanks to teacher training and good coordination the project finally worked.

Media education and community building

The project,“Event Art or How to Avoid Tags” was managed by Vincent Meessen, a teacher from Saint Luc Secondary Institute in Liege, Belgium. It can be considered a good example of using media to promote socialization and make students aged 18-19 reflect on the importance of taking care of school spaces, which are often wasted areas where youth practice the production of graffiti tags. With this aim in mind students are asked to select a topic of interest from newspapers, look into it more thoroughly via Internet search and ul- timately achieve a personal artistic work, to be exposed for the entire school year in the canteen premises. Figure 2 shows an example of student produced work. Ac- cording to participating teachers, the impact on schools is indisputable, as the project has produced increased respect for the school environment and has led to the end of tagging.

Figure 2: An example of students’ work.

The only prerequisite is the willingness to solve the problem of protecting structures while allowing students’ freedom of expression, rather than using repressive methods, less costly in terms of money, but also less productive. Pupils, in fact, are characterized as being hypersensitive, thrill seekers, idealists who want to be distinguished from their peers, young people who want to express themselves and lead independent lives. Incidents of vandalism are a symptom of a profound inability to communicate, except through elementary forms, as provocative as the tag. This project, therefore, aims at giving a voice to students, making them aware of their membership in society and in the school community, which are ready to listen and provide the students with the necessary tools and space to express themselves.

Final Considerations

It’s an exciting time for media education in Europe. Several initiatives have been launched and a number of national and international research studies on digital media and new generations have been realized pushing to shift the protective paradigm to one focused on children empowerment.

In this context,the teaching profession becomes important in the present day for two reasons. First, in many situations the teacher represents the unique point of reference for many children and young people because they spend most of the day at school. Moreover, the teacher should recognize talents in a world that seems to be split on two sides: the educational and protective school environment on one hand, and the rich and extremely seductive media environment ‘outside’. One of the priorities of his/her profession asks the teacher to identify the students’ critical thinking attitudes such as intellectual curiosity, flexibility, ability to think and operate in a systematic way, the ability to analyze, the value-based approach to knowledge, self-esteem and, also, the ability to trust in other people.

Although teachers play a fundamental role, professional practice in the media education field is still unstable. The creative range of good practices documented through the OnAir project and described in this paper show that in schools it is possible to carry out sustainable, relevant, interdisciplinary media education courses focused on specific media competences (and not on generic technological abilities). “The Historical Newspaper – Asti 1861” experience, for example, is an excellent example of “sustainable” media education, where using few resources and good planning a significant course of instruction occurred. The tasks corresponded to the school level, the course proved to be quite complex regarding media skills development (reading, writing, and critical thinking) and important challenges for future schools emerged (as, for example, collaboration between different types of schools: normal and vocational).    The “From Digital Naïf to (partially) Critical Surfers” project produced fundamentally important results, not only for ME as such, but also regarding acquiring useful abilities and competences in all fields of life. And yet again, the “Literature in a Virtual Dimension. Interdisciplinary Contest” experience, focusing on competition and creativity, enhances the interdisciplinary perspective (literature, media, art), while the “Event Art, or How to Avoid Tags” project tends to develop critical thinking towards the media through graphic productions, using also current political events. While from the “Media Education at High School – Opportunities and Challenges” project we can infer how the students worked hard in a series of editorial tasks, as though they were already working in the media sector (the press, radio, TV, the web, etc.).

Similarly, the “Competence into Mass Media” project is clearly focussed on activities aimed at familiarising with the media and at developing knowledge and competences in this sector, which could come in handy in the pupils’ professional future. Very briefly, these are the positive aspects, but there are also some gray areas. More specifically, the common critical elements on which the scientific community should deeply reflect are those related to documentation and evaluation of practices. As a matter of fact, when present, the first element almost always supports the narration of activities (in and out of the school) and gives little importance to the media educational process underway. While the second element, which is almost always present, is carried out as though ME experiences were intrinsically educational and do not need further elaboration because of the belief, for example, that critical thought can develop naturally after media- related activities. Unfortunately, we have no doubts that this is not so, precisely because given that competences need time to consolidate, each one has to be developed and monitored gradually. Moreover, judging from our experience, it seems that ME activities, though well-rooted in most teachers’ daily teaching, are still considered as “leisure activities” which can be managed and controlled by teachers in the classroom, but not as regards the transferability and the evaluation of the experience. Table 2 presents a summary of the strong and weak points of the media education practices found in this study.

So, a lot of work still has to be done regarding documentation and evaluation. We believe there are three key points that have to be kept in mind when tackling this challenge. First of all, greater collaboration between researchers and teachers is necessary: shared field work not only improves action and research, but is also useful to develop teachers’ specific research competences that can be put to use in future situations. Secondly, researchers should not underestimate the need to improve teachers’ knowledge; consequently, much greater attention should be paid to the design and implementation of tools that support and facilitate documentation and reflective evaluation by teachers. These are both quite complex activities that could be rendered easier if ready-made and easy-to-use tools were available.

Thirdly, documentation methods other than writing ought to be considered, for example video documentation which offers quite a few advantages. More information can be gathered; subjects can be seen in action, more than once and the video can be stopped; it can be commented alone or in a group; several voices can be heard at the same time, not just the teacher’s but also the students’ voices; in a nutshell video documentation can enrich our knowledge of reality in order to understand more today and improve in future.

References

Bisogno, Paolo. 1995. Il futuro della memoria – Elementi per una teoria della documentazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Bruni, Isabella. 2010. “The Practice of Media Education. Topics, Issues, and Examples.” In Media Education in Action. A Research Study in Six European Countries, edited by Alberto Parola and Maria Ranieri, 153-66. Firenze: Firenze University Press.

Buckingham, David. 2003. Media Education. Literacy, Learning and Contemporary culture. London: Polity Press-Blackwell Publishing.

Calvani, Antonio. 2010. “Dove va la Media Education? Riflessioni sull’identità della M. E. nella società contemporanea.” Media Education. Studi, ricerche, buone pratiche 1 (1): 13-25.

Cappello, Gianna. 2009. Nascosti nella Luce. Media, Minori e Media Education. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Cappello, Gianna. 2010. “Beyond the critical vs. creative debate. New challenges for media education in the digital age.” Form@re, 70, September 30. http://formare.erickson.it/wordpress/en/2010/analisi-crit-ica-vs-produzione-creativa-le-nuove-sfide-della- media-education-nell%E2%80%99era-digitale.

Cappello, Gianna and Ida Cortoni. 2011. “Crescere e insegnare nella società in rete.” Media Education. Studi, ricerche, buone pratiche. Special Issue on the European Project OnAir 1 (1): 17 – 32.

Castoldi, Mario. 2010. Didattica Generale. Milano: Mondadori.

Celot, Paolo and José Manuel Perez Tornero. 2008. Media Literacy in Europa. Leggere, scrivere e partecipare nell’era mediatica. Roma: Eurilink, Eurispes.

Ceretti, Filippo, Damiano Felini, and Roberto Giannatelli, eds. 2006. Primi Passi nella Media Education. Trento: Erickson.

Hasebrink, Uwe, Sonia Livingstone, and Leslie Haddon, eds. 2008. Comparing Children’s Online Opportunities and Risks Across Europe: Cross-national Comparisons for EU Kids Online. London: EU Kids Online.

Hobbs, Renée. 2011. “Un’istantanea multinazionale sulla ME in sei paesi europei.” Media Education. Studi, ricerche, buone pratiche. Special Issue on the European Project OnAir 1 (1): 53 – 70.

Jacquinot, Geneviève. 2009. “De quelques repérages pour la recherche en education aux médias.” In EuroMeduc. L’éducation aux medias en Europe. Controverses, défis et perspectives, edited by Paul Verniers, 143-51. Bruxelles: EuroMeduc.

Kirkpatrick, Donald L. 1994. Evaluating Training Programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Livingstone, Sonia and Leslie Haddon, eds. 2009. Kids Online. Opportunities and Risks for Children. Bristol: Polity Press.

Mantovani, Susanna, ed. 1998. La ricerca sul campo in educazione. I metodi qualitativi. Milano: Mon- dadori.

Parola, Alberto and Maria Ranieri. 2010. Media Education in Action. A Research Study in Six European Countries. Firenze: Firenze University Press.

Parola, Alberto and Maria Ranieri. 2011. “Agire la media education. Modelli, strumenti, buone pratiche.” Media Education. Studi, ricerche, buone pratiche. Special Issue on the European Project OnAir 1 (1): 33 – 51.

Pfeiffer, J. William and J John E. Jones, eds. 1985. A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training. San Diego: University Associ- ates.

Staksrud, Elisabeth, Sonia Livingstone, Leslie Haddon, and Kjartan Ólafsson. 2009. What Do We Know About Children’s Use of Online Technologies?. A Report on Data Availability and Research Gaps in Europe (2nd edition). London: EU Kids Online.

Trinchero, Roberto. 2002. Manuale di Ricerca Educativa. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Trinchero, Roberto. 2008. “Valutare la competenza mediale.” In Territori Mediaeducativi, edited by Alberto Parola 327-37. Erickson: Trento.

Trinchero, Roberto. 2010. “Developing and Assessing Media Competence.” In Media Education in Action. A Research Study in Six European Countries, edited by Alberto Parola and Maria Ranieri, 37-54. Firenze: Firenze University Press.

[1] Even though this paper has been jointly conceived by Alberto Parola and Maria Ranieri, Alberto Parola edited the fol- lowing sections: The research context and Final considerations , and Maria Ranieri edited the Introduction, ME practices. Trends and Perspectives, ME Practices: some examples of “good practices”.

Sara Pereira and Manuel Pinto

Communication and Society Research Centre, University of Minho, PORTUGAL

Empowering children for a critical and judicious use and consumption of media is a main objective of media literacy. This paper aims to examine the range of television programs available for children in Portugal through a comparative analysis of the programming for children broadcast by the four Portuguese terrestrial channels (RTP1, RTP2, SIC and TVI) over the course of a year. A content analysis of 4,491 programs reveals that about one third have an explicit educational goal and that preschool children are the primary target audience for children’s television. There are clear differences among Portuguese public and private channels in the content and themes of children’s television programming and little children’s television production comes from Portugal. Television itself could promote this aim through the programs it provides to children, as established in the Agreement for Public Service Television signed in 2008 by the Portuguese State and the public television channel, RTP, but it has yet to be enforced.

Several national and international studies on the relationship between young people and the media show that in spite of the changes that have occurred in the media field, television continues—and will continue for the foreseeable future— to play an important role in children’s everyday lives and in the process of socialization. As many scholars and media professionals observed at the gathering of the World Summit on Children and Media in Karlstad, Sweden, television is an important learning resource and a vehicle for contact with the surrounding world. This reality has raised serious concerns because parents, educators, and policy makers do not always possess the required tools to understand and analyze this issue. Some people fear that the media will exert a harmful influence due to the characteristics of much of its content and its lack of quality. Such concerns are rarely accompanied by a thorough examination of how these problems manifest themselves, what they are conditioned by, and what their dynamics are.

Currently, all Portuguese households have at least one TV set while 97% of households in the European Union have at least one (Directorate General Communication 2007). In 2010, Portuguese people spent, on average, three and a half hours watching TV every day, while the youngest viewers (ages 4 – 14) watched only 23 minutes less than the average adult (Marktest 2010). There were significant changes in the audiovisual sector beginning in the mid-1980s and up to the mid-1990s that increased the number of channels and the total number of hours broadcast. As a result, the number of hours spent watching TV more than doubled during this period (Marktest 2010). During the 1990s, about 50 channels aimed at young audiences were launched worldwide, some of which were extremely successful. In several countries, this situation brought about cuts in the production and broadcasting of children’s programs by national television stations and raised concerns about extensive television deregulation.

Television operators have responsibilities towards children, which gives rise to decisions and obligations that are laid down in laws and deliberations. It is up to the State to ensure that these commitments are fulfilled and put into practice. When examining television content and types of broadcasts, one is able to perceive what a certain sector of society has to say about itself and, particularly in this case, what it has to say about and to children. By analyzing television programming and its quality, it is possible to identify the importance of children’s content, ascertaining the importance and value assigned to children by Portuguese television. One must bear in mind that programming schedules for children are suggestive representations of children’s tastes and preferences. In Portugal, cable television is not yet a reality for all children; most of them only have access to terrestrial channels. In addition, a large number of these children have limited access to cultural events, which means that for many of them, television is their most important means of entertainment, information, and leisure.

Research Aims and Methods

The main aim of this research was to monitor the television programming for children broadcasted by the four Portuguese terrestrial channels, in consonance with the national and European audiovisual laws, to identify and analyze the trends of the Portuguese television for children in the frame of an international context. More specifically, this research has the following aims: (1) to characterize the programming for children in terms of provision by time slot, genre, format, dominant themes, countries of origin, and target audience; (2) to recognize convergences and divergences between private and public channels; and (3) to identify the programs preferred by children and their main characteristics.

To identify programming for children as a subject of study implies the definition of two variables: the type of programs broadcast and the age of children. Although the United Nations defines childhood as people under the age of under eighteen (The Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989), in this research, we considered programs broadcast specifically to children less than sixteen years of age. All the programs directed towards a mass audience or at adults were excluded because they were not produced or broadcasted purposely for children. The quantitative component of this research is based on three main sources: (1) the programming schedules of each channel; (2) the record of the programming broadcasted over the year in analysis; and (3) statistics from Marktest’s industry panel. The study was based on an analysis of twelve sample weeks (the first week of each month from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008). Each program broadcast during this period was analyzed individually for genre, format, dominant theme, country of origin, and target audience.

In the sample selection, it was taken under consideration that programming for children is oriented by a stable structure that is without significant changes during those weeks, in either the time of broadcast or the programs provided. Nevertheless, in order to safeguard possible changes, the following two verification strategies were used. First, we noted all events that caused casual changes in children’s programming. Secondly, we checked programming schedules for the weeks not included in the sample. Through these procedures, it was possible to conclude that an analysis of a week per month provides a reliable portrait of children’s programming overall. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) database, we registered all of the TV programs broadcasted for children over the year by the four terrestrial channels. Overall, the database has 4,941 entries. Data from the quantitative analysis gave us a framework of the main trends of terrestrial television for children audience.

These data were complemented and deepened through a qualitative approach with a main objective of studying ‘container’ programs and the Top 10 series most watched by children.

These shows (also called ‘omnibus programs’) are hosted by one or more people, offering animation series, contests, short reports, and sometimes include children in the studio. During the 1980s, these ‘container’ programs achieved importance in Portuguese terrestrial television, and during the current decade, the Portuguese channels continue to invest in this type of program.

In addition, the programs most watched by children were qualitatively analyzed to understand what kind of characteristics they should present to attract children’s attention and interest. Qualitative analysis provided a more descriptive and comprehensive view of the programming and combined with the quantitative findings, it was possible to reach a general overview of terrestrial television’s programming for children in Portugal. These data were complemented by an analysis of children’s audience ratings that was not considered in this paper.

In order to present and discuss the main findings, we will distinguish two areas: the first one is related with the quantitative analysis of children’s programming and the second one is focused on the qualitative analysis of the programs, particularly the Top 10 programs watched by children.

Characteristics of Children’s Television Programming in Portugal

During the current decade, there has been a rise in the amount of children’s TV programming. This increase has come about mainly due to the investment made by the second channel (RTP2) of public television as well as the introduction of dedicated cable channels. Despite this growth in provision, the programs’ range and the proportion of time devoted to children’s programming vary between the different terrestrial channels, mainly between the public and private channels.

In analyzing TV programming for children, we observed that there is a clear mismatch between the schedules and children’s social lives. The majority of this programming (almost two thirds) is broadcast during the morning, precisely when a large number of children are attending school. In the afternoon, when children are out of school, there are very few programs for children. The exception is private channel TVI, which broadcasts a juvenile soap opera in the late afternoon— a repeat during one hour and a new episode during another hour— and the second public channel (RTP2), which curiously stops its transmission during the previously mentioned soap opera.

The frequency and regularity of the programs for children and teenagers must not be a concern for only public television. There is an implicit or explicit relationship between commercial broadcasters and their audiences. For this reason, it is difficult to understand why public television in Portugal removes almost all of its programs for the youngest viewers from the weekends. In the same sense, is also unacceptable for the private channel SIC to simply interrupt its programming for children during weekdays over four months, as happened during the period sampled. In light of the social responsibility theory, television has obligations to society that go beyond audience ratings and advertising revenues. As stated by McQuail (2003, 188), media organizations “are social institutions that meet important public tasks that go beyond their immediate purpose of achieving profit and providing jobs.”  Although in recent years the media are increasingly eager to maintain or expand their profitability, they are not just any type of business and they have not necessarily ceased to be social institutions. This does not mean that they can ignore economic reality as they have to operate, in whole or in part, according to the rules of the market economy.

Although some authors recognize that television, whether or not it is designed for children, is primarily a business (Schneider 1989), operators cannot ignore its ideological dimension and social responsibility to their younger audience. Television provides not only information about the world, but also selective ways to see and understand the world. Thus, according to Frau-Meigs (2003, 7), “mainstream media can and should provide children with varied opportunities to learn, communicate and create outside the commercial context.”

Genres and Formats

As in many countries of the world, the terrestrial broadcast channels offer fiction and animation (traditional cartoons) as the mainstay of their offerings to children. However, there is some expressive diversity inside this genre concerning the themes presented in the stories. Compared to the 1990s (Pereira 2007a, Pereira, 2007b), we found an emergence of new themes that gather and inscribe current social concerns, such as ecological problems, nourishment, communication across languages, and other issues. Juvenile soap operas have taken on a significant proportion of the share of children’s programming on private channels and this genre has grown significantly over the last eight years.  Figure 1 shows the diversity of programming.

Factual programs (for instance, news programs) for children are completely absent from the schedules of terrestrial channels. In 2009, this situation changed in public television[1], perhaps due to the imposition of the Public Service Broadcasting Concession Agreement, which obliges public broadcasters to include “regular information spaces, properly contextualized, addressed to the juvenile public” (Public Service Broadcasting Concession Agreement 2008, 13).

Table 1 shows that Portuguese children’s television makes use of a variety of media formats, even though 2-D animation is by far the dominant format. Other formats include puppets, live-action, 3-D, and stop-motion animation.

Educational Programs

The issue of educational programming is complex in Portugal. For many educational programs, educational content is guided by a clear and formal curriculum. In some cases, the educational goals are implemented “through the services of one or more educational content specialists” who “define the educational goals or curriculum that guide the selection of topics to be addressed in the series, as well as the ways in which (from an educational perspective) those topics will be handled” (Fisch 2007, 97). Because there are different models of producing educational television, this leads to variability in the functions of educational specialists; as a result, some series are produced with little or no involvement by educational consultants.

The genre of educational television sometimes overlaps with the concept of instructional television. Lemish (2007, 167) distinguishes these two concepts when considering that “usually, educational television has more general, educational goals, while instructional television concentrates on specific subjects that are taught at school.”

Some believe that children can learn about the world through television programs even if the programming does not have educational goals. For example, an entertainment program with prosocial content could bring more positive experiences and effective learning than one built around teaching formal content. As Lemish (2007) points out:

Television is among the most significant of the socializing agents of our times. It teaches children and youth facts, behaviors, values, norms, how the ‘world works’, and it contributes to the formation of worldviews. All these take place even when broadcasters have no educational or instructional intentions, a clear curriculum, or a formalized set of educational goals. In many studies, children report they use the entire range of television programs as a learning environment (147).

Although this is a core topic of television for children and of utmost importance for media literacy education, delving deeply into this discussion would require focusing mainly on it. In order to clarify a definition of educational programming, we focus conceptually more on the latter perspective, for in this research project we had to find an objective criterion that would allow us to unambiguously identify educational programming because it is not always identified by broadcasters.

Therefore, in this study, a program was classified as educational if it presented an explicit educational curriculum or purpose. Thus, we excluded programs with design and production that did not present an educational aim, despite the fact that they might have helped children learn about themselves and the world around them. Following the criteria established, of the 3, 283 programs analyzed, 31% were classified as educational programs and 69% as non-educational. Table 2 shows the distribution of these programs among the four channels where we see that public channels RTP1 and RTP2 broadcast far more educational programs for children than the private channels SEC and TVI.

In Portugal, the main broadcaster of educational programing curriculum for young children is the second channel of public TV (RTP2). This kind of programming falls within the traditional domain of a public service broadcaster. RTP1 has a higher percentage (43%) of educational programs in its programming, followed by RTP2 with 38%. In overall terms, educational content is significantly more prevalent on RTP 2 due to the high number of such programs that it broadcasts. In fact, it delivered 89% of the educational programs broadcasted throughout the study period. The SIC channel is the least represented channel in this distribution (1%). While broadcasting programs for children and young people only during the week, RTP1 still overrides the SIC and TVI channels in the amount of educational programs issued. Overall, the two public channels delivered 95% of the programs with an educational curriculum, while the two private channels broadcast only 5% of such programs.

When we look at the age of the target audience of programs with an educational curriculum, we find that young children have more numerous program choices while there is less educational programming available to older children. Table 3 shows that the overwhelming majority of the programs with an educational curriculum (83.5%) were aimed at children up to 5 years old. The age group of 6-10 years old had a percentage of 14.4%, while the older audience had even less (2.2%). These figures show that the number of programs with an explicit educational purpose decreases as the age group targeted increases. Programs with an explicit educational purpose are primarily aimed at pre-schoolers.

Concerning the target audience of programming aimed at children, an interesting trend was observed: each channel was targeting a single age group. Public channels give priority to the pre-school audience. One private channel – SIC – targeted children 6-10 years old while the other private channel – TVI – mainly targeted children 11-14 years old. Therefore, when considering all of the terrestrial channels, it is possible to remark that there are programs that target the different age groups.

Key Themes in Children’s Programming

A qualitative analysis of the programs allowed us to identify four main themes, which were noted in 65% of the total programs. Themes included interpersonal living (19%); action and adventure (18%); discovery and knowledge of the world/environment (14%); and daily life (14%). There seems to be a tendency for these programs to focus on those issues that are a part of the children’s daily lives. From an adult’s point of view, these topics are important for their development. However, this aspect is somewhat subverted by the longer duration of the programs associated with soap operas plots. There are few news and informational programs for children. No channel broadcast programs on current affairs, an absence that seems inexplicable given the role that television plays in the lives of children, namely as a mediator of the world.

We wondered about the depiction of the media world in children’s media in Portugal. Although many programs are concerned with helping children understand the world around them, reference to the media world is largely absent. Of all the programs screened for analysis, we found only one episode of a preschool series that had media literacy as its principal theme. This was a series with episodes that were organized into specific topics. One of these episodes was dedicated to media and ICT and addressed issues related to the Internet, explaining how they operate, their importance, and contained some tips for using the Internet in a healthy way.

We found noteworthy differences between public and private channels in terms of the four primary content themes. Public channel RTP2 presented the greatest diversity of themes while private channel TVI was the most monothematic as it focused primarily on soap operas. The table below summarizes the dominant themes presented by each channel.

Most Popular Programs for Children in Portugal

In our research, we wanted to examine the programs in which young viewers expressed the greatest interest. We performed an exploratory analysis of these programs without going into their narrative structure. We sought to identify the type of stories, dominant features, protagonists, values, and representations of these programs.

In the selection of these programs, the audience ratings were very clear. The programs most watched by children were not those specifically directed at them, but rather were football games (like the Euro 2008 games or the Portugal Final Cup) and soap operas aimed at general audiences as well as adolescents. Most popular was the program entitled “Morangos com Açúcar”  (Strawberries with Sugar), a youth soap opera broadcast daily about life in a high school.

Most children’s program did not appear at the top of either the Top 10 or Top 20 programs. Nevertheless, these programs demonstrate a visibility and an alleged role in children’s lives that deserves to be taken into account. Therefore, we decided to provide a list of the ten most popular television programs among those programs that might be considered to be explicitly targeted at a younger audience[2]. Table 6 describes these programs, which are primarily animated cartoons and programs that, with the exception of “Little Philosophers,” fall in the fiction genre. These programs were broadcast by just two channels: SIC (private station) and RTP2 (public station). The lack of programs on RTP1 and the predominance of soap operas on TVI (many of which were repeats) could explain the preferences for RTP2 and SIC. As the quantitative findings showed, these are the two terrestrial channels that pay the most attention to the younger audience.

Among the Top 10 programs, there are series targeted to various ages from pre-school children to teens. For half of these programs, the United States is the country of origin. One program is made in South Korea while the others are produced in European countries. There is some kind of association between the programs’ country of origin and the channels that broadcast them. Thus, all of the programs broadcast by the private channel (SIC) were from the United States and produced by Walt Disney while the programs aired by the public channel (RTP2) were produced (with one exception) in European countries or Canada (more likely in co-production). This seems to be related to the type of programming characteristic of each channel. In this sample, the action of the programs from the United States predominantly takes place in urban contexts and the stories have fast-paced narration. This pattern best characterizes the programming of private channel SIC. For the most part, the stories presented in the programs broadcast by public channel RTP2 were narrated at a calmer pace. The countryside, the forest, the home and the school were the main contexts of action. Furthermore, these were also the typical features of the children’s programming broadcast by RTP2. In the gender of the main characters, there was a balance in female and male roles.

In spite of the difficulty identifying a pattern in the preferences of children, we can ask what specific program features seem to motivate and capture the attention and interest of children. The features and ingredients that contribute to making an attractive story for children are action, adventure, fantastic powers, the struggle between good and bad characters or the forces of good and evil, technical objects (especially when equipped with a magical power), romantic relationships and lovers’ disputes, the magic arts, actors equipped with magical powers, and humor (which is an ingredient across all programs). These ingredients appear in a prominent position in the features that captured attention and raised the interest level of children.

For the pre-school audience, anthropomorphic objects and animals continue to inhabit the programs aimed at them. The series for this target audience are mainly guided by friendship and cooperation. Many of the most popular programs feature the mobile phone, which has emerged as an essential tool and gadget when adolescent relationships are represented. This is obviously a reflection of recent times.

Finally, a note on dubbing. Some of these programs contain dubbing that is technically bad, where sometimes the language is incomprehensible or makes use of a childish register that could be offensive to children. Researchers and media professionals should pay more attention to dubbing as it would both enhance the quality of the programs and serve as a sign of consideration and respect for children.

Conclusion

During the two last decades, the context of children’s development and socialization and the consciousness of their place in society have changed significantly. The relationship between the youngest viewers and television cannot be disconnected from other platforms that complement and enrich that experience. The Internet has become a new way to access TV and video, and social networks, with their forums, chats and e-mails as well as the incorporation of mobile usage in adolescents’ everyday lives, have created a wide network of exchanges and interactions of which television constitutes a part. Recent studies have drawn attention to this diversification of the communication environment and the resulting changes in children’s media consumption habits (Carlsson 2010; Rydin and Sjöberg 2010; Livingstone 2009; OFCOM 2007). As a report produced by the British regulatory agency OFCOM points out, “Children are at the forefront of changes in technology and the increase in their use of the Internet and other media is having an impact on the way that television is used and viewed by children today (OFCOM 2007, 72).

Children’s television has been studied worldwide from different theoretical frameworks and following various types of methodology. These studies have focused mainly on analyzing programming and programs; addressing issues such as violence and advertising spaces for the youngest generation; the reflection and discussion of the criteria for quality programming; the debate on TV (de)regulation; and the advantages and disadvantages of a global television industry. Despite the different social, cultural and economic contexts at a national level, the trends of programming for children over the last decade are consistent across the globe.

With regards to television for children, the process of globalization has opened doors to two large international trends: the globalization of the programs’ production, in particular the production of animation, and the global competition for the sale and distribution of programs directed at children. Three US companies (Cartoon Network, Disney and Nickelodeon) with their international distribution of programs, are considered global television channels for young people (Westcott 2002).

The results of the study presented demonstrate that terrestrial channels, either public or private, do not invest in the national production of programs. The percentage of Portuguese programs scheduled for children were almost exclusively the production of juvenile soap operas. Audience ratings have shown that this is the genre most favored by Portuguese children. Perfectly aware of this fact, the private channel TVI has created a show that not only attracts children, but also adult viewers. It was for this reason— to captivate audiences beyond the child— that this program is still broadcast daily in the late afternoon, which makes this slot extremely high yielding in terms of ratings, as it reaches a wide age range of child, adolescent, and adult viewers.

Although the programming schedules are full of international programs, the channels where these programs are displayed can play a decisive role in their adaptation to local contexts through dubbing (the technique most used to translate the foreign programs). Creating the dubbing is a demanding job in terms of language appropriation, interpretation, diction, and musical adaptation. Furthermore, it is important to note how this activity can contribute to improving the quality of a particular program and helps it to adapt and adjust international products to the culture and identity of a specific country. Therefore, although there are economic constraints to investing in national programs for children, is important to invest in the quality of the technical treatment programs purchased in international markets receive. While the way a product is processed and presented to the public can maintain the quality level of its production or even contribute to its improvement, it could also impoverish or distort the original version. Therefore, a program’s dubbing cannot be seen as an impoverishment of the product. If this job is done well and guided by demand patterns, it could benefit the children because it gives them access to a product that was produced in another country, but was translated locally. This allows the possibility of assigning the program characteristics of the national culture.

This discussion does not intend to defend the closing of television to international programs or argue that only national programs are good for children. On this subject, we agree with Buckingham (1999) when he states that the idea that the culture of children can and should be protected from ‘contamination’ of the trading system reflects a utopian and protectionist notion of childhood, which is very questionable. These notions are based on the perspective that a system dominated by the market will inevitably lead to the neglect of children’s social and cultural needs. In this regard, Buckingham argues that market issues in the sphere of culture are more complex and ambiguous than the critics of this system tend to suggest and that children do not necessarily lose in this situation. Buckingham believes that the market can offer quality and diversity while promoting the social, cultural, and intellectual development of children. However, Buckingham also points out that these are not the market’s main goals and that achieving them depends on how the system is regulated and the complex balance between economic and cultural forces.

Today’s children in Portugal are born into a world that is both local and global. On the one hand, they are engaged in similar activities and share the same tastes and interests of children across Europe (Livingstone and Bovill, 2001) and even other continents. On the other hand, they (re) produce the socialization patterns, habits and activities that are characteristic of their country and the communities in which they live. This means that in order to study the role of media in children’s lives it is necessary to meet two seemingly divergent processes— ‘globalization’ and ‘localization’— and trying to assess how children mediate them.

The digital technologies and the changes enacted in the media landscape have a great influence on the cultures of children and young people (Carlsson 2002), where television itself can play an important role in the family. However, this mediation process requires that adults who care for children gain knowledge of the programming aimed at children. In general, however, few parents monitor children’s programs. This is a critical aspect with regard to the Portuguese context. Apart from the positive or the negative scenario of television for children, the public speech on this issue is a crystallized discourse that clings to the idea that programming for young people is violent, aggressive, and low-quality. This discourse is common to parents, teachers, and even a number of academics.

This scenario shows the importance of media literacy for children, families, academics, and media professionals at a minimum of three levels: as an attempt to respond to the changes and challenges of media culture, as a key to shared social responsibility towards media performance, and as a means to ensure that quality children’s programming thrives in the new media landscape. Research could play an important role in informing society, disseminating research results and mediating scientific knowledge for the general public, as well as contributing to improve its media literacy. Our research presents beneficial surprises in all channels: more diversity of themes and formats as compared to the study carried out by Pereira (2007b) and an investment in educational content aimed mainly at pre-school children. The programming for adolescents is poorly diversified and too focused on the juvenile soap operas that have become a true phenomenon of audiences for nearly a decade.

Portugal has followed the global trend in programming migration from mainstream to cable channels and this reality is even more evident today. Programs for children are seen as less profitable than programs for adults or the family, which is leading to an exit for open aired channels.

This has led to an emergence of more cable channels dedicated to the child audience. The majority of these channels are international channels, but one channel launched in 2009 is owned by the Portuguese company that also owns the terrestrial channel SIC and other cable channels. This extends the spectrum of cable channels dedicated specifically to children, but closes the provision of the terrestrial channels. This situation leaves children who have no access to cable or satellite television at a clear disadvantage. This access could be seen as a privilege that could lead to an inequality of opportunities among children in their socialization and the information, learning, and entertainment available to them. Therefore, it is important to appeal to the social responsibility of broadcasters and defend and strengthen the idea of public service broadcasting in order to preserve the children’s needs and interests by offering them television that respects and promotes the right to difference.

Governmental regulatory bodies should pay special attention to this matter. The authors of this study produced the data reported here (the first conducted specifically in Portugal) at the request of a regulator, the Council of the Portuguese Media Regulatory Authority, which has fulfilled its mission to support such research. In addition, support and grounds for the regulatory action were sought in this research, an aspect that the research team praised, taking into account its meaning and importance for the regulation of children’s television in Portugal.

Nevertheless, it is our understanding that the issue of regulation cannot stay only with those in charge at the Regulatory Authority. It is also important that civil society itself creates and activates discussion forums about the programming practices and standards that guide television stations, which gives more responsibility to the operators and the audience. In this sense, in relation to children’s television, it is important that Portuguese society— represented by parents, educators and teachers, viewers and consumer associations, organizations for the protection and promotion of children’s rights, lobbyists, and other interested parties— has a more informed, active, and critical voice with respect to television for children, the legislation that regulates it and its (non)compliance. In fact, at a time that society demands television in particular, and the media in general, to guide its activities based on the principle of social responsibility (McQuail 2003) and promote public interests over private interests, society itself does not resign from sharing the responsibility of monitoring the television aimed at children.

As mentioned previously, the commercial market currently plays an increasingly important role in the construction of childhood, as it is impossible to deny or condone the status of children as consumers. We again agree with Buckingham (2000, 166-167) when he states, “attempting to create a ‘safe space’ for children, in which they will remain uncontaminated by commercial influences— as is the case in current moves to ban advertising from children’s television— is to retreat into an unreal fantasy world. Rather than seeking to protect children from the marketplace, we need to find ways of preparing them to deal with it.”

Empowering children for a critical and judicious use and consumption of media is a main objective of media literacy. Television itself could promote this aim through the programs it provides to children. This purpose is established in the “Agreement for Public Service Television” signed in 2008 by the Portuguese State and RTP (the company that currently holds the concession for broadcasting public radio and television), but is yet to be enforced by the public service channels. Educators, scholars, and media professionals with interests in children’s media and media literacy await what will happen next.

References

Buckingham, David, and Hannah Davies, Ken Jones, Peter Kelley. 1999. Children’s Television in Britain: History, Discourse and Policy. London: BFI Publishing.

Buckingham, David. 2000. After the Death of Childhood: Growing Up in the Age of Electronic Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Carlsson, Ulla. 2010. “Young People in the Digital Media Culture. Global and Nordic Perspectives. An Introduction”. In Children and Youth in the Digital Media Culture, edited by Ulla Carlsson, 9-22. University of Gothenburg, Nordicom: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media.

Carlsson, Urie 2002. “Foreword”. In Children, Young People and Media Globalisation, edited by Cecilia von Feilitzen and Urie Carlsson, 7-11. Göteborg University, Nordicom: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media.

Contrato de Concessão do Serviço Público de Televisão (Public Service Broadcasting Concession Agreement), March 25, 2008

Directorate General Communication. 2007. E-Communications Household. Survey. Special Eurobarometer 274 / Wave 66.3 – TNS Opinion & Social. European Commission.

Fisch, Shalom M. 2007. “Peeking Behind the Screen: Varied Approaches to the Production of Educational Television.” In The Children’s Television Community, edited by J. Alison Bryant, 95-109. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Frau-Meigs, Divina and Sophie Jehel. 1997. Les Écrans de la Violence. Enjeux Économiques et Responsabilités Sociales. Paris: Economica.

Lemish, Dafna. 2007. Children and Television: A Global Perspective. Oxford: Blakwell Publishing.

Livingstone, Sonia and Moira Bovill. 2001. Children and their Changing Media Environment: A European Comparative Study. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Livingstone, Sonia. 2009. Children and the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Marktest Audimetria. 2010. Anuário de Media e Publicidade. Lisboa: Grupo Marktest.

McQuail, Dennis. 2003. Teoria da Comunicação de Massas. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.

Office of Communications (OFCOM). 2007. The future of children’s television programming. London: Ofcom

Pereira, Sara, Manuel Pinto, and Eulália Pereira. 2009. A Televisão e as Crianças. Um ano de programação na RTP 1, RTP2, SIC e TVI. Lisboa: ERC

Pereira, Sara. 2006. “‘Strawberies With Sugar’” – Children´s Perceptions of a Portuguese Soap Opera. Paper presented at the 25th IAMCR Conference Societies for All: Media and Communication Strategies, Cairo, Egypt, July 23-28.

Pereira, Sara. 2007. “O fenómeno das novelas juvenis – o caso Floribella”. In Anuário 2006 – A comunicação e os media em análise, edited by Joaquim Fidalgo and Manuel Pinto, 11-18. Braga: Centro de Estudos de Comunicação e Sociedade, Universidade do Minho.

Pereira, Sara. 2007a. A Minha TV é um Mundo: Programação para Crianças na Era do Ecrã Global. Porto: Campo das Letras.

Pereira, Sara. 2007b. Por Detrás do Ecrã: Televisão para Crianças em Portugal. Porto: Porto Editora.

Rydin, Ingegerd and Ulrika Sjöberg. 2010. “From TV Viewing to Participatory Cultures. Reflections on Childhood in Transition. In Children and Youth in the Digital Media Culture, edited by Ulla Carlsson, 87-101. University of Gothenburg, Nordicom: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media.

Schneider, Cy 1989. Children’s Television: The Art, the Business, and How it Works. Illinois: NTC Business Book.

Westcott, Tim. 2002. “Globalisation of Children’s TV and Strategies of the ‘Big Three’”. In Children, Young People and Media Globalisation, edited by Cecilia von Feilitzen and Ulla Carlsson, 69-76. University of Gothenburg, Nordicom: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media.

---

---

[1] In 2009 and 2010, RTP2 broadcasted a news bulletin named ‘Diário XS’ (‘Daily XS’) that aimed to inform young people from 8 to 12 years old on national and international events in the fields of politics, science, arts, sport, school and weather in a simple way. This program returns to RTP2’s programming schedules in October 2011.

[2]The juvenile soap operas despite appearing at the top of children’s preferences were not considered for this analysis. Given the dominance of soap operas on the private channels’ programming, it was always necessary to create specific categories to analyze this genre. Given the nature of its plot and narrative structure, which differs from fiction series aimed at children, juvenile soap operas weren’t included. The fact that these soap operas have been studied by another research project (see Pereira 2006 and Pereira 2007) also contribute to this decision.

Gabriella Polizzi

Sociology of Culture and Communication, Università degli Studi di Enna “Kore”, ITALY

School principals play an important role in managing media and technology integration into school teaching since they can foster the use of information communication technologies (ICT) at a strategic level, even supporting the introduction of media literacy education activities into teaching. Starting from a review on the role of principals’ attitudes and behaviors as facilitators of ICT integration into school teaching using a diffusion of innovation model, the paper investigates the role of principals’ attitudes and additional variables in influencing their support for such integration. The paper reports on data collected from 116 public schools in Palermo (Italy), where the supportive behaviors of 95 principals were investigated through a self-assessment questionnaire in 2006. Findings reveal that principals’ support for ICT integration behaviors depend on both contextual-level and individual-level variables. Contextual variables include the amount of ICT equipment available for teachers in their school, teachers’ competence and frequency of use and teachers’ attitudes towards the ICT usage. Individual-level variables includes principals’ attitudes towards ICT integration into school teaching, their exposure to ICT training courses and their own perceptions of their competence in using ICT.

Around the world, scholars have noted that the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) [1] into school teaching has become a key issue in education since the early 1990s (Pelgrum 1993). Since the challenge of technology integration into education is more cultural than technological (Sheingold 1991), countries have the responsibility not merely to provide computers for schools, but also to foster a culture of acceptance amongst the end-users of these tools (Albirini 2006), whether they are teachers or students. Indeed, according to previous research on the adoption of technological innovation, the intention to use any technological system is influenced by the potential users’ level of acceptance of it (Davis 1986; Davis 1989; Davis et al. 1989). As Albirini (2006) argued, “the successful implementation of educational technologies depends largely on the attitudes of educators, who eventually determine how they are used in the classroom” (375).

Principals play an important role in leading ICT integration into school teaching (Dawson and Rakes 2003; Mulkeen 2003; Pelgrum 1993; Tondeur et al. 2008), because they can foster the use of ICT at a strategic and action level (Baylor and Ritchie 2002), even supporting the introduction of media literacy education activities into teaching (Polizzi 2009a), with media literacy education being conceptualized as the use of the old and new media as both technical tools and subjects within school teaching.

In this paper, I present a review on the role of principals’ attitudes and behaviors as facilitators of ICT integration into school teaching as an example of innovation diffusion process (Rogers 1995). Then I describe the methodology and results of a study conducted in 116 public schools in Palermo, Italy, where the supportive behaviors of 95 principals were investigated through a self-assessment questionnaire in 2006 (Cappello 2009; Siino 2009a; Siino 2009b). The question addressed in the paper is what variables are associated with principals’ supportive behaviour for ICT integration into school teaching. In this regard the starting hypotheses of the paper posit that such behaviour depends on both individual-level variables, such as principals’ attitude towards ICT integration into school teaching; principals’ attendance at ICT training courses; and principals’ ICT competence and frequency of use; and contextual-level variables, such as the amount of ICT equipment available for teachers in their school; teachers’ ICT competence and frequency of use; and teachers’ attitudes towards the ICT usage within school teaching.

Literature Review

Integrating ICT into teaching: Diffusion of innovation approach

The integration of ICT into school teaching can be considered and studied as an example of what Rogers (1995) called the diffusion of innovation. Innovation can be defined as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption. [...] The characteristics of an innovation, as perceived by the members of a social system, determine its rate of adoption” (Rogers 2002, 990; my italics). Diffusion is the process through which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system (Rogers 1995). Five stages can be distinguished within the innovation-decision process at individual level: (1) the knowledge of the innovation; (2) the attitude toward the innovation, which can be expressed – for instance – along the continuum from the minimum interest to the maximum interest; (3) the decision to adopt or reject the innovation, based on a previous evaluation of its main attributes; (4) the implementation of the innovation, consisting in the first use of it, and (5) the confirmation of such first use, resulting in the lasting adoption of the innovation over time.

For the purposes of this paper, the main lesson that can be drawn from the framework proposed by Rogers is that any innovation-decision process at the individual level is influenced by two elements: the perceptions of the characteristics of the innovation and of their relative importance; and the attitudes towards the possibility of adopting such innovation (attitudes deriving from the perceptions previously formed and, at the same time, affecting the successive perceptions formation).

Such considerations are explicitly supported by another influential research stream on innovation adoption, originally proposed by Davis (1986; 1989; Davis et al.1989) and known as Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Such a model is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) to explain and predict the behaviors of people in a specific situation. According to this theory, the behavior of an individual depends on his/her intentions, and such intentions derive from his/her attitudes toward behavior and his subjective norms. Starting from such theoretical framework, Davis et al. (1989) argue that the intention to use any technological system is influenced by two other relevant factors: perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.

Three considerations can be derived from a review of this literature: perceptions influence attitudes;  these attitudes then affect the behavioral intention to use a technological system; such intentions influence actual technology use. In other words, because adopters’ perceptions and attitudes are some of the most important variables for explaining any innovation-decision process, technology implementation plans for schools require their adopters to hold favourable attitudes towards their introduction. Teachers and principals represent influential adopters of ICT at school, since through their attitudes and behaviors they are able to introduce innovations both into their way of teaching and into students’ way of learning.

When ICTs are integrated into teaching, they can be used (1) as tools for school teaching, in terms of technical instruments supporting student learning; or (2) as subjects within school teaching, in terms of the content of student learning. These two types of activities involving the use of the media can be defined, respectively, as teaching through the media and teaching about the media[1] (Buckingham 2003). An example of teaching through the media is the use of television as a mean for teaching traditional subjects as science or history, or the use of the cassette recorder and, more recently, the CD player for teaching foreign languages, whereas teaching about the media includes activities targeted at developing the students’ ability to read and write the media, respectively, in the terms of critical analysis and creative production (Cheung 2009). In a strict sense, teaching about the media is commonly considered the core of media education (Buckingham 2001), which is also known as media literacy (Hobbs 1998).

Many sorts of media and technology activities in the classroom have increased as a result of the spread of ICT around the world. Mokhtar (2005) pointed out that the implementation of IT policies brought about reforms in the education system. These reforms include “new learning scenarios, from passive learning to active, critical and analytical learning; new expectations on teachers, in terms of IT competencies; and new roles that teachers must assume, from knowledge-dispensers to knowledge-guides and creators” (Mokhtar 2005, 28).

As Park and Biddix (2008) claim, numerous researchers share the idea that digital media education should pursue the following aims: (1) awareness of both the potential and the dangers of digital media in everyday life; (2) hardware/software access, in terms of material equitable access to and utilization of digital media; and (3) digital skills, which are within the scope of media education. According to Park and Biddix (2008),

Digital skill is believed to be central to helping youth make the most of the benefits arising from technological innovation, while concurrently leading to more informed judgments regarding content and usage in cyberspace. Aspects of digital media skills include: technical literacy, informational literacy, and communication literacy, which should be viewed as complementary skills (Park and Biddix 2008, 105).

The adoption of educational innovations by teachers consisting of teaching through and about the media needs to be supported by school principals, with teaching about the media requiring more targeted strategies to be planned by principals than teaching with the media does (Cappello 2009). In both cases, however, principals can play a strategic role in leading ICT integration into school teaching, as discussed in the next section.

The role of school principals in integrating ICT into teaching

An increasing number of scholars agree that leadership plays a major role in ICT implementation at schools, especially in its integration into the curriculum (Cuban 1986; Dawson and Rakes 2003; Mulkeen 2003; Pelgrum 1993; Tyack and Cuban 1995; Tondeur et al. 2008). As Pelgrum (1993, 200) stated, “Amongst other things, attitudes of school principals play a role in determining to what extent computers are used.” The attitudes of participants who are involved in an educational innovation play a role in determining to what degree and with what speed change will be effected (Fullan et al. 1988). Pelgrum’s research showed that principals with very positive attitudes towards the usage of computers tended to influence their teaching staff by emphasizing the importance of computer-integrated learning.

According to Merkley et al. (1997), ICT training received by teachers is not sufficient to an effective ICT integration in the curriculum if teachers are not supported by the leadership of their school principals. A research stream specifically focused on the role of school technology leadership in educational reforms has been developing over the last years (for further details, see Akbaba-Altun 2004; Anderson and Dexter 2005; Creighton 2003; Flanagan and Jacobsen 2003; Fullan 2002;  Hamzah et al. 2010). In this direction, results from a literature review by Akbaba-Altun (2004, 257) suggested that principals “are expected to display active leadership in any kind of innovation at school level, including technological changes in the process of teaching and learning [...] Consequently, it is inevitable for school principals to have new roles as IT classrooms increase.”

Policy makers and school principals can plan and support the participation of teachers in integration-focused training activities, whose impact on the overall usage of ICT in subject teaching is stronger than the impact of basic ICT skills courses (Mulkeen 2003). Such results are consistent with the ones by Pelgrum (1993), who claimed that the amount of information teachers received in training courses about pedagogical/instructional aspects of using computers is quite strongly associated with their attitudes about the educational impact of computers. Since the use of ICT by an individual can be encouraged by training, scholars note that school principals should be provided with ICT training specifically targeted at technology integration into the curriculum. With respect to this issue, Dawson and Rakes (2003) found evidence that technology integration into the classroom is influenced by the type and the amount of technology training received by principals. In the same direction, Serhan’s (2007) research further confirmed that principals’ positive attitudes towards the introduction of ICT in the classroom can be fostered by technology training for school leadership, since

when school principals feel comfortable using the technology and realize its possible applications in education then they can help facilitate its incorporation into the curriculum. A positive attitude starting from the school leadership can spread to the teaching faculty in the school and hence to the classroom and the students. Training workshops help raise school principals’ awareness and build their confidence in their abilities to use technology and therefore facilitate its adoption as a complementing part in the curriculum (Serhan 2007, 46).

Research by Tondeur et al. (2008) emphasized the role of local school policies in ICT integration from a school improvement approach and identified five policies that required an active intervention by school principals, namely: the presence of an ICT policy plan, leadership supporting the process of ICT integration, school internal support, evaluation of ICT use, and between-school cooperation (for further details see Tondeur et al. 2008, 214–215). In addition, these scholars stress the impact that teachers’ perceptions of ICT school policies can have on ICT integration in the classroom.

Policy makers and school leaders can foster the increase of ICT equipment in schools. For example, Mulkeen (2003) found a correlation between the amount of ICT equipment at primary schools and the overall usage of ICT in subject teaching. As a consequence, when school principals increase the amount of ICT equipment in schools, they can indirectly support an increase of media and technology usage in the classroom. Based on this review of the literature, six main research hypotheses examine some of the variables that may be associated with principals’ supportive behaviors for ICT integration into teaching:

• H1. Principal support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with his/her attendance at ICT training courses, in the sense that principals having attended ICT training courses are expected to give stronger support than principals without any past attendance.

• H2. Principal support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with his/her ICT competence and frequency of use, in the sense that principals with higher levels of ICT competence and frequency of use are expected to give stronger support than principals with lower levels.

• H3. Principal support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with his/her attitude towards such integration, in the sense that principals with positive attitudes are expected to give stronger support than principals with negative attitudes.

• H4. Principal support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with the amount of ICT equipment available for teachers in his/her school, in the sense that principals working in schools with a larger amount of ICT equipment are expected to give stronger support than principals working in schools with a smaller amount.

• H5. Principal support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with teachers’ ICT competence and frequency of use, in the sense that principals working in schools where teachers already have higher ICT competence and frequency of use are expected to give stronger support than principals working in schools where teachers have lower ones

• H6. Principal support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with teachers’ attitudes towards such integration, in the sense that principals working in schools where teachers already have positive attitudes are expected to give stronger support than principals working in schools where teachers have negative attitudes

Research Methodology

This research is a secondary data analysis of research originally aimed at examining the attitudes and behaviors of teachers, ICT coordinators, and principals in all public schools (N = 170) existing in Palermo, Italy in 2006[2]. As the capital of Sicily, more than 600,000 people (primarily of Sicilian descent) reside in Palermo. The overall scope of this research was to collect data about the general state of ICT integration into school teaching in Palermo, as a preliminary source of information for conducting future in-depth research on attitudes and behaviors of different stakeholders (principals, teachers, families and students).

Sample. There are a total of 145 school principals in Palermo[3]. However, only 67.6% of principals agreed to take part in the research. As a result, this study included school leaders from 116 schools. Three principals refused to be involved into the research, although they allowed the research team the opportunity to access their schools for identifying two different aspects of ICT integration into teaching: the ICT equipment available for teachers, as reported by ICT coordinators through a self-administered questionnaire; the level of ICT integration in the classroom, as reported by teachers through a self-administered questionnaire. Ninety-five school principals agreed to participate in the research, according to the following distribution: 33.7% in primary schools, 22.1% in middle schools, 23.1% in secondary schools and 21.1% in comprehensive schools. Principals filled in a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire included 107 multiple-choice questions and one open-ended question. Besides other aims, the questionnaire, which was validated by means of pre-testing on ten principals, examined the variables described below.

Principals’ support for ICT integration into teaching. Four dichotomous questions asked principals to report the presence/absence of the following four types of ICT training courses that principals had provided their teachers with: (a) basic ICT skills courses; (b) advanced ICT skills courses; (c) ICT skills courses for getting the European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL); (d) ICT courses in media analysis. Whereas the first three types of courses can be supposed to be primarily targeted at supporting teaching through the media, the fourth one can be considered as a way of fostering teaching about the media in the classroom. The presence/absence of the four types of ICT training courses was checked by means of four dichotomous variables indicating the absence or presence of each type of training. For each principal the scores on the four training courses were aggregated by sum into a variable identified as principal’s support for ICT integration into teaching (hereafter, principal’s support). As a consequence, principal’s support is expressed through an ordinal variable, where zero indicates no support for training and four indicates the maximum variety of training opportunities.

Principals’ attitudes towards ICT integration into teaching. Ten multiple-choice questions asked subjects to report their own positive or negative perceptions of ICT usefulness for school teaching. Sample items include statements about the usefulness of ICT for school teaching that principals could agree or disagree with on a 4-point scale (from totally agree to not agree at all).

Principals’ attendance at ICT training courses. One single item asked subjects to report how they had approached the use of computer (by a training course, by friends’ aid, self-taught person, etc.).

Principals’ ICT competence and frequency of use. Sixty-seven multiple-choice questions asked subjects to report their own perceptions of their ICT competence and frequency of use both at home and within their work environment. Sample items include the number and types of software that principals were able to use, the frequency of use of software within a working week, etc.

Amount of ICT equipment already available for teachers in the school. These items were gathered from a self-administered questionnaire to ICT coordinators. Sample items include the number of computers and other ICT technologies teachers could use in the school.

As mentioned before, teachers (n = 448) also participated in the research and completed a different self-administered questionnaire^[v], which, besides other aspects, focused on the following two dimensions:

Teachers’ ICT competence and frequency of use. Sample items include the number and types of software that principals were able to use, the frequency of use of software within a working week, etc.

Teachers’ attitude towards ICT integration into teaching. Sample items include statements about the usefulness of ICT for school teaching that principals could agree or disagree with on  a 4-point scale (from totally agree to not agree at all).

The research hypotheses here tested posit a relationship between principal’s  support, identified as the response variable, and the remaining six variables listed above, considered as its predictors. Such predictors can be classified as school principal individual-level variables or contextual-level variables. School principal individual-level variables include the following three: principal’s attendance at ICT training courses; principal’s ICT competence and frequency of use; and principal’s attitude towards ICT integration into teaching. School principal contextual-level variables include the remaining three: amount of ICT equipment already available for teachers in the school; teachers’ ICT competence and frequency of use; and teachers’ attitude towards ICT integration into teaching. With the exception of principal attendance at ICT training courses, which was measured through a single dichotomous variable, the remaining five predictors were built through the aggregation of more variables, most of which being ordinal and consequently being aggregated through the method of summated ratings (Likert 1932).

Data Analysis, Results and Discussion

A logistic regression model was used to identify whether and how the six predictors influence principal’s support. A limitation of this study is that it was not possible to fit a unique 7-variables model (one response and six predictors), because of the small number of school principals units included in the research (n = 95).  Consequently, data analysis did not adopt an inferential approach but a descriptive one. For such reason standard errors and other values that are typical of the inferential approach are not reported in this paper. In order to make data processing and interpretation easier, both response and predictor variables were dichotomised.

Two different logistic regression models with principal’s support as the response variable were built and studied separately. Model 1 includes the individual-level variables, whereas Model 2 contains the contextual ones. Both model 1 and 2 fit data very well, as the low Pearson chi-squares values in Table 2 suggest. Table 3 reports parameter estimates (β) and odds ratios, exp(β), between the response variable, principal’s support for ICT integration into teaching and six predictor variables. Based on the interpretation of odds ratios exp(β), I tested the six research hypotheses.

Hypothesis one stated that principals who had attended ICT training courses tend to give stronger support for ICT integration into teaching than principals without any past attendance do. Research findings support such hypothesis, exp(β^A₁^B₁) = 1.504, so showing that principal’s support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with his/her attendance to ICT training courses. Such result is consistent with the one from Dawson and Rakes’ research (2003), who found that technology training received by principals influenced ICT integration into the classroom. In the same direction, this result is consistent with the one from Serhan’s (2007) research, who pointed out that technology training for school leadership is able to foster principals’ positive attitudes towards the introduction of ICT in the classroom.

I also found support for hypothesis two, which stated that principals with higher levels of ICT competence and frequency of use tend to give stronger support for ICT integration into teaching, exp(β^A₁^C₁) = 1.331. This result is consistent with similar results from previous research (Albirini 2006; Polizzi 2009b; Venkatesh et al. 2003), which showed that individuals with higher levels of competence and frequency of use of a technological system have more positive attitudes towards its uses.

Hypothesis three stated that principals with positive attitudes towards ICT integration into teaching give stronger support for such integration than principals with negative attitudes do. As Table 3 shows, the research results support the hypothesis, exp(β^A₁^D₁) = 1.487, and are consistent with the ones from previous studies (Albirini 2006; Rogers 1995; Davis et al. 1989), which showed that attitudes affect the behavioral intention to use a technological system (or to make other people use it, as in the case of school principals). I also found support for hypothesis four, which stated that principals who can benefit from a larger amount of ICT equipment available for teachers in their school tend to give stronger support for ICT integration into teaching, exp(β^A₁^E₁) = 3.209. Such result is consistent with similar results obtained by Mulkeen (2003) as well as from the present research carried out on teachers in Palermo (Polizzi 2009b), which found that ICT integration into the classroom is more frequent when teachers can benefit from an higher availability of old and new media in their schools. Hypothesis five stated that principals who manage schools where teachers already have higher ICT competence and frequency of use give stronger support for ICT integration into teaching. Research results support such hypothesis, exp(β^A₁^F₁) = 2.363 and are consistent with similar results obtained from the research carried out on teachers in Palermo (Polizzi 2009b), which found that teachers with higher ICT competence and frequency of use tend more to put ICT integration into the curriculum in practice, and such behaviors can reinforce principals’ support for ICT integration into teaching, so creating a virtuous circle between teachers’ competence and principals’ supportive behaviors.

Finally, I hypothesized that principals’ supportive behaviors were associated with teachers’ attitudes towards such integration. However, results show that principal’s behaviour seems to be independent from teachers’ attitudes towards ICT integration into teaching, exp(β^A₁^G₁) = 1.040. Such result controverts hypothesis six claiming that principals’ support for ICT integration into teaching is associated with teachers’ attitudes towards such integration. In other words, there is no relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards ICT integration in teaching and principals’ supportive behaviors. A preliminary explanation of such a result to be further investigated by future research could be that teachers’ visible behaviors (as corresponding to the tangible ICT uses they make in their schools) are more effective in influencing principals’ supportive behaviors than teachers’ attitudes. After all, teachers’ attitudes have a lower level of “observability” than behaviors, as seen from a principal’s eyes.

By comparing the odds ratios reported in Table 3, it can be noticed that two contextual-level variables, such as the amount of ICT equipment available for teachers in their school and teachers’ ICT competence and frequency of use, have bigger influence on principals’ support for ICT integration into teaching than individual-level variables. In particular, individual-level variables such as principals’ attendance at ICT training courses and principals’ attitudes affect their supportive behaviors more than principals’ ICT competence and frequency of use do. Finally, teachers’ attitudes seem to have little or no influence on principals’ supportive behaviors.

Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

The questions addressed in this paper examined a range of variables which may affect principals’ support for ICT integration in schools.  The starting hypotheses of the paper posited that such support depends on both individual-level variables such as the principal’s attitudes towards the use of ICT within school teaching, their participation in ICT training courses, and their own perceived levels of ICT competence and their frequency of using technology, and contextual-level variables such as the amount of ICT equipment available for teachers in their school, teachers’ self-reported ICT competence and frequency of use, and teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ICT within school teaching.

Data analysis showed that two contextual-level variables, such as the amount of ICT equipment available for teachers in their school and teachers’ ICT competence and frequency of use, have the biggest influence on principal’s supportive behaviors. However, further research should examine whether and to what extent principals’ supportive behaviors can be an antecedent of such factors and not simply an effect of theirs. Individual-level ones seem to be less relevant in affecting their supportive behaviors as compared to contextual-level variables; in particular, variables such as principal’s attendance at ICT training courses and principals’ attitudes affect their supportive behaviors more than their own ICT competence and frequency of use do.

Finally, in spite of the starting expectations, teachers’ attitudes seem to have little or no influence on principal’s supportive behaviors. Additional studies should identify whether and to what extent teachers’ attitudes are influenced by his/her supportive behaviors.

Further research is needed to explore some key issues that emerged from data analysis. One relevant issue concerns the features of both the past ICT training courses organized by principals for their teachers and the courses they plan for the future. In particular, since ICT integration-focused training courses has a stronger impact on the overall usage of ICT in subject teaching than basic ICT skills courses have (Mulkeen 2003), the key question to address should be to whether the types of training courses school principals in Palermo had provided actually targeted ICT curriculum integration.  Since both teachers’ and principals’ ICT competence and frequency of use seem to have a role in fostering principals’ supportive behaviors for such integration, future studies should be focused on identifying the current ICT competence of both teachers and principals. In this regard such studies should detect the major obstacles in integrating technology into the classroom in order to highlight specific training needs and assist with planning subsequent ICT training interventions.

This research shows the importance of ICT training received by principals. For such reason, further studies should aim at identifying the specific characteristics of ICT training received by principals to determine the extent to which such training addresses ICT curriculum integration. Since principals’ positive attitudes can affect their supportive behaviors, another important issue should deal with the ICT-related roles of school principals, as expected and perceived by themselves as well as by teachers, whose perceptions and behaviors can have an impact on the implementation of local ICT school policies.

References

Akbaba-Altun, Sadegul. 2004. “Information Technology Classrooms and Elementary School Principals’ Roles: Turkish Experience.” Education and Information Technologies 9(3): 255–270.

Albirini, Abdulkafi. 2006. “Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Information and Communication Technologies: the Case of Syrian EFL Teachers.” Computers & Education 47(4): 373–398.

Anderson, Ronald E., and Sara Dexter. 2005. “School Technology Leadership: An Empirical Investigation of Prevalence and Effect.” Educational Administration Quarterly Journal 40(1): 49–82.

Baylor, Amy L., and Donn Ritchie. 2002. “What Factors Facilitate Teacher Skill, Teacher Morale, and Perceived Student Learning in Technology Using Classrooms.” Computers & Education 39(4): 395–414.

Buckingham, David. 2001. “Media Education. A Global Strategy for Development. A Policy Paper prepared for UNESCO Sector of Communication and Information”. http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/5681/10346129690Policy_paper_by_Pr_David_Buckingham.rtf/Policy%2Bpaper%2Bby%2BPr%2BDavid%2BBuckingham.rtf.

———. 2003. Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Pub.

Cappello, Gianna. 2009.  Nascosti nella luce. Media, minori e media education, Milan: FrancoAngeli.

Cheung, Chi-Kim. 2009. “Media Education Across Four Asian Societies: Issues and Themes.” International Review of Education 55 (1): 39–58.

Creighton, Theodore B. 2003. The Principal as Technology Leader. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press Inc.

Cuban, Larry. 1986. Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Davis, Fred D. 1986. “A Technology Acceptance for Empirically Testing New End User Information Systems: Theory and Results.” PhD diss, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

———. 1989. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3): 318–339.

Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1989. “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: a Comparison of Two Theoretical Models.” Management Science 35(8): 982–1003.

Dawson, Christella, and Glenda C. Rakes. 2003. “The Influence of Principals’ Technology Training on the Integration of Technology into Schools.” Journal of Research on Technology in Education 36(1): 29–49.

Fidler, Rogers. 1997. Mediamorphosis. Understanding New Media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Flanagan, Linda, and Michele Jacobsen. 2003. “Technology Leadership for the Twenty-First Century Principal.” Educational Administration Journal 41(2): 124–142.

Fullan, Michael G., Matthew Miles, and Stephen E. Anderson. 1988. Strategies for Implementing Microcomputers in Schools: The Ontario Case. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Education. Ontario Ministry of Education.

Fullan, Michael G. 2002. “The Change Leader.” Educational Leadership 59(8): 16–21.

Hamzah, Mohd Izham Mohd, Norazah Nordin, Kamaruzaman Jusoff,  Rusnah Abd Karim, and Yusma Yusof. 2010. “A Quantitative Analysis of Malaysian Secondary School Technology Leadership.” Management Science and Engineering 4(2): 124–130.

Hobbs, Renee. 1998. “The Seven Great Debates in the Media Literacy Movement.” Journal of Communication 48(1): 16–32.

Likert, Rencis. 1932. “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes.” Archives of Psychology, Vol. 140.

Merkley, Donna J., Mary Bozik, and Kathy Oakland. 1997. “Investigating Support for Teachers Using Distance Learning in Education: a Case Study.” Deonews 7(11). http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews7_11.asp.

Mokhtar, Intan Azura. 2005. “Education in the Information Age – A Preliminary Study of the Changing Roles of School Teachers in Singapore.” Educational Research for Policy and Practice 4(1): 27–45.

Mulkeen, Aidan. 2003. “What Can Policy Makers Do to Encourage Integration of Information and Communications Technology? Evidence from the Irish School System.” Technology, Pedagogy and Education 12(2): 277–293.

Park, Han Woo, and J. Patrick Biddix. 2008. “Digital Media Education for Korean Youth.” The International Information & Library Review 40(2): 104–111.

Pelgrum, Willem J. 1993. “Attitudes of School Principals and Teachers Towards Computers: Does it Matter What They Think?” Studies in Educational Evaluation 19(2):  199–212.

Pelgrum, Willem J. 2001. “Obstacles to the Integration of ICT in Education: Results from a Worldwide Educational Assessment.” Computers & Education 37(2): 163–178.

Polizzi, Gabriella. 2009a. “La Media Education nelle scuole palermitane: pratiche d’uso dei media e percezioni diffuse tra gli insegnanti.” In Nascosti nella luce. Media, minori e Media education, by G. Cappello, 184–227.  Milan: FrancoAngeli.

———. 2009b. “Introducing Media Education into School Teaching. An Empirical Research Among Public School Teachers in Palermo, Italy.” In  Social Dimension of Innovation, edited by Karel Müller, Steffen Roth, and Milan Žák, 158–174. Prague: Centre for Economic Studies.

Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4^th ed. New York: The Free Press.

Serhan, Derar. 2007. “School Principals’ Attitudes Towards the Use of Technology: United Arab Emirates Technology Workshop.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 6(2): 42–46.

Sheingold, Karen. 1991. “Restructuring for Learning with Technology: The Potential for Synergy.” Phi Delta Kappan 73(1): 17–27.

Siino, Antonino. 2009a. “La Media Education nelle scuole palermitane. Percezioni e pratiche tra i dirigenti”. In Nascosti nella luce. Media, minori e Media education, by G. Cappello, 228–240. Milan: FrancoAngeli.

Siino, Marianna. 2009b. “La scuola palermitana: un percorso di ricerca tra tendenze e prospettive”. In Nascosti nella luce. Media, minori e Media education, by G. Cappello, 167–183. Milan: FrancoAngeli.

Tyack, David B., and Larry Cuban. 1995. Tinkering Toward Utopia, A Century Of Public School Reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tondeur, Jo, Hilde van Keer, Joan van Braak, and Martin Valcke. 2008. “ICT Integration in the Classroom: Challenging the Potential of a School Policy.” Computers & Education 51(1): 212–223.

Venkatesh, Viswanath, Michael G. Morris, Gordon B. Davis, and Fred. D. Davis. 2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology. Toward a Unified View.” Mis Quarterly 27(3): 425–478.

---

[1] Due to “mediamorphosis” (Fidler 1997), consisting in the current process of technological convergence that has been blurring the boundaries among different types of media over the last years, in this paper the term “ICT” refers to both ‘‘old’’ media, such as radio and television, as well as ‘‘new’’ media, such as desktop and laptop computer, mobile phone (with or without Internet access) etc.

[2] In this paper, ICT integration into teaching refers to both teaching through the media and teaching about the media.

[3] The research, which is the first and only one ever conducted among the schools of Palermo so far, was carried out by the Department of Social Sciences, University of Palermo (now joined the Department of Politics, Law and Society), under the direction of Prof. Gianna Cappello. The research was financially supported by the Regional Schools Office of Sicily.

by Leena Rantala

Ministry of Education and Culture, Division for Cultural Policy, FINLAND

The purpose of the article is to describe Finnish media literacy policies and good media education practices in early childhood education and care. This article will focus on describing two central action lines related to the Children and Media Program, initiated by the Division for Cultural Policy of the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2004. These action lines include the reform of the legislation for the protection of minors and the distribution of audiovisual programs in Finland, and the development of the Media Muffin project, including implementation, evaluation and publication of resource materials. In exploring these two initiatives, this paper identifies the relationship between programmatic actions that focus on teacher education and larger policy initiatives that promote media literacy education for young children.

Recently, the media literacy of young children has gained visibility due to the expanding media environment, in particular the rise of Internet use among children under pre-school age in most Western countries. In Finland, the development of media education in early childhood education and care has been an agenda for cultural policy since 2004, alongside the aim to protect the minors from harmful audiovisual content.

The aim of this paper is to introduce Finnish media literacy policies and good media education practices in early childhood education and care. Accordingly, this paper will describe the Children and Media Program initiated by the Division for Cultural Policy of the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2004. The paper will focus on two central action plans related to the program: 1) the Media Muffin project in 2006-2007 as well as the project evaluation and the following publications in 2008-2011, and 2) the reform of the legislation for the protection of minors and the distribution of audiovisual content in Finland.

In this paper, I introduce recent research related to young children’s media use. After that, I describe the Finnish context of early childhood education and care and cultural policy, the Children and Media Action Plan and the key components of the Media Muffin Project as well as the main outcomes of a pilot study and an evaluative study related to the project. In addition, I introduce the main elements of the legislative reform, including policies that will come into force in January 2012. Finally, I will discuss the potential implications of this policy and its implementation.

Media and Young Children

In general, research on how children use media has focused on school-aged children and young people. Therefore, little information has been compiled on the reality of young children’s media environment (e.g. Souza and Cabello 2010a, 9). These authors argue that the lack of research relates to three factors: (1) there is limited media material aimed at young children; (2) some countries exclude these age groups from audience measurement systems and this age group includes a cohort age 0 to 2 years, for whom television is discouraged; and (3) the media consumption of this age group has been underestimated.

It seems, however, that in recent years the interest in young children’s media use has increased, for instance in the United States (Rideout et al. 2003; Wartella et al. 2010), Latin America (Souza and Cabello 2010b) and in the Nordic Countries, such as Sweden (Småungar and Medier 2010) and Finland (Kotilainen 2011). Research on young children’s Internet use has also been developed, for example, in Sweden (Findahl 2010). Additionally, examples of media education materials targeted to very young children can be found such as the Hector’s world website in New Zealand (www.hectorsworld.com).

As Internet use among young children increases, it seems obvious that the current media environment of young children is growing diverse. Research from the EU Kids Online  project (Livingstone et al. 2011) shows that on average children are nine when they first go online, and this age of first Internet use is dropping across Europe. The average age is seven in Denmark and Sweden, and eight in several other Northern countries (Norway, Finland, the Netherlands and the UK) as well as in Estonia. Thus, the EU Kids Online research suggests that online safety measures should be targeted to younger children (Ibid.). In Finland, media use begins at a very early age. One-year-olds are already daily in contact with television. Books and TV are the most popular media among 5 to 6-year-olds. A majority of 7 to 8-year-olds use a wide range of media including the Internet, mobile phones and digital games (Kotilainen 2011). One study, entitled Children’s Media Barometer (2010), concludes that this has implications for media education as there is a need to enhance the supply of information as well as provide more opportunities for self-expression and participation with age-appropriate media for children. In addition, children need opportunities to have adult support and increased awareness concerning their media use and various activities with media culture.

The Finnish Governmental Context for Media Education in Early Childhood

Media literacy is a subject that relates to a variety of policy sectors in the government in Finland, such as education, communications, cultural, and social policies. This paper focuses on media education in early childhood education and care as well as the Children and Media Action Plan initiated by the Division for Cultural Policy of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Currently, early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Finland is located within the domain of social services. However, according to the Government Program of the Cabinet of Prime Minister Katainen (dated 17 June 2011), responsibility for the day-care system will be transmitted from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture. The Ministry of Education and Culture is already responsible for pre-primary education as well as the provision of morning and afternoon activities for schoolchildren. A government resolution concerning the national policy definition on early childhood education and care was given in Finland in 2002. The National Institute for Health and Welfare gave the National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in 2003. The Finnish National Board of Education defined the core curriculum for pre-primary education in 2000, and the latest update was made in 2010.

ECEC is a service for children from one to six years old and their families. Children permanently living in the country have a right to participate in voluntary pre-primary education during the year preceding compulsory schooling. A Finnish child usually starts school at the age of seven. Pre-primary education and schooling are free. In practice, pre-school education for six-year-olds has been implemented as a mixed model, in which the local authorities may decide whether to provide pre-school education within the day-care or school system. Children attending pre-school education have a subjective right to day-care as a complement to pre-school education (Heinämäki 2008). The underlying core principle in pre-primary education is to guarantee basic educational security for all, irrespective of their place of residence, language, and economic standing. As a whole, the system of ECEC can be described with the concept of EduCare. This concept relates to the ECEC model of a Nordic welfare state, where care, education, and instruction are combined to form an integrated whole and where play is a central tool of pedagogical activities (Heinämäki 2008).

The Ministry of Education and Culture is responsible for cultural policy in Finland. The general objectives of cultural policy relate to creativity, cultural diversity, and equity. The aim is to realize cultural rights and ensure access to art and cultural services for all residents in Finland. Media education is acknowledged in a strategy for cultural policy as follows: “art and cultural heritage education, the system of art education and increasingly also media education reinforce the underpinning of culture” and the desired state of affairs in 2020 is that “art, cultural heritage and media education has a more visible place in society” (Strategy for Cultural Policy 2009).

In practice, with respect to cultural policy, media education relates in particular to audiovisual policy and children’s culture. Audiovisual policy involves, for instance, measures to promote digital film, television, and audiovisual culture. Children’s culture means efforts to promote art and cultural services targeted to children as well as children’s own creations. That includes promoting children’s culture in libraries, media literacy, and film education.

The Children and Media Program

The roots of media education in Finland go back to the 1950s. The goal of the audiovisual education of that time was the critical understanding of cinema and making best use of film as an educational tool. In the 1970s, Finland was a pioneering country in media education when the curriculum for mass communication education, which had been developed in the country, was spread globally by UNESCO. After the 1980s the media culture re­search perspective entered media education. In the 1990s, media education turned to communication education, including the dimensions of expression and doing. According to researchers, the beginning of the 2000s is a more fragmented era in Finnish media education. However, digital games, the opportunities of net-based technology and social media, and the various combinations of media could be the main subjects describing the current situation (Kupiainen, Sintonen,  and Suoranta 2008; see also Finnish Media Education Policies 2009).

In general, the media education initiatives in Finland have mainly targeted school-aged children and young people. This lack of attention to young children as target groups in media education was a key starting point of the Children and Media Program initiated by the Division for Cultural Policy in the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2004. The original name for the program was Media Violence. Children and Media (Mediaväkivalta. Lapset ja media 2004). This action plan related to the 2003 Government Program of the first Cabinet of Prime Minister Vanhanen, which proposed measures aiming to protect minors from entertainment based on violence. Accordingly, in 2003 the Ministry of Education and Culture initiated preparations for the Children and Media program in order to chart the different aspects and required development areas in children’s media environment. A number of stakeholders were con­sulted in this preparation stage [1].

A main principle of the program was to take into account the changing media environment and patterns of media usage by children. The idea was to maximize safety in this new situation. However, it was realized that with the ongoing technological development, the distribution channels for media content will be diverse and therefore it would be impossible to protect minors only by controlling the distribution of content by the measures of authorities. Therefore it was emphasized that in the future there would be a need to develop more intense national and international co-operation in order to protect the children together with the governments, media industries and parents.

The Children and Media Program was published in 2004. The program identified nine separate areas from which operational con­clusions were drawn: (1) legislation related to audiovisual programs that violate criminal law, (2) legislation related to protecting minors from harmful audiovisual content, (3) research and distribution of information, (4) new aspects of media education, (5) the responsibilities of media industry, (6) filtering systems usage, (7) production of quality content for children, (8) digital inclusion and (9) supporting parents and family. These areas are described more detailed in Table 1. Overall, the Children and Media Program includes a wide range of actions. In what follows, I will introduce two important operational efforts implementing the action plan, the Media Muffin Project and the legislation reform. In practice, quite many of the ideas suggested in the Children and Media Program have been and will be realized in these two operational efforts.

The Media Muffin Project

An innovative initiative was launched in the beginning of the year 2006 with the goal of improving the media literacy of young children (eight years old and younger), and to support professional educators and parents in media education. The project aimed to improve the media education awareness in early childhood education and care, the first grades of primary school. and in the morning and afternoon activities for schoolchildren. The project also aimed to inform parents about young children’s media education. In addition, the Media Muffin project attempted to support the consolidation of the position of media education in Finland by promoting the integration of media education into the documents governing early childhood education and care and morning and afternoon activities. Below I describe the implementation of the program and then report on its evaluation.

Program Characteristics and Implementation

The starting point of the Media Muffin project was that media education refers to learning and growing up with media. Media education consists of everyday activities in day care, schools, and morning and afternoon activities, and its goal is to develop young children’s ability to deal with the different messages in media and to participate in media culture. The project emphasized that there is no minimum age for starting to learn media literacy, and that the task of the educator is to get familiar with the child’s media environment and to offer safe experiences with media.

The project was carried out by three civic organizations: the Centre for School Clubs, the School Cinema Association, and Media Education Centre Metka. They all receive a portion of their annual funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture. In addition to these participants, the project was supported by major media education and teaching organizations in Finland, such as the University of Tampere. The Ministry of Education and Culture was responsible for the funding of the project. The total funding during the years 2005-2007 was approximately 1,150, 000 Euros.

The project organized training and produced media education materials. In the nation-wide training sessions, teachers and other educators were trained to learn the basic concepts and working methods of media education and the basics of safe media use. Approximately 95 training sessions were organized and a total of 2,800 professionals were involved in the training. Materials targeted to professional educators were sent to day-care centers, primary schools, and those responsible for children’s morning and afternoon activities. Approximately 9,000 material packages were distributed in year 2006. The materials included pedagogical support to professional educators, Internet resources to support media education at home, and resources for media professionals. Three kinds of printed materials were produced: the exercise book, the media educator’s handbook, and film education materials.

The exercise book Muffe and the Lost Key included activities that could be implemented by using basic equipment in kindergartens, clubs, and schools. The book was built around a story in which two friends, Milla and Muffe, have an adventure that introduces them to various media tools and media phenomena such as the child as a media consumer, media as a story-teller, emotions and feelings, the different messages of media, and the child as a participant in media culture. An audio CD that included new media-related songs and sonic atmospheres was related to the book. An important area of media education in the book was the world of images in early childhood. It was noted that interpretation and critical analysis of images is a useful exercise even for young children. The material suggested that analysis of the pictures could be implemented by using the picture as an inspiration for writing, and that these stories and pictures could be published, for instance, at a parents´ meeting. Through these productions media education could be discussed with parents.

The media educator’s handbook Media Fun! looked at media education and its concepts from children’s points of view. It aimed to improve the media literacy of children, professional educators, and parents through theory and applied exercises that include, for instance, optical toys to illustrate moving images. The book emphasized the joy of collective experience and the importance of creating things oneself. An important starting point of the handbook was that media literacy is practiced not only through analysis, but also through production. The book dealt with themes including stories and films, gaming, mobile phones, safe use of media, and media parenthood. In addition to the handbook, this material contained a documentary film illustrating how small children’s media education can be implemented in every day educational work.

The film education material See, Feel, and Experience! guided the educator in creating a safe film experience at a movie theatre, and in processing the experience through various exercises. It emphasized that watching a film on a big screen could be a great experience and an important educational event, and preparation for it is important for the educator. When an educator raises themes that are important to the film through characters or plot, they also help the child to process their feelings safely in the company of an adult.

Program Evaluation

There were two studies related to the Media Muffin Project. The pilot study of the Media Muffin project was implemented by a research team from the University of Tampere in Finland in the spring of 2006. They tested the Media Muffin materials and training prior to implementation with 16 different groups of professional educators and children in two different cities. This pilot study used multiple methods, such as content analysis of the material packages, interviews with the professional educators and children, and participant observations with the pilot groups (Kupiainen et al. 2006). The main finding was that the materials and the training increased the overall awareness related to media education among the adult participants. They began to think about children’s safe and non-safe media use, and learned that media can also be a resource for education, not only a threat to children’s growth. The awareness of a need to develop media education as a well-planned educational activity in day-care centers increased. The adults also became inspired by media education. In addition to these very positive results, it was noted that in order to achieve a more sustainable position for media education in early childhood education and care, more supportive structures would be needed, such as pedagogical material and networks (Ibid.).

The second study was an evaluation of the results of the first year of the project carried out by researcher Annikka Suoninen from the University of Jyväskylä. The goal of the study was to find out how the Media Muffin materials had been implemented in early childhood education and care and in pre-schools, and at the same time to get information about the general situation of and attitudes related to media education in the field. There were 327 respondents in the survey (Suoninen 2008). According to the results, 70% of the respondents had at least heard about the Media Muffin project. 46% said that they had familiarized themselves with the material, and 39% remembered that the material package had been received in their work unit. 21% of the respondents had used some of the material. All the percentages were higher in pre-schools than in day-care centers. All the respondents who had familiarized themselves with the materials were very pleased with them. 80 of those respondents thought that using the materials had promoted the implementation of media education in their work unit.

Regarding the general situation and attitudes related to media education in early childhood education and care, most respondents thought that home is the most important place for media education. Pre-school was considered more important for media education than day-care centers in general. The most important reason to implement media education was the idea that adults have to discuss such subjects related to media by which children are bothered. According to the results, the most important themes in media education in early childhood education and care were fact and fiction, frightening content and media violence. Only 22% of the respondents said that media education was a subject that had been discussed when planning the early childhood education and care on a municipal level. Lack of tools, materials, and training were considered the most central obstacles for implementing media education (Suoninen 2008).

The Media Muffin project ended in 2007. In line with the goals of the Media Muffin project, a national guideline for media education in early childhood and care was published in 2008. Additionally, a guide describing the media education themes for pre-school and pre-primary education was published in 2009. A publication called Media Skills Learning Bath that describes the development of media skills as a continuum from the first to the ninth and last grade of the elementary school was published in 2011. These publications were funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture and produced by the School Center Club together with a variety of stakeholders such as the Finnish National Board of Education.

The Reform of Legislation for Protecting Minors and Distributing Audiovisual Programs

Another relevant plan of action in Finland that relates directly to the Children and Media Program and media education is the reform of the legislation for protecting minors and distributing audiovisual programs. This entails the Government proposal to Parliament on the reform of the Act on the Classification of Audiovisual Programs and the Act on the Finnish Board of Film Classification. The Government has approved the proposal and the new legislation will come into force in January 2012.

Due to the reform, the Finnish Board of Film Classification will transform into the Finnish Centre for Media Education and Audiovisual Programs. The Centre will be the state authority that enforces the Act on Audiovisual Programs. A key task for the Centre will be to promote and co-ordinate media education nationwide together with other authorities and organizations on the sector. The Centre will also obtain certain tasks from the Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority related to the protection of minors in television broadcasting.

The purpose has been to reform the legislation because of the changes in children’s media environment. The new system will focus on new kinds of actions that will promote a safe media environment for children such as media education, media literacy, raising the awareness of parents and other educators, and research related to children’s media environment. The existing system of inspection and classification of audiovisual programs by the Finnish Board of Film Classification will come to an end. However, the classification of audiovisual programs will remain, and this task will be mainly transferred to the persons working in the service of audiovisual industry and the distributors. The Finnish Centre for Media Education and Audiovisual Programs will educate and control these so called classifiers of audiovisual programs.

Besides the tasks related to media education, distribution of information and promoting research, the Finnish Centre for Media Education and Audiovisual Programs will focus on supervising the market of audiovisual programs by following the distribution. The Centre, for instance, will receive public complaints relating to harmful content.

Consequently, in 2012 there will be a state authority with the task of promoting media education in Finland. Similar authorities already exist in other Nordic and EU countries, such as in Denmark, Sweden and the UK. The activities of the new Finnish authority are currently being planned. An evaluation of the effects of the legislative reform will be delivered to the Education and Culture Committee of the parliament of Finland in Spring 2014.

Conclusion

The Media Muffin Project focused particularly on developing new aspects of media education by opening space for media education in early childhood education and care, in primary education, and in morning and afternoon activities for schoolchildren. That could be said to be a pioneering work in Finland as earlier media education initiatives in the country have mainly focused on schools, school-aged children, and young people. The methods of the projects (training and producing materials) and the main content areas (safe media use, children’s own media production, film education) seemed to be relevant to the target groups (childcare professionals, pre-school teachers, and young children).

The curriculum-like publications in 2008-2011, which could be seen as an extension to the Media Muffin project, have also had an important impact in that they have created structural support for media education in early childhood education and care, pre-school and schooling more widely. Besides this, an important milestone in Finland was a reform of the National Core Curriculum for Morning and Afternoon Activities for Schoolchildren defined by the Finnish National Board of Education in the beginning of 2011. Media literacy is now one subject in this curriculum alongside, for instance, arts and visual, musical, motional and linguistic expression.

Due to the legislative reform, in turn, there will be an authority responsible for media education and safe media environment for children in Finland. As a whole, this new authority will implement a variety of initiatives mentioned in the Children and Media Program. The authority will have duties, for example, related to distributing information for parents. That could include information about the parental control systems, and this could be implemented at least partly in co-operation with the media industry. The new center could also deal with the international co-operation related to the Safer Internet Programs in the EU. Consequently, the Finnish Centre for Media Education and Audiovisual Programs will be a co-operative body deeded with the field of media education in Finland. However, the results of this reform will be realized only in the future.

There are also a variety of other actions detailed in the Children and Media Program that have already been taken or are being continuously implemented in Finland, for instance, by NGOs with the funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture. These actions include a media education portal (mediaeducation.fi) provided by the Finnish Association on Media Education, and   development projects in public libraries and a children’s portal (Okariino.fi)[2]. Additionally, other governmental sectors have dealt with themes brought forward in the program. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has, for instance, worked with the topic of digital inclusion. Thus, during the recent years, there have been a variety of stakeholders implementing the actions mentioned in the Children and Media Program.

In order to get current information regarding the situation of media education in early childhood education and care new surveys and research will be needed, not least because of the rapidly changing media environment of young children. The results of the Media Muffin project evaluation studies (Kupiainen et al. 2006; Suoninen 2008) suggest that it takes a lot more than a package of material and some training to embed media education in daily activities of day-care centers and primary schools as well as morning and afternoon activities for schoolchildren. Nevertheless, the effects of raising awareness of and inspiration for media education should not be underestimated.

Currently there is an evaluation going on that is related to a few projects, including in the Children and Media Program (i.e. media education portal, projects in public libraries, media education models in the Sami language and culture). According to the preliminary findings, co-operation between different project actors should be improved in the future. Besides, similar to day-care professionals, more support and maybe structural changes would be needed to get media education embedded in everyday work with public library professionals. I guess that we could also expect results related to the adequate funding of media literacy programs and sustained training for the actors. These appear to be general topics in discussions about media literacy policies alongside the needs for curriculum reforms that take media literacy into consideration (e.g. Yates 2004).

What might we have learnt about this example of a policy program and its implementation? Most importantly, development projects can raise awareness and make space for new ideas, but in order to achieve more sustainable changes, more structural actions (legislative reform, curriculum changes) are needed. However, structural changes take time. It is about seven years now since the publishing of the Children and Media Program and it is not until now that media literacy is a subject in the national curriculum for morning and afternoon activities for schoolchildren. Therefore, the modest goal of the Finnish strategy for cultural policy (2009) to give media education a more visible place in society in 2020 seems to be a wise strategy. One important reform in the future will be the reform of the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education that will take place in 2016.

Additionally, since media education is a policy theme that relates to a variety of sectors in Finland, it has been important to create co-operation with different governmental bodies in order to promote media education. In practice, the Children and Media Program has operated mostly in the field of education, youth and communications policies. It has been in media literacy’s favor to promote media education particularly as a part of cultural policy. Cultural policy has a wide scope and therefore the policy has included non-formal learning contexts and community actions, such as morning and afternoon activities for schoolchildren, libraries, civic organizations and media industry (e.g. Camps 2009; Hobbs 2010). If media education had been promoted only strictly as a part of education policy, possibly it would have lead to a narrowed idea of media literacy as being only a subject taught in school.

More widely speaking, it has been said that the question of balancing between protection and participation characterizes media education policies in the Western countries (e.g. McGonagle 2011). The Children and Media Program is an example of that kind of policy as well. The prior governmental target has been to protect children from harmful media effects. At the same time, it has been emphasized that since it is in today’s media environment impossible only to guard children, it is necessary to strengthen them as media literate actors too.

This kind of empowerment policy also relates to the so-called deregulatory context in which the promotion of media literacy has been said to come to the fore in Europe (e.g. McGonagle 2011, 13). In such a context, educational measures are presented as alternatives to regulation. However, the Finnish legislative reform has not been only de-regulative. Instead, the traditional core measures of protecting children from harmful media effects, such as the classification and labeling of audiovisual programs, has been standardized by the new act on audiovisual programs that will apply to all kind of audiovisual content distributed in Finland (e.g. films, television programs, video and computer games, and on-demand services). In addition, a whole new regulative context for media education that takes into account a wide-ranging idea of media literacy — safety, communication, creativity and criticality — has been constructed. Thus, instead of presenting educational measures as alternatives to regulation, the Finnish reform has emphasized both regulation and education.

The regulatory emphases on media literacy have been criticized as shifting the onus for the prevention of harm from public institutions to the private sphere (McGonagle 2011). There are aspects in the Children and Media Program and in the legislation reform in Finland that clearly relate to these kinds of questions as well. The responsibilities of parents as main guardians of their children, for instance, have been emphasized in the reform, and therefore the distribution of information for parents has been a key task for the new media education authority. So again, the reform has emphasized both the responsibilities of the private sphere and the duties of the public institutions. Therefore, there has been a proper balance with the potentials and the limitations of media literacy in these media education policies.

There has been only a little research in young children’s media environment so far. Therefore, it is quite natural that media education for young children has not yet widely been on the agenda of media literacy efforts, although children and young people more generally have been regular targets of these policies (e.g. McGonagle 2011). But I would guess that in the future, when the knowledge base of the expanding media environment of young children is strengthening, they will become a central target group in media literacy policies around the world.

I wish to end this article in a vision of a future of media literacy that I think fits in well with the mission of the World Summit on Media for Children and Youth. This is a vision by Jose Manuel Perez Tornero and Tapio Varis who writes (2010, 126-127) that

The challenge of the 21st century is putting communicators, teachers, scientists, authorities, the technology industry, the media and civil society together while understanding the global challenges of media literacy as part of a global education. This means attributing to media competence the enormous role that is has in a world of global communication and knowing how to take advantage of the potential that the ICTs have in order to improve our world. Yet none of this will happen if it is not accepted that this task must be directed by the values and practices of a new humanism that we must all regain and invent. Only this new humanism will lead us to peace.

---

[1] The stakeholders mentioned in the action plan are: the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, the Finnish Board of Film Classification, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Finnish Customs, the Finnish Communication Regulatory Authority, Consumer Agency, the National Board of Education and the National Institute for Health and Welfare. In addition to a variety of authorities, civic organizations in the field of child welfare and media education as well as media industries, the Finnish Film Foundation, universities and other research organizations and local schools and libraries were involved in the preparation of the program.

[2] See more information on the projects in the publication called Finnish Media Education Policies (2009) or in the Children and Media Newsletter 1/2011 available at: http://en.mediakasvatus.fi/ajankohtaista/uutiset/children-and-media-newsletter-12011.

References

Camps, V. 2009. “Media Education Beyond School.” In Mapping Media Education Policies in the World. Visions Programmes and Challenges, edited by D. Frau-Meigs and J. Torrent, 189-96. United Nations, Alliance of Civilizations, UNESCO, European Commission, Grupo Communicar.

Findahl, O. 2010. “Preschoolers and the Internet in Sweden.” In The Emerging Media Toddlers, edited by M. D. Souza and P. Cabello, 35-38. The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media. Nordicom. University of Gothenburg.

Finnish Society on Media Education. 2009. Finnish Media Education Policies. Approaches in Culture and Education. http://www.mediakasvatus.fi/files/u4/mediaeducationpolicies.pdf.

Heinämäki, L. 2008. Early Childhood Education in Finland. Liberales Institut. Occasional Paper 39.

Hobbs, R. 2010. Digital and Media Literacy. A Plan of Action. A White Paper On the Digital and Media Literacy Recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. The Aspen Institute. Communications and Society Program.

Kotilainen, S., ed. 2011. Lasten mediabarometri 2010: 0-8-vuotiainen lasten mediankäyttö Suomessa. Mediakasvatusseuran julkaisuja 1/2011. An English Summary of the Original Finnish Report: http://en.mediakasvatus.fi/publications/ISBN978-952-99964-7-6.pdf.

Kupiainen, R., H. Niinistö, K. Pohjola, and S. Kotilainen. 2006. Mediakasvatusta alle 8-vuotiaille. Keväällä 2006 toteutetun Mediamuffinssikokeilun arviointia. Tampereen yliopisto, Journalismin tutkimusyksikkö. (In Finnish only)

Kupiainen. R., S. Sintonen, and J. Suoranta. 2008. Decades of Finnish Media Education. Original text: Suomalaisen mediakasvatuksen vuosikymmenet. In Näkökulmia mediakasvatukseen, eds. H. Kynäslahti, R. Kupiainen and & M. Lehtonen, M, 3-27. Finnish Association on Media Education. http://en.mediakasvatus.fi/publications/decadesoffinnishmediaeducation.pdf.

Livingstone, S., L. Haddon, A. Görzig, and K. Ólafsson. 2011. Risks and Safety on the Internet: The Perspective of European Children. Full Findings. LSE, London: EU Kids Online. http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EUKidsII%20(2009-11)/EUKidsOnlineIIReports/D4FullFindings.pdf.

McGonagle, T. 2011. Media Literacy: No Longer the Shrinking Violet of European Audiovisual Media Regulation? In IRIS Plus 2011-3. Media Literacy, 7-27. European Audiovisual Observatory.

Mediaväkivalta. Lapset ja media. 2004. Luonnos toimintaohjelmaksi 2005–2007. Opetusministeriön monisteita 2004: 10. (In Finnish only)

National Curriculum Guidelines on Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland. 2004. STAKES. http://www.thl.fi/thl-client/pdfs/267671cb-0ec0-4039-b97b-7ac6ce6b9c10.

Perez Tornero, J. M. and T. Varis. 2010. Media Literacy and New Humanism. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.

Rideout, V.J., E.A. Vandewater, and E.A. Wartella. 2003. Zero to Six: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers. A Kaiser Family Foundation Report.

Småungar and Medier. 2010. Fakta om Små Barns Användning och Uppleverser av Medier. Medierådet.

Souza, M. D. and P. Cabello. 2010a. Introduction: Preschoolers and Their Appropriation of Screen Technologies. In The Emerging Media Toddlers, edited M. D. Souza and P. Cabello, 9-11. The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media. Nordicom. University of Gothenburg.

Souza, M. D. and P. Cabello. 2010b. Report 0 to 5. Chilean Preschoolers and the Media. In The Emerging Media Toddlers, ed. M. D. Souza and P. Cabello, 13-19. The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media. Nordicom. University of Gothenburg.

Strategy for Cultural Policy. Publications of the Ministry of Education, Finland 2009:45. http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Julkaisut/2009/liitteet/opm45.pdf?lang=fi.

Suoninen, A. 2008. Mediakasvatus päiväkodissa ja esiopetuksessa. Mediakasvatuksen tilan ja Mediamuffinssi-oppimateriaalien käyttöönoton arviointi syksyllä 2007. Jyväskylän yliopisto, Nykykulttuurin tutkimuskeskus. (In Finnish only)

Wartella, E.A., R.A. Richert, and M.B. Robb. 2010. “Babies, Television and Videos: How Did We Get Here.” Developmental Review 30: 116-127.

Yates, B. L. 2004. “Media Literacy and the Policymaking Process: A Framework for Understanding Influences on Potential Educational Policy Outputs.” Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education 4: 1–14.

Appendix A

Nine Areas of the Children and Media Program, circa 2004

1. Legislation Related to Audiovisual Programs that Violate Criminal Law Finnish criminal law includes regulation related to the distribution of cruel violence or obscenity with children or animals in films as well as illegal distribution of films to minors. Areas of development - The hotline network. A service in the EU countries that people can use in order to report illegal content in the Internet. The national hotlines forward the reports to local police, service provides or a hotline in some other country to handle. - The regulation of the pornographic film market together with the police and the Finnish Board of Film Classification (FNBF). 2. Legislation Related to Protecting Minors from Harmful Audiovisual Content According to the Act on the Classification of Audiovisual Programs (2001), it is illegal to show on screen or otherwise distribute audiovisual programs to minors before the FNBF has approved the distribution. The FNBF would classify an age limit of 7, 11, 13, 15 or 18 for the program. These provisions do not relate to programs in television, but they do include on-demand services. With respect to video and computer games a pan-European game classification system PEGI had been applied. Areas of development - Promoting the development of the PEGI system - Involvement in European and international co-operation (e.g. UNESCO) - Clarifying the necessity of a possible legislative reform due to changes in the distribution channels of audiovisual programs - Examining the possibility of reforming the duties of the FNBF in relation to the protection of minors in the changing media environment. The new duties would include measures related to media education, research and distribution of information. The duties of the Finnish Communication Regulatory Authority in relation to the protection of minors in television broadcasting would be transferred to the FNBF, whose new name will be the Media Content Centre. 3. Research and Distribution of Information The legislation for protecting minors as well as other themes related to the field were poorly known by the Finnish people. Areas of development - Raising awareness in relation to harmful media content - Promoting networking in the area - Building a children and media web-portal - A Children and Media forum be organized once a year in order to improve co-operation within the sector - Supporting research related to children’s media usage and harmful effects - Involving with the European programs in the area of safe Internet use 4. New Aspects of Media Education Media education has been developed in the Finnish school system since the 1970s when the so called mass media education model was introduced. In the present national curriculum for elementary school from year 2004 there is a thematic entity called communication and media skills. With respect to implementing media education in school practices, development in the upper secondary school was the most prominent Areas of development - Teacher education - Media education in early childhood education and care - Media education as a content area in morning and afternoon activities in schools - Civic organizations and universities as key actors in the field - A variety of other potential actors implementing media education such as youth workers, libraries, public service television, regional film centers and culture services targeted to children. - An institute for media education research - An advisory board for media education under the Ministry of Education and Culture 5. The Responsibilities of Media Industry A rapid increase of Internet usage among Finnish people. Areas of development - Involving with the EU programs related to protecting minors in the Internet environment - Promoting self- and co-regulation and the use and awareness of filtering systems provided by the Internet service providers. - Promoting the awareness of the need for protecting children by the actors in media industry 6. Filtering Systems Usage Filtering programs that filtered harmful content such as adult-only programs, nakedness, sexual themes, hate, violence, racism, horror, cults, drugs etc. in categories such as Internet games, chats, discussion forums, communication tools and peer-to-peer programs were introduced. Areas of development - Promoting filtering systems as a way to control harmful content - Follow-up on user experiences and developing further filtering systems in schools and libraries - Promoting the distribution of information on filtering systems, especially to parents. 7. Production of Quality Content for Children Production of versatile and good quality content for children was seen as a positive option among the proposed measures in the Children and Media Programme. Television was considered a central media for the children. Promoting the production of children’s movies had already been an established agenda for cultural policy. Areas of development - The Finnish public service broadcaster YLE as a key actor in producing quality content for children. - Producing video and computer games targeted particularly at girls - Building child- and youth-centered web-services 8. Digital Inclusion Media, in particular the Internet, would bring to children’s and other people’s lives a variety of possibilities, for instance, a possibility to gain knowledge and self-expression. All children, regardless of their place of residence or the social status of the family, should have a right to Internet access. Areas of development - Promoting universal access to Internet by providing broadband Internet connections and digital television broadcasting all over Finland. - In particular schools, day-care centers and libraries should have appropriate equipment. 9. Supporting Parents and Family Media has a central role in children’s every day life. Watching television is a common family practice that has positive influences. Playing video and computer games might cause trouble in families. Existing survey data told that parents are typically able to restrict media usage among children under 12 years old. Parents need help and support with relation to education in the changing media environment. Areas of development - Promoting parents’ possibilities to the use of filtering systems and awareness related to the theme, for example, in child welfare clinics and parent’s meetings in schools. - Special attention to children at risk and research related to media addictions.

Review by Timbre J.N. Greenwood

Lehi High School, Lehi, Utah, USA

Digital Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy, Learning, and Creativity. Jason Ohler. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 2008. 228 pp. $33.95. ISBN 978-1-4129-3850-1

With the self-proclaimed target audience of “the vast majority of teachers who have limited access to technology,” Jason Ohler’s Digital Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy, Learning, and Creativity is a user-friendly guide to incorporating new media into the classroom by engaging students through storytelling (xii). While this initially seems to be applicable only to English or Reading teachers (Ohler himself uses the standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association as support for the validity of digital storytelling to promote literacy), he asserts throughout his explication of storytelling that all content areas can benefit from the incorporation of story into the classroom.

Ohler is quick to acknowledge that his audience is one with many obligations and very little time. Because of this, Digital Storytelling in the Classroom is divided into three easily navigated sections: Part I—Storytelling, Education, and the New Media, Part II—The Art and Practice of Storytelling, and Part III—Going Digital. In these sections, Ohler’s objective is to illustrate the value of digital storytelling in encouraging student learning and engagement and to enable teachers of all technical abilities to incorporate digital storytelling in their classrooms.

In Part I, Ohler discusses the importance of storytelling, its relationship to technology, and its place in education. Drawing from the current use of iPods and cell phones to tell stories, he begins by asserting that, no matter what technology comes in the future, people will use it to fulfill the inherent need to tell their story. At the core of storytelling within education, however, is the concept of literacy. “Digital stories combine traditional and emerging literacies, engaging otherwise reluctant students in literacy development,” particularly in the realm of media literacy (11). Ohler recognizes that, while there are varied explanations of what it means to be media literate, it is increasingly necessary for students to learn about media as well as with media. Digital storytelling provides a means for media production, thereby teaching media literacy in conjunction with other more “traditional” forms of literacy.

As Ohler walks the reader through the various elements of a successful digital story, he uses student samples and draws from his conversations with teachers in order to clearly explain what makes a particular digital story effective. Teachers with no prior knowledge regarding digital storytelling are able to grasp the necessary fundamentals of a digital story: genre, resonance, active/passive viewing, point of view, emotional engagement, tone, spoken narrative, soundtrack, creativity, media grammar, and more. In addition, the reader is able to see how each element connects to literacy development, inquiry, and the backwards design used by most educators. In a chapter dedicated solely to the assessment of digital stories, Ohler draws direct connections between the use of “traditional” and new media, demonstrating that digital “story creation produces a cornucopia of assessable material, much of which is ‘traditional’ in nature” (66). Possible traits for assessing digital stories include project planning, research, content comprehension, writing, flow/organization/pacing, and citations/permissions, all of which are standard traits on rubrics for assessing academic writing.

Because the foundation of any high-quality digital story, regardless of subject matter, is a good story, Part II of Digital Storytelling in the Classroom addresses stories themselves and how to create a good one. While the discussion of “story” may initially inspire thoughts of novels or short stories taught in a Language Arts curriculum, good stories can be told within any subject area. For example, a science teacher can incorporate story into the explanation of photosynthesis or the law of gravity, while a social studies teacher can use story in order to clarify various historical events for students. Often, as emphasized by Ohler, the use of story is much more effective than lecture because story is memorable—if asked to repeat concepts taught, even hours later, students have often forgotten the material. When asked to repeat a story, however, student recall is much better.

Ohler instructs educators to begin teaching digital storytelling with instruction on the story core—the three elements being the central problem/challenge, the transformation of the character, and the resolution of the challenge. Once students are able to identify these elements of a story, they are then able to begin deconstructing all stories, no matter what form they take, which “can be an effective beginning point for the study of media” (75). In addition, the story core acts as a very useful starting point in the assessment of digital stories.

In this section, Ohler also discusses the need for storyboarding, which “show[s] the flow of story motion” as well as story mapping, which “show[s] the flow of story emotion” (77). He addresses story mapping extensively, emphasizing the necessity of emotional connection if one is to create an affective and effective story. With the presentation of various versions of Visual Portraits of a Story (VPS), this section becomes a valuable resource for any teacher who addresses storytelling in any way, whether in the examination of others’ writing or in the creation of original work. By walking through the use of a story map in the creation of his own map, Ohler demonstrates the effectiveness of story mapping in story creation; what starts as a flat, boring anecdote quickly becomes an engaging tale when examined with the proper lenses and adapted accordingly. This exercise alone demonstrates the ease with which a classroom teacher can incorporate these principles into an existing curriculum, making it that much easier to move into the realm of digital storytelling.

It is also in Part II, “The Art and Practice of Storytelling” that Ohler discusses Bloom’s Cognitive and Affective Taxonomies. He contends that educators and students can use these taxonomies in the transformation of their characters and themselves. By focusing on these elements within digital stories, teachers are able “to help students tell more effective stories…to understand students through their stories…[and] to help students grow through their stories” (111-112). While not many would say that these are unimportant teaching objectives, employing educational theory in the creation of digital story can further enable an educator (and parents, administrators, and school boards) to see the worthwhile nature of digital storytelling.

It is not until the final section, “Going Digital,” that Ohler directly addresses technology itself, for as he reminds the reader throughout, “if you don’t have a good story to tell, the technology just makes it more obvious” (5-6). It is here that he illustrates the media production process, demystifying it for those who may be intimidated by the prospect of creating digital stories.

Comparing media production to the step-by-step process of cake baking, Ohler walks the reader through the five phases of making media: story planning, preproduction, production, postproduction, and performance/ posting/showing/distribution. Within each phase of production, Ohler explains the process, gives advice regarding how best to make each process go as smoothly as possible, and takes care to warn teachers of possible pitfalls or difficulties that may arise. In addition, he provides a list of helpful equipment and advice (though not product endorsement, as he is very careful to point out) regarding hardware and software that has proven useful in his digital storytelling process. In recommending technological equipment, Ohler continually points out that technology does not necessarily need to be the best and most expensive in order to be effective. Digital storytelling can be done at very little actual cost to the teacher, if effort is put into locating and accessing inexpensive resources.

In closing Digital Storytelling in the Classroom, Ohler very necessarily addresses copyright and fair use. As with anything involving digital media, digital storytelling inherently lends itself to copyright infringement through the use of music, images, video and other media that have been created by someone other than the student. Ohler’s philosophy is very sound—that it’s best just to ask permission—but he does address various other means of approaching the issue of fair use in education. His three rules of respect regarding digital media are logical enough that students and teachers alike should be able to avoid trouble: 1-citation, 2-permission, and 3-compensation. This final chapter on how to avoid copyright issues altogether round out this powerful resource for incorporating digital storytelling within a curriculum.

As an introduction to digital storytelling and all of its possibilities within the classroom, Digital Storytelling in the Classroom: New Media Pathways to Literacy, Learning, and Creativity is a worthwhile resource. In addition to being conversational, Ohler’s writing is practical, making it very easy for a teacher to see how and where various principles could be incorporated into his or her curriculum. And for educators interested in incorporating media literacy, Ohler’s text offers teachers a content-driven approach to media literacy through the creation of digital stories.

Review by Andrew Ritchie

Volusia County Schools, DeLand, Florida, USA

Media Literacy, Social Networking, and Web 2.0 Environment for the K-12 Educator, 2011. by Belinha S. De Abreu. Peter Lang, New York, NY

It would seem that everywhere you look kids are tuned in and turned on to electronic devices. From Web 2.0 features to social networks to video games to iPhones, kids are using all sorts of digital technology for entertainment, learning, and connecting. What this means for the K-12 educator and the possibilities it provides for expanding the traditional notion of a classroom is the subject of De Abreu’s book. What possibilities does this host of electronic communication devices hold to enhance the learning potential for the students we teach? Is there a place for social networking and Web 2.0 in the schools? De Abreu’s answer is, “Yes!”

According to the research in De Abreu’s book, a dizzying number of teens and youth are engaged with electronic media. Eighty-eight percent of teens ages 12-17 engage at least occasionally in some form of electronic personal communication, 73% of American teens use social networking sites, and 83% have uploaded photos where others can see them (Lenhart, Purcell, Smith, and Zickuhr 2010). The question is, if students are so interested in these electronic mediums why are schools shutting them out instead of embracing them? Why are schools taking the protectionist approach that media literacy educators have long abandoned? Why not embrace this activity as a way of turning education into something personal and relevant for the students? What De Abreu found was many teachers and administrators were afraid of the unknown surrounding how these technologies are used and what they can offer. There was fear among teachers and administrators of students knowing more about these technologies than teachers, fear of students interacting with people outside the schools during instructional time, fear of looking incompetent with new devices or teaching strategies and fear that students would be distracted from the real education of learning to read and write printed text that is measured by standardized tests.

With all the fear being spread by the mass media about online predators and sexual content on the internet, it is no wonder that parents, teachers, and school administrators worry about the safety and privacy of their children and students. However, merely censoring the technology, refusing to acknowledge its importance in children’s lives, and forbidding them to use Web 2.0 technologies is the practice of avoidance. Why not embrace the change and learn how to facilitate the use of these technologies for educational goals? In her own words De Abreu states, “This book is written for teachers, media specialists, librarians, health teachers, curriculum advisors and principals who see the media as a necessary source for educating today’s students . . .” De Abreu argues that with these new technologies we can restructure what schools look like. We can eliminate the old industrial mentality of schooling where kids learn the skills to be a part of a greater world and give kids a chance to be the creators of this greater world. De Abreu’s reason for writing the book is self-explanatory,

The goal of this book is to take on what we know about the media and review media literacy education as a foundation of thought, then extend it to the technological world to include social networks and Web 2.0. In essence, we are looking at the traditional school house and designing one that takes a multidimensional look at media literacy education and opening its doors to allow students to be creators and producers of the global society of transformational education. . . (4)

This book answers questions about what place Web 2.0 has in our schools and gives the educator a resource of tools to use within the classroom that can help connect them with their students and bring to life this idea of media literacy. Part A defines media literacy and highlights the Five Core Concepts and Key Questions for Consumers and Producers and answers questions about how to restructure school from a media literacy perspective. By placing media literacy as an umbrella skill set, the school allows every subject area to utilize the Five Core Concepts. Chapter 1 defines media literacy for the educator explaining that media literacy is more process than content. It is a method of teaching rather than a subject area. For this reason, it can be used across the curriculum in any subject area. Chapter 2 highlights the role and the importance of focusing on critical thinking as the foundation for media literacy and education in general. The chapter also introduces to the K-12 educator the concept of critical media literacy which is about change, transforming history, and challenging traditional discourse with the understanding that each point of view carries its own agenda. The implications for the K-12 educator are clear – you can either use media literacy to teach to the status quo or you can use it to help students unlock the mysteries of power, hegemony, and privilege in cultures around the world.

Part B explores the topic of social networking within schools. Chapter 3 explains what participatory culture is, how social networking works online, and some of the important outgrowths from this technology such as a new text-based language. Chapter 4 discusses how the educator can engage their students with these new technologies. She makes the case that parents and educators should take the approach of learning about the technology to use it ethically and productively instead of allowing fear to be the main driving force behind censorship. It is the purpose of media literacy to tackle tough topics with students by exposing them to difficult issues on a developmentally appropriate level and teach them to think critically about their worlds instead of simply editing content in the name of protection.

Those who want to empower students realize that learning and teaching about media is about delving into that transformation and further engaging the pleasure principle, which determines how and what we choose to watch within the media. Those educators who carry this role are not interested in telling students that what they watch is wrong or inappropriate, but in understanding why these choices are made by young adults. (59)

Part C introduces the reader to a host of new technologies already in existence that educators can learn to use. Chapter 5 talks about the multitude of technologies that are not only out there but that the majority of teenagers are utilizing in their personal lives. At the end of the chapter she makes the strong statement that social networking belongs in schools if for no other reason than they are already there. Chapter 6 demonstrates the connection between media literacy, Web 2.0, social networking, and national standards in education. This is where she provides examples of how specific technology tools can be utilized during lessons on various subjects. For example, students can use Wikis to complete lab reports, Second Life for Algebra and Geometry assignments, and Survey Monkey for conducting real life surveys and analyzing the results thereby addressing math standards.

Part D delves into the controversial arena of ethics, privacy, and safety. Chapter 7 explores the concern that most parents have with internet technology and their children which is the exposure they will have to people who are on the internet with the intention of manipulating, harming, or exploiting children. Although this is a legitimate concern, restricting the internet and avoiding the Web 2.0 is a strategy based on fear of the unknown. Instead, what De Abreu argues is that parents need to teach their children how to interact appropriately with people they meet online and how to recognize danger. Learning to think independently and make responsible, ethical choices should be the goal of internet use instead of isolation and avoidance.

The appendices comprise the last section of the book. Appendix A and B seem to hold the most value for the K-12 educator. Appendix A provides a Glossary of terms that any teacher would be wise to read up on before utilizing Web 2.0 with students. The other appendix of particular use is Appendix B which provides information about resources and tools. Appendix B explains where to find tools and gives suggestions for how they are best utilized.

De Abreu combines theoretical knowledge about the foundations of literacy and the 21^st century school house with practical resources for reaching students through the mediums they have come to know. Educators who use this book will find clear explanations of why media literacy is important, how to teach it, and where to find resources to facilitate the process. Although this book may not alone teach the class for them, it can provide them with all the ammunition needed to take on an army of students waiting to tackle the most relevant topics of the day through a medium they are familiar with and motivated to use.

References

Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., and Zickuhr, K. 2010. Social Media and Mobile Internet Use Among Teens and Young Adults. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx

Review by Benjamin Thevenin

Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA