Department of Theatre and Media Arts, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

In June 2011 The National Association For Media Literacy Education  (NAMLE) convened in Philadelphia for our Bi-annual conference. Volume 4, Issue 1 of the JMLE grows out of the proceedings of that conference. Conference presenters were invited to submit papers developed from their conference presentation for further peer review. The result is a wide-ranging body of papers that reflect our diverse membership. The theme for the conference was Global Visions, Local Connections: Voices in Media Literacy Education and the articles in this issue meet the goals of conference theme by re-establishing our investment in media literacy pedagogy, reflecting the voices of our growing international community, and demonstrating how media literacy offers structure and insight into a variety of invested education communities.

The Articles Section features Tina Peterson’s “Exploring baseline food-media literacy of adult women” which engages readers in an analysis of beginning media literacy responses of adult women to food- media texts in an effort to develop a baseline measure of adult women’s media literacy competency. In a second article, “Faith-based media literacy education: A look at the past with an eye toward the future” Stephanie Iaquinto and John Keeler investigate the assumptions, motivations, goals, and pedagogy of Christian populations who are operating within a media literacy framework. Additionally in “The urgency of visual media literacy in our post-9/11 world: Reading images of Muslim women in the print news media”

Diane Watt invites her audience to consider several possible intercultural education methods as a means to teaching media literacy strategies when considering images of Muslim women in contemporary classrooms. Lastly in “Approaches to learning with media and media literacy education: Trends and the current situation in Germany” Silke Grafe and Gerhard Tulodziecki examine the state of media literacy in Germany making connections between the work there to trends in other settings.

Our Voices from the Field section introduces the work of three emerging scholars who participated in the NAMLE Research Awards Competition at the 2011 conference.  Papers were received from across the country and each participated in anonymous peer-review by three leaders in the MLE field. The three published here were selected as finalists in that initial process and each presented their paper at the conference where they received additional feedback from an established mentor who led a conversation about their work in the presentation setting. Papers were then submitted to the journal where editorial board members mentored the emerging scholars through the publication process. Benjamin Thevenin(winner of the 2011 emerging scholar award) was mentored by Paul Mihailidis, Joslyn Young (finalist) was mentored by Rhys Daunic and Diana Graber (finalist) was mentored by Kelly Mendoza.

As outgoing editor of the JMLE I am pleased that the work presented in this issue demonstrates effective progress towards one of the goals that Renee and I had when we set out to establish the journal on behalf of NAMLE— that goal being the fostering and development of young scholars in the field of Media Literacy Education. After four years of working as co-editor of the journal, from its inception and through the first three volumes, I am moving on to new assignments at my university and in my field of study.  I am confident and excited about the editorial collaboration between Vanessa Domine (Conference Chair, NAMLE 2011 and new co-editor of the JMLE) and Renee Hobbs and look forward to the way that their work together will shape future conversations about Media Literacy Education.

As I complete my work as co-editor of the JMLE I am grateful for Renee Hobbs. Her intelligence and leadership continue to drive the Media Literacy Education conversation for me. I also deeply appreciate the work of Paul Mihailidis, whose creative efforts as Professional Resources Editor have shaped the dialogue about new resources in our field. I am indebted to key editorial board members whose tireless efforts have created a space where Media Literacy conversations, both theoretical and practical, can surface, be discussed and evaluated with care. Finally I offer much thanks to Benjamin Thevenin and Erika Hill who have respectively served as assistant editor and copy editor for the JMLE.

I look forward to reading future issues of the journal along with you.

School of Communications and Theater, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Many media education researchers have identified the importance of adult media literacy but few have studied it. Such literacy is becoming increasingly important with regard to the growing category of food media: advertisements, television programs, and print media among them. Using two focus groups and guided by Primack and Hobbs’s (2009) AA, RR, and MM sub-domains, this study analyzes the baseline media literacy responses of adult women to food-media texts. Findings indicate that personal experience with food preparation and indirect experience with media production may be key components in adult food-media literacy.

Keywords: media literacy, food media, cooking, adults, women

In media education studies and curriculum evaluations in North America and around the world, most of the participants have one thing in common: youth. The vast majority of work on media literacy, past and present, has focused on children and teenagers. Yet we are aware— in our roles as educators, researchers, and policy-makers— that something is missing from this picture. Not only is adult media literacy a worthy goal in itself, but adults also play important roles in the media spheres of children and teens. They are the ones who may control, comment on, or co-view media with their families at home.

Concern is growing regarding a particular type of media message in the home, one that attracts the attention of children and adults alike. Marketers have long targeted children with advertisements for breakfast cereal and fast food. Scheibe (2008), Hindin (2001) and others have addressed the need for children’s media education to help them respond critically to such food media texts. Now adults are seeing more food-oriented media designed for them. Such media have become incredibly popular during the last 15 years in the United States; Publisher’s Weekly reported that 530 million books on food and wine were sold in 2000, and that number has climbed every year since then (O’Neill 2003). The number of cooking magazines has grown by one-third since 2003 (Ovide and Steel 2008). On an average night the Food Network attracts more viewers than CNN (Pollan 2009), and the network’s parent company spun off the Cooking Channel in May 2010 (Salkin 2010).

Despite the growth of food-related content in the media sphere, little research exists on adult audiences’ capacity to evaluate and critique such messages. But a connection clearly exists between an adult’s media literacy and the capacity for a child to engage in critical thinking about media texts outside of school. Hindin (2001) identifies the importance of parents’ or guardians’ media literacy when responding to children’s demand for advertised foods. In that study, adults were given a media education intervention to support their own critical responses to food media. However, the baseline media literacy competence of adults with regard to food media remains unexamined. Many researchers have identified a need for more work to be done on adult media literacy. Sargant (2004) poses specific research questions: “Do people understand how messages are constructed/may be manipulated? Is it necessary for people to know about production/engage in production themselves?” (30)

The question of whether production experience is a necessary component of adult media literacy is becoming even more important with regard to food media. This is because at the same time more people are reading, browsing, and tuning in to food media, they are cooking less and less, and overall food preparation skills are in decline (Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003; U.S. Dept. of Labor 2008; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 2009). In the context of food media, production experience may be two-fold: experience preparing food and cooking, and experience making an image or other media text about food.

A lack of cooking skills and general food preparation knowledge may make people more dependent on food media for nutritional information and norms such as healthy portion sizes (Lang et al. 1999). Most food media are highly influenced by sponsors and advertising support, which means that the information they provide is not necessarily in the interest of public health. This suggests that food-media literacy is increasingly important, to empower people to critically evaluate information provided by food media of all types–commercial, instructional, or entertainment-oriented.

In this paper I describe the process and findings of a pair of focus groups designed to investigate the capacity of adult women to engage critically with food media texts. These focus groups are the initial phase of a larger project to investigate how slick, attractive food media with high production values are interpreted by audiences, and whether media literacy skills can help audiences engage critically with such media and access their instructional messages. First, it is necessary to establish a baseline measure of how adults react to food media and what degree of critical thinking they engage in when responding to it.

Literature Review

Pollan (2009) attributes the paradox of the decline in cooking and the growing popularity of food media in part to certain qualities of today’s food media compared with those of decades past. One example is Julia Child’s program “The French Chef,” which was broadcast on public television beginning in 1963 (29). In its early years, the program was not slick and highly edited like most of today’s cooking shows on the Food Network. The set of “The French Chef” felt like a real kitchen, welcoming and occasionally messy and disorganized. Many of the imperfect things Child did— which charmed her audience and made them feel as if they too could attempt French cooking— would today be considered outtakes to be edited from the final cut. Modern food styling and editing conventions tend to produce slick texts commonly referred to— derisively or with admiration—as “food porn.” O’Neill (2003) describes such food media as “prose and recipes so removed from real life that they cannot be used except as vicarious experience” (39).

The unattainable, highly “produced” bodies in sexual pornography can be compared with the unattainable kitchens, ingredients and final dishes in food porn. Kaufman (2005) describes a taping of the Food Network program “Sara’s Secrets” with chef Sara Moulton. Moulton is not the only one made up and prepped for the camera; assistants are on the set to sculpt dishes of mustard and buff bread buns. Just like sex in pornography appears fun, aesthetically pleasing and effortless, so does food preparation when seen through the lens of the Food Network. In contrast with home cooking, “TV cooking builds to an unending succession of physical ecstasies, never a pile of dirty dishes” (56). When people do make mistakes cooking on television, such as in competition programs like “Top Chef,” the errors are made spectacular just like the successes. Including mistakes may make the show seem more real, but their treatment as dramatic make-or-break moments for the contestants does little to improve the content’s accessibility to the home viewer.

Like sexual pornography, most commercially successful “food porn” is intended to attract attention rather than provide instruction. The attention such media attract is foremost for the benefit of advertisers. The Food Network is a perfect storm of advertising and vicarious experience. The channel was specifically developed to mesh programming and ads in order to create a “seamless promotion of commodities and the fantasies that supported their use and consumption” (Ketchum 2005, 219). As far as advertising revenue is concerned, a viewer’s fantasies are ultimately more important than any actual cooking or eating she might be prompted to do; as long as she continues to watch, the programs’ ratings continue to attract advertisers.

This model applies to print food media as well. Advertiser-supported food magazines depend on subscriptions or regular newsstand purchases in order to maintain financial viability. The magazine’s success is independent of the reader’s actual behavior in the kitchen; as long as she keeps subscribing to the magazine or buying it on the newsstand, advertiser support will be sustained. From an economic perspective, the ultimate aim of such ad-supported media is to keep the reader’s attention rather than encourage her to cook.

Given the commercial orientation of most food media, and the fact that fewer and fewer people now have first-hand experience with food gained by cooking, it is increasingly important for media education to address critical competencies regarding food media. Does the average person know, for example, that most photos of food have been professionally styled and airbrushed? Can they recognize that food media messages on TV are highly edited and that the cook’s mistakes are often left out? Are food media lulling them into passive consumption of images rather than critical thinking and learning? Because having cooking skills is positively associated with more healthful eating habits (Dowler and Calvert 1995), the instructional capacity of contemporary food media is important to understand. If slick, attractive food media provide entertainment at the cost of instruction, critical thinking skills may help “unlock” the educational content of food media.

Leaders in the field have defined media literacy as “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create media in a variety of forms” (Aufderheide 1993). The application of these skills to food media or health-related messages has been explored by only a few. Scheibe (2008) used media literacy lessons to develop children’s critical thinking skills; the children applied these skills to evaluate claims made in television commercials for snack foods. Hindin (2001) found that a media education intervention for parents helped them to respond in more meaningful ways to their children’s requests for unhealthy foods they saw advertised on television. Poe (2007) explored elderly women’s “health-media literacy” in their interpretation of drug marketing messages. Few others have examined adult media literacy, though several have emphasized the importance of such work (Tisdell 2007 is one). The most comprehensive survey of adult media literacy to date was conducted in the UK; it focused on adults’ uses of, concerns about, and trust in different forms of media (Ofcom 2010).

Previous studies have incorporated media education interventions and evaluated the effects on participants’ interpretation and negotiation of media texts. The current study departs from these approaches in two ways: it measures the responses of participants to texts without a defined media education intervention, and it focuses exclusively on adults. This project includes only women because they spend the most time doing household food preparation across socioeconomic strata (Mancino and Newman 2007). The aim of this project is to begin to develop a baseline measure of adult women’s media literacy competence (including the role of media production experience in that competence) regarding food-related media texts. The specific media literacy measures applied here are those delineated by Primack and Hobbs (2009); their sub-domains of authors and audiences (AA), messages and meanings (MM), and representation and reality (RR) provide a good basic framework for introducing participants to the core concepts of media literacy.

Design

The larger project of which this paper is a component is meant to explore how food media literacy may be conceptualized, and what factors may impact an individual’s capacity for and activation of it. Because I am researching phenomena that have not yet been examined in media studies, it is appropriate and useful to use focus groups. This method is well suited for the preliminary stage of a new investigation, for focus groups are useful in “orienting oneself to a new field; generating hypotheses based on informants’ insights;…[and] developing interview schedules and questionnaires” (Morgan 1998, 11). Focus groups tend to generate emic or unstructured data, because they “allow individuals to respond in their own words, using their own categorizations and perceived associations” (Stewart and Shamdasani 1990, 13).

Sample

Two focus groups were conducted, one with seven participants (group one) and the other with six (group two). Participants were recruited from the administrative staff at a state university in the northeast using an e-mail announcement and flyers posted on campus, and they were compensated $15 for one hour’s participation. All participants were screened to exclude those following a vegan diet and those with diabetes or pre-diabetes, because such factors may influence their interpretation of a food-related text. Most of the participants were Caucasian (one was Asian-American), and all were likely middle-class. No socioeconomic or demographic data were collected from the participants, so these observations are my own and based on the women’s appearance and speech patterns.

Participants in group two were screened to include those with experience using graphics software. The purpose of grouping participants in this way was to ascertain whether different levels of media production experience influenced their capacity for critical interpretation of the food texts. It is possible that including a question about graphics software experience in the recruitment e-mail may have introduced a mild priming effect on group two’s discussion. However, the questions that were asked during both sessions were the same, and graphics software was not mentioned to any participant after the initial recruitment correspondence. After the discussions, participants were debriefed on the full purpose of the project.

Method

Participants were shown a series of three print advertisements for food, one at a time. The ads were chosen based on several criteria, the first of which is the likely familiarity of the products to the participants.[1] The first is an ad for Pepperidge Farm soft baked cookies, the second is for Heinz ketchup, and the third is for Hershey’s Kisses. The first was selected because it contains imagery of home baking and a highly styled photograph of food. The second ad depicts a bottle of ketchup seemingly made up of a stack of sliced tomatoes. The image was likely created using photo manipulation, and it was selected to elicit participants’ reactions to such a text. The third ad was chosen because it contains a recipe for a familiar cookie that participants might have experience making. A later phase of my project includes measuring women’s interpretations of particular recipes; the third ad provided an opportunity to listen to women’s reactions to a similar instructional text.

The discussion was guided first by asking participants to share their initial thoughts about each ad, and then by asking three of the NAMLE’s (2007) five core questions: Who created this and what is its purpose?; what techniques are used to get my attention?; and what is left out of the message? These questions address, respectively, the authors and audiences (AA), messages and meanings (MM), and representation and reality (RR) domains established by NAMLE (2007) and used by Primack and Hobbs (2009). The questions were meant to be conversation starters for the focus groups, to encourage participants to examine the food media texts and to use their own words to describe their interpretations. Three follow-up questions were asked to further elicit participants’ responses: in the discussion of the Heinz ketchup ad, the question was “How do you think this image was created?” and in the discussion of the Hershey’s Kisses ad the question was “What do you think its creator wants you to do after seeing it?” and “Would you attempt this recipe?”

Analysis

Video recordings of the focus group sessions were professionally transcribed. To aid analysis of the discussions, participants’ individual utterances were color-coded according to which of several themes they addressed. This method is recommended by Bertrand, Brown and Ward (1992) for identifying primary themes in a discussion. Three of these themes are loosely based on the AA, MM, and RR domains (Primack and Hobbs 2009) and the others are as follows:

• descriptive (describes element[s] in text);
• affective (states like/dislike of element[s]);
• evaluative (describes element[s] as good or bad, or effective or not);
• knowledgeable (mentions personal knowledge or background).

Trends were observed throughout the color-coded transcriptions, to identify which types of utterances (themes) were mentioned most and where. Attention was paid to which types of utterances followed the moderator’s questions. Disagreements and clarifying questions were noted. Finally, passages that were most representative of the overall discussion were marked for inclusion and analysis in the following section.

Results

In each group, participants first gave descriptive and affective responses to elements in the first ad. The amount of AA, RR, MM, evaluative and knowledgeable responses increased as the discussion progressed, likely because the moderator’s questions communicated to participants that critical responses were expected and sanctioned. Participants in group one expressed a great deal of awareness regarding the producer’s intent and the ads’ target audience, which relate directly to the authors and audiences (AA) domain of media literacy.  This topic was initiated by F1[2], who demonstrated the highest degree of media literacy in the group. In response to the prompt “Who created this and what it is its purpose?” regarding the Pepperidge Farm ad, she said:

I’m just wondering what magazines it would have run in, if it was more like maybe—well, not Gourmet or Bon Appétit, but something that was targeting cooks to show, like there’s these different steps.  These are the good ingredients we put in, just like you put good ingredients in your cookies.  Or something like that.  Or maybe probably, I’m sure it’s probably a women’s magazine.

F7 elaborated on the target audience and the intent of the ad:

I completely agree that it’s targeting probably people who come home from school or work and want something that looks like mother made it, but it’s already there.

In a later discussion of the Heinz ad, two participants in group one articulated a core principle of media literacy, the fact that people respond to media messages differently:

F7: I don’t want this to sound like a sexist remark, so I hope it doesn’t.  But who eats more ketchup?  Men or women?  Probably men.  Who’s more visual?  Men or women?  Probably men.  [laughter]  So I am thinking this is geared toward men…I think that if it were in a magazine that a guy happened to be flipping through, that might catch his eye.

F4: But I think going back to like stereotypes and stuff, who’s more health conscious?  Women.  And the focus is tomato.

The second group included more participants with experience using Photoshop and other graphics software. Differences between these two groups were less significant than expected, given the conventional wisdom in media education that production experience cultivates media literacy. The participants in group two addressed authors slightly more, but the primary difference was that they used more technical terms to describe how they thought the ads were produced. Before they were asked how they thought the Heinz ad image was created, several mentioned that the product logo looked “superimposed,” the slices appeared “laser cut,” and one said the image looked “architectural” and “like abstract art.”  When prompted to discuss how it was created, several of them identified specific techniques they thought were used to create the tomato-stack ketchup bottle.

F3: I think probably logistically, I see that they could probably have used real slices, but yes, then taken the label separate and placed it over those slices individually.

F4: I think you can even matte them on in Photoshop.

One participant activated her personal knowledge and elaborated on her thought that the ad was created by “some Photoshop wizard”:

F2: I’m a designer, so I tend to look at things that way. And so part of the way that I look at ads or magazines is to dissect how they put their pages together or how they put their photographs together. And for me, I think Photoshop is a brilliant thing. But I think the sorcery and the fakery that it does, really bothers me. I still think it’s brilliant sometimes, but I feel like there’s so much fiction in photographs and on television and in magazines that I don’t – I feel like it’s really hard to tell what’s real. And I know that’s not, but…

Participants in both groups identified many of the techniques that were used in the Pepperidge Farm ad to attract a viewer’s attention; their observations fit within the messages and meanings (MM) domain of media literacy. Before they were asked “what techniques are used to attract your attention?” several participants described elements in the ad – crumbs, a cooling rack, a mess left on a table – that suggest the cookies have a homemade quality. A participant in group two demonstrated critical thinking in both the AA and MM domains by identifying the ad’s creator, the techniques used, and the presumed intent of the message:

F2: I kind of thought it was interesting that they styled it to look a little messy and not perfect and not Martha Stewart Living, everything in its place. I thought…that sort of casualness was interesting to me.

Participants in both groups activated their personal knowledge frequently in their assessment of the ads’ representational realism, or the RR domain of media literacy. When asked for their initial thoughts about the Heinz ad, participants in the first group described the ad as “clever” and “deceptive” and a discussion followed about the ingredients in ketchup. Photo manipulation was mentioned only after they were asked “How do you suppose this image was created?” Participants speculated as to whether the slices were real or not, and discussed how real tomatoes and their juice would behave if cut in such a way. One participant activated her own indirect knowledge of digital manipulation:

F1: Maybe I’m too jaded because I know with my kid what you can do with all of this.  That’s his major.  It’s just amazing what they can do on the computer.  You have an image that’s that—like that and then you take it and you start moving it back and forth.  I’ve seen him create stuff in less than an hour.  You just sit there and go, holy smokes.  I had no idea.  So now I’m very jaded when I’m looking at stuff.  So maybe this isn’t good.  [laughter]  Maybe it is really tomatoes.  It’d be nice if it was really tomatoes.

As the discussion went on, several of the other participants began to defer to F1 and asked her about Photoshop when talking about how an image was created. F1 apologized several times for mentioning it.

F6: I guess we’re just a little skeptical because like number one said, they can do so much with the computer.  I mean, they can make entire movies out of computer-generated people.  So…

F1: I’m sorry.  I shouldn’t have brought it up.

Many participants in group one activated their personal knowledge and focused on the lack of realism in the depiction of baking in the Pepperidge Farm ad. They demonstrated their knowledge of the ingredients in such cookies, and how they are made.

F4: It’s interesting that the three ingredients that they show–cinnamon, raisins, and sugar. There’s no, like, oatmeal.  [laughter]

F6: I think there’s some oats, but it’s not prominent.

F4: Oh, yeah, I meant down here.

F6: It’s not prominent.  No, you’re right.  It’s interesting that the oatmeal isn’t prominent.

F4: And it sort of bothers me that the sugar is last, even after they show you the picture of the batter.

F6: Yeah, the steps aren’t in order.

F4: Yeah, that really bothers me.  [laughter]

They discussed the lack of realism in the ketchup ad as well. When asked for their initial thoughts, several participants identified elements missing from the ad.

F7: Ketchup is pretty much all sugar, and they make it seem like it’s just homegrown tomatoes and that’s it.

An exchange about the Heinz ad between two participants in group one illustrates the importance of background knowledge in being able to form a critical response. They were responding to another participant’s observation that the ad implies ketchup contains only tomatoes.

F4: I pretend like in real life that there’s only tomatoes in there.  [laughter]  Had you not said anything about sugar, I would have assumed that it was like tomatoes, and vinegar?  I don’t know.  I don’t even know what’s in ketchup.

F7: There’s a lot of sugar.

Participants in group one activated the most personal knowledge in their discussion of the third ad, for Hershey’s Kisses. The ad contains a recipe for Peanut Butter Blossoms, cookies that have Kisses pushed into the middle. Several participants said they had made a version of these cookies before. F1 expressed reluctance to follow the recipe:

F1: Well, they’re just so much work.  To me, making cookies–I do cookies once a year.  And these particular ones, I mean you have to roll them up, put them in the sugar, and then moosh them down, and then unwrap the Hershey’s kisses, and put them in the–it’s like, I’m all about bar cookies, okay?  You slice them up and then…[laughter]

One of the most interesting responses came from a participant who identified the artificiality of the focus group setting, and asserted that the level of critical analysis she and the other participants were applying to the Heinz ad was not representative of her everyday interaction with media.

F3: Like if this is an ad, we don’t tear them apart like that.  You glance through a magazine, you see it quickly, oh cool, flip the page.  That was the end of that.  But it sticks with you.  Those look like sliced–that’s very cool advertising.  I’ll remember that because of the uniqueness of it.  It works.

Later in the discussion another participant echoed this observation, saying she was only noticing small details because the group was “over-analyzing” the advertisement.

Discussion

In these exercises with adult women, three core questions of media literacy proved effective in guiding the discussion and encouraging participants to respond critically to the texts. Most participants expressed observations that went beyond descriptive or affective domains, more so as the discussion progressed. The increase in evaluative and media literate utterances suggests that the process of guided inquiry itself may have served as an intervention.

What proved especially noteworthy in the analysis of the transcripts was the unexpected role of second-hand production experience, and the importance of personal knowledge in the interpretation of food texts. The findings confirm what was stated in the introduction: with regard to food media, production experience has two facets. One concerns the production/preparation of food itself, and the other the production of media texts about it. A few participants activated both types of knowledge, and this breadth of production experience made their capacity for critical analysis especially strong.

Sargant (2004) questions whether personal experience with media production is necessary to develop media literacy, and Hobbs (1998) identifies this question as one of the ongoing debates in media literacy education. The critical responses given by F1 in the first group suggest that such experience need not be first-hand in order to increase an individual’s capacity for critical thinking. She speaks about her son’s work with Photoshop, and attributes her skepticism regarding the images to what she has learned by watching him. The data gathered in this study cannot reveal the extent of her observation, but the fact that she applied this knowledge to her analysis of the texts suggests that she actively processed what she saw him do. It is also noteworthy that her mention of Photoshop and image manipulation continued to influence the discussion, as several other participants deferred to her and asked about Photoshop when examining the other texts. The participant’s activation of second-hand knowledge suggests that indirect production experience may be useful in adult media education.

The influence of highly media literate participants on their peers also suggests that knowledge of media production need not be direct to be effective. Comments made about Photoshop by participant F1 in the first group occasionally galvanized the discussion around the possibilities of photo manipulation. Several of the other women looked to F1 for her evaluation of ads, and her presence seemed to encourage the others to express skepticism. In this case, the other participants’ experience with Photoshop was third-hand —via F1 and her observations of her son’s work—and yet it still influenced the interpretations some of them made of the texts. To reiterate, this may mean that hands-on production experience is not as necessary in media education for adults as it is for children and adolescents.

Many of the participants’ critical responses to the texts were informed by personal knowledge—about the ingredients of a product, about how items really look in the package, or about how a recipe turned out when they followed it at home. While personal knowledge is an important resource to draw on when evaluating a media text, it is just as important to be able to transcend it and respond critically to a representation of an unfamiliar object. For example, a woman who has made chocolate chip cookies may be able to critically evaluate the realism in a photo of cookies by drawing on her personal experience. But when she sees a photo of sushi or another food she has never eaten nor made, can she activate her knowledge that photos of food do not necessarily represent reality?  The transfer of critical thinking skills from one genre or media text to another is an important component of media literacy emphasized by Hobbs and Frost (2003) and The Center for Media Studies, Rutgers (2000). A participant in group one made a comment that spoke directly to the idea of transfer. When speculating about whether the tomato slices in the Heinz ad were real, she activated her knowledge that “they can make entire movies out of computer-generated people.  So…”

The participants’ critical responses to highly produced food advertisements suggest that they may be able to apply similar criticism to slick “food porn” on television. Several women commented that the photos showing preparation of oatmeal cookies were unrealistic, and they may be able to identify such lack of realism in a video text as well. But again, such skills may be limited to depictions of subjects that are familiar to them. Transferability of these skills to media portrayals of “strange” foods and activities merits further examination.

Limitations, Contributions, and Further Work

An exploratory study using two homogeneous focus groups has many limitations. These results should not be construed as generalizable to all adult women, since all the participants are administrative staff at a large, semi-rural state university and are likely college-educated. Findings may be different with a sample in an urban community, or one with participants who have no more than a high-school education. Regardless of its small sample, this study is an important, exploratory step in building a knowledge base. Research on adult media literacy is in a discovery phase, and research on food-media literacy even more so. What this study’s findings contribute is an understanding of how personal knowledge and experience may inform a woman’s media literate response to a food media text.

Building on this work, further steps could be taken to examine adult women’s critical responses to a food media text that depicts an unfamiliar subject. Many of the participants’ comments on the representational realism of the three ads were informed by their own personal experience with the advertised products. This suggests that personal knowledge is an important factor in food-media literacy, but more work must be done to determine whether these critical thinking skills can be activated elsewhere. Such transfer may become even more important as fewer adults participate in food preparation, for they may have a smaller knowledge base from which to draw.

The findings on personal knowledge and production experience contribute to the growing body of research on adult media education. This study may also inform future research in health communication, especially with regard to food marketing and nutrition literacy. Having personal knowledge (i.e., cooking skills) could make someone more able to critically interpret a fast food advertisement or an episode of “Man v. Food.” The flip side of this is that not having cooking skills could make people more likely to make the preferred reading of food media texts intended by advertisers and media producers. Food-media literacy may be a key skill in negotiating the growing and commercial-driven food media sphere, and in making food choices that are in the best interest of the individual.

References

Aufderheide, Pat. 1993. A Report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute.

Bertrand, Jane T., Judith E. Brown and Victoria M. Ward. 1992. “Techniques for analyzing focus group data.” Evaluation Review 16: 198–209.

Center for Media Studies, Rutgers. 2000. Setting Research Directions for Media Literacy and Health Education. Conference report. http:// www.mediastudies.rutgers.edu/mh_conference/conf7012.pdf

Cutler, David M., Edward L. Glaeser, and Jesse M. Shapiro. 2003. “Why Have Americans Become More Obese?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17: 93-118.

Dowler, Elizabeth, and Claire Calvert. 1995. “Looking for ‘Fresh’ Food: Diet and Lone Parents.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 54: 759–769.

Fauchald, Nick. 2011. “A Digerati’s Food Diary.” Food and Wine, January 2011.

Hindin, Toby J. 2001. “Development and Evaluation of a Nutrition Education Intervention on Head Start Parents’ Ability to Mediate the Impact of TV Food Advertising to Their Children. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.

Hobbs, Renée. 1998. “The Seven Great Debates in the Media Literacy Movement.” Journal of Communication 48: 16-32

Hobbs, Renée, and Richard Frost. 2003. “Measuring the Acquisition of Media Literacy Skills.” Reading Research Quarterly 38: 330–355.

Kaufman, Frederick. 2005. “Debbie Does Salad: The Food Network at the Frontiers of Pornography.” Harper’s Magazine. October 2005.

Ketchum, Cheri. 2005. “The Essence of Cooking Shows: How the Food Network Constructs Consumer Fantasies.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 29: 217–234.

Lang, Tim, Martin Caraher, Paul Dixon, and Roy Carr-Hill. 1999. Cooking Skills and Health. London: Health Education Authority.

Mancino, Lisa and Constance Newman. 2007. “Who Has Time to Cook? How Family Resources Influence Food Preparation.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report No. ERR-40.

Morgan, David L. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Murphy, Kate. 2010. “First Camera, Then Fork.” The New York Times. April 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/dining/07camera.html

National Association for Media Literacy Education. 2007. “Core Principles of Media Literacy Education.” http://namle.net/publications/core-principles/

O’Neill, Molly. 2003. “Food Porn.” Columbia Journalism Review. Sept./Oct.

Ofcom. 2010. “UK Adults’ Media Literacy Audit.” http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/media-literacy-pubs/

Ovide, Shira and Emily Steel. 2008. “A New Helping of Food Magazines.” Wall Street Journal. Sept. 30.

Poe, Pamela Z. 2007. “‘Health-media Literacy’ for the Elderly: A Symbolic Interactionist Analysis of How Older Persons Perceive Health Information and Marketing in Prescription Drug Advertisements.” Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University.

Pollan, Michael. 2009. “Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch.” The New York Times Magazine. Aug. 2.

Primack, Brian A., and Renée Hobbs. 2009. “Association of Various Components of Media Literacy and Adolescent Smoking.” American Journal of Health Behavior 33: 192–201.

Salkin, Allen. 2010. “Newcomer to Food Television Tries for a Little Grit.” New York Times. Apr. 20. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/dining/21network.html

Sargant, Naomi. 2004. “Why Does Media Literacy Matter?” Adults Learning 16: 28 – 30.

Scheibe, Cyndy. 2008. “Using Media Literacy to Improve Young Children’s Understanding of Food Advertising.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association.

Stewart, David W., and Prem N. Shamdasani. 1990. Focus groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Tisdell, Elizabeth. 2007. “Popular Culture and Critical Media Literacy in Adult Education: Theory and Practice.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 115: 5–13.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2009. Food CPI and Expenditures: Table 10. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/Data/Expenditures_tables/table10.htm

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. “Average Hours Per Day Spent in Primary Activities (1) for the Civilian Population, 2008 Quarterly and Annual Averages.” News Release. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t12.htm

[1] During the first focus group, I realized that two of the products in the ads are made in the state in which the focus groups were held. This allowed participants to activate more personal knowledge about the manufacturers and the products themselves than may have been possible elsewhere.

[2] Notation designating the identity of the speaker follows the pattern used by the transcriber (e.g. F1 is female participant number one).

School of Communication & the Arts, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA

This article addresses several fundamental questions about faith-based media literacy education in the United States, including how the assumptions, motivations, goals, and pedagogy of those Christians who are operating within a media literacy framework come together to create a unique approach to teaching media literacy.   After briefly reviewing Christian engagement with media, as well as the history of faith-based media literacy education in this country, this paper examines the philosophical and theoretical assumptions of scholars and practitioners, identifies practical applications, and concludes by suggesting some ways in which this sub-field might develop in the years to come.

Keywords: religion, faith, faith-based, Christianity, church, and (of course) media literacy

Not many years ago, Rogow (2004) analogized the development of media literacy in the United States to the renovation of a house done by committee – the debates about preservation, demolition, and rejuvenation being hampered by a lack of a unifying vision.  While we will leave it to others to assess the overall project’s progress in the time since, we will adopt her metaphor briefly to consider the placement and condition of one of the rooms in that house, faith-based media literacy education.

Considering the relatively few efforts dedicated to this movement, one might envision it as that nicely decorated spare bedroom: eminently useful when called upon for service but ultimately unnecessary to the everyday functionality of the structure.   Or, considering the uneven progress of the scholarship and programs dedicated to this purpose, perhaps it’s more like the unfinished basement: tremendous potential lies therein, with some of the area already put to great use, but residents must navigate around the remains of projects begun and abandoned by well-intentioned weekend warriors.  More positively, one might recall that many of the initial blueprints for the media literacy movement in the United States were created within religious communities, and thus envision the current expression of those plans to be the foundation for the whole house— an integral, but now generally overlooked, structural element.

In order to determine which, if any, of these analogies is most useful, this article will address some fundamental questions about the faith-based movement, particularly as it applies to that informed by Christianity in the United States.  Certainly, other religious traditions have developed pedagogical strategies in response to our media-saturated culture, but the contributions to particularly Christian-based efforts are numerous and varied enough to warrant a separate analysis.  Furthermore, many of the findings and questions raised by this article would be equally important to scholars working in other faith traditions.  Specifically, this article will consider how many of the assumptions, motivations, goals, and pedagogies of those Christians who are operating within a media literacy framework come together to create a unique approach to teaching those skills to both children and adults that can be defined as faith-based.  We will examine the work of both scholars and practitioners and conclude by suggesting some ways in which this sub-field might develop in the years to come. Although churches and other religious education programs are frequently acknowledged as a locus of program implementation (Kellner and Share 2005; Kubey 1998; Martens 2010), very little research has yet addressed this movement.

There has, however, been a growing recognition by many that the influence of the church as a social institution has been eroding in the past several decades and increasingly replaced by media.  Silverblatt (2004) makes a convincing case that media are the dominant social institution in Western society, fulfilling functions once handled by home, school, government, and, of course, the church itself.  Davis et al. (2001) argue that television operates as a religion, not only because it offers a moral code and public rituals and creates a community of adherents but because, as our “national storyteller,” it portrays a vision for the way we are to conduct our lives, and we mold our identities based upon those representations.   Lyden (2003) develops a similar analogy between religion and film.  Although much has changed about television, film, and other media and their uses in the last decade, particularly an increasing audience fragmentation and convergence with internet technologies, the comparison remains a useful one. Perhaps we might now envision the media “religion” as comprised of a growing number of “denominations.”  Evaluating media in light of Geertz’s (1973) definition of religion, a number of connections are apparent.   Even a cursory consideration of the conceptions perpetuated by media—ideas about consumerism, authority, self-image, and what it means to live a good life— along with the resulting moods and motivations they generate, argue in favor of the concept of media as a substitute religion.

The term “media” has been used by scholars and media literacy advocates in varied ways. It has represented many traditional media such as television, film, radio, recorded popular music and print publications, but currently can encompass a wide variety of increasingly interrelated, interactive, newer communication forms, most involving the Internet and related communication technologies.  While any assessment of the principles and progress of faith-based media literacy education must acknowledge that all media forms are important, it is clear that more traditional media and often commercial forms of them that have tended to be the focus.  In addition, the natural parallels between the storytelling function of television and film and the storytelling found in scripture have undoubtedly contributed to a greater focus on narrative and image-based media within faith-based media literacy circles.  “The way to the realm of God in the gospel stories is lined with the images of the parables,” writes Hoffman (2011, 48).  “[T]he images of television, movies, and the Internet can also pave the way to a deeper understanding of the Gospel today.”  Among even recently-published texts examined in this article, the dominant media addressed include television, film, and print, although internet sites have received greater attention as of late.  Hoffman’s (2011) book, for example, contains several exercises involving Facebook, YouTube, and other web sites.

Not only are media representations problematic, but media technologies and their applications, both those introduced in the past and those that have emerged in more recent years, themselves have posed provocative questions for religious communities. Some within the Christian community have wholeheartedly viewed these technologies as a means of fulfilling their organizational missions and educational goals. Others have considered them inhibitors of Christian understanding and growth.  In our contemporary digital media environment, how are church leaders, Christian educators, and members of church communities to make responsible decisions about new interactive technologies? Scholars such as Schultze (2002, 2004) seek to guide Christians both in their personal use and in liturgical settings through the dilemmas they present.  In an age of GodTube, tweeting preachers, and iPhone “confessional” apps, such guidelines surely provoke thoughtful reflection on the topic of technological engagement.  At the same time, however, they underscore the need for a more general and universal framework by which church leaders and religious educators might answer questions their congregations face daily about the religious implications of their media use: What technologies are valuable and for what purpose?  What kind of community is media use creating, and what kind of community is being destroyed?  Who is privileged by a technology and who is left out?  Campbell suggests that church members “may need to undergo a detailed process of evaluation and reflection to consider the positive and negative aspects brought on by the new technology before a decision can be made” (2010, 5).

Faced with this encroaching pseudo-religion and the dilemmas of new technology, communities of faith have drawn upon both theological doctrine as well as pragmatic strategies to provide guidance to their members.  Understandably, the “image” of electronic and digital media has posed greater theological problems than the “word” of print for American Christians, and particularly for Protestants.  According to Hess, “where historically religious communities were at the forefront of pushing print-based literacy, now more and more of them are struggling to figure out where they stand in relation to media literacy” (2006, 248). Articulating a theology of media is a controversial and developing task, but what seems clear is that religious communities are increasingly engaging in or poised to engage in dialogue.  A number of factors contribute to this willingness, according to Lyden (2003): the convenience of new technologies, the desire of scholars to cross disciplinary boundaries, and a growing recognition that understanding media is integral to understanding culture.  Whatever the reasons, this increasing engagement with media opens the door to media literacy education within the church.

Articulating a sense of urgency, one member of the Catholic Church described cultural phenomena which demand the attention of religious educators: the inability of television viewers to discern what was real in many “real-life” dramas, the potentially negative health impact of pharmaceutical industry advertisements, the use of communication technology as an escape, and the increasingly disjointed society produced by technology as common interpersonal transactions such as banking, shopping, newspaper reading, and mail delivery are turned obsolete by computerization.

In the Christian tradition, religion is based on the concept of ‘community’ and worship requires a coming together of common believers.  In an increasingly individualized and computerized society, how will the Church continue its task of sharing the good news and serving others?

This wasn’t written last year, or even five or 10 years ago.  It was written with startling prescience three and a half decades ago by Elizabeth Thoman (1977), the founder of Media & Values magazine, a forerunner to the Center for Media Literacy.  How well have Christians answered her call in the years since?   To answer that question adequately, we will need to address in brief some historical context for Christians’ relationships with both media and literacy.

Christian Engagement with Media

The histories of Christianity and media from the Reformation forward, and particularly in America, are deeply intertwined, and their effects reach into the twenty-first century.  Print was a highly instrumental medium for early American Protestants, one used to reach a new nation with Bibles, tracts, and pamphlets, and it was only during the second half of the nineteenth century, when most religious publishers believe that reputable fiction “could have a place in the Christian home.” (Nord 2004, 117). Throughout the twentieth century, electronic media sparked a similar debate. Alarmed by the apparent divide between traditional values and media portrayals, Protestants and Catholics took active roles in the national discussion about how to protect the public, and children in particular, from unsavory content.  Within evangelical denominations, whose political power became more prominent in the late 1970s, two extreme and seemingly contradictory orientations were notable: on one hand, the vociferous critique of objectionable media content; on the other, evangelicals’ “uncritical faith in technology,” which, when applied to television, like print and radio before, was seen to serve Christ’s great commission sharing the gospel with every nation (Schultze 1990, 29).   A result of the latter belief, notes Romanowski (2007), was an outcropping of explicitly Christian-themed media: popular music, novels, television shows, and film. Much was criticized for its amateurish quality, and much more was relegated to narrowly-tailored Christian radio and television stations.  Yet, in the last two decades, openly religious popular art has been gaining a wider audience and signals what Romanowski characterizes as a paradigm shift in evangelical engagement with popular culture.

Foregoing the previous generation’s activism, today’s churchgoers have a more amiable relationship with popular culture. Citing research that reveals little distinction between the media intake of Christians and non-Christians, Romanowski writes:

[L]ike most people, church-goers generally think of popular art as entertainment, downtime after a long day, or a social activity to be enjoyed with friends. They don’t think too much about the films and videos they watch or the music they listen to (2007, 40).

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that Christian engagement swings from either of these two extremes, either all-out rejection of popular culture or unthinking embrace.  The vast middle ground, it seems, is characterized by a nuanced negotiation of interpretation, mediation, and lived experience.  In previous research, we both have discussed the interrelation of faith and media with a number of individuals. The pastor who frequently uses blockbuster movie clips to illustrate theological principles to a congregation more familiar with Pirates of the Caribbean than with Pharisees and publicans; the evangelist who explains that while he won’t let his daughter read or see the Harry Potter books and films, he’s enjoyed every one of them; the music leader who plays in both the church band on Sunday mornings and in a bar on Friday evenings—each one has thoughtfully reflected on the context and content of their media engagement and for its implications for their family and others.   In justifying the choices he and his wife make for their children, the music leader mentioned above explains his philosophy:

We’re firm believers that truth can be found anywhere.  Truth is Christian, therefore if something contains truth, it’s true…  I hope that the kids know truth, period, then they can find it and spot it in whatever it is.  They can hear it in a secular song as well as in a Christian song.  They can see it in a Veggie Tales movie, and they can also see it in a Disney movie, they can see it all over.  And they can also distinguish the truth from a lie.  We don’t want them to get into a subculture where if it doesn’t have a label on it, we won’t believe it.  We’ll throw it away.  So content is really important to us, and we want to keep talking about content, but not necessarily always shoving in down their throats.  We’re more concerned that their minds are engaged.  (J. Heilman, personal communication, 2007).

While at a distance, this Christian family’s media diet might be indistinguishable from a non-Christian’s, it is apparent that a lack of contemplation isn’t the issue.

The skills this father speaks of instilling in his children— the ability to “read” media and evaluate and critique messages— are those promoted by media literacy educators.   His implication that the children will conduct this evaluation in light of the truths taught by Christianity, however, distinguishes his approach from others which rely on the students’ ability to construct general knowledge structures (Potter 2001) or which primarily encourage students to reflect on their personal experiences as media users (Buckingham 2003).  Although like this father, many Christians arrive at this process independently, media literacy advocates have been promoting such training for decades.

As it is within the fields of education and communication, the term “media literacy” is relatively new within religious communities and is used even today somewhat infrequently to describe efforts to critically question media culture.  However, its essential principles of inquiry and interpretation are embodied in many articles, books, and websites written for Christian readers about how to engage media from a faith-informed perspective, and many of these texts will be identified throughout this article.  It is important to understand that efforts to practice some form of faith-based media literacy are not nearly as isolated as relevant scholarship might suggest, but it is difficult to define the parameters of media literacy in religious contexts.

A Brief History of Faith-based Media Literacy Education in the U.S.

The roots of media literacy education can be found in visual instruction, film education, literary analysis, and even the practice of rhetoric dating back into antiquity.  With so many disparate influences, it is no wonder the field is prone to “fragmentation and dissonance” and that even its brief history as a distinct educational discipline is, as Hobbs and Jensen’s (2009) review illustrates, a fabric entangled with many threads.  Woven into that fabric are the threads of many religious influences.  As Cheung (2006) observes, churches have been instrumental in media education worldwide, and the origins of such advocacy in the United States are often credited to the efforts of Christian scholars working within both secular as well as explicitly religious frameworks.  One of these pioneers was Father John Culkin, a Jesuit priest, whose background in film studies and friendship with Marshall McLuhan informed his advocacy for and development of media literacy initiatives, which have earned him recognition for founding media literacy education in the United States (Hailer and Pacatte 2007; Moody n.d.)

Another notable influence is Elizabeth Thoman’s groundbreaking work in the 1970s.  A Roman Catholic nun working on her graduate degree, Thoman began publishing Media & Values magazine as a forum in which to discuss the social and cultural implications of new communication technology.  Although intended for a broad audience of educators, the magazine frequently published articles from a faith perspective.  In 1989, she founded the Center for Media and Values, later renamed the Center for Media Literacy (CML), which continues to be recognized as one of three primary national organizations in the field (Martens 2010).   Today, CML advocates media literacy instruction in mainstream public education, and not from any particular religious orientation.  However, its website remains a primary source of information on faith-based media literacy.

Prompted by statements and policies from the Vatican to include media education and critical reflection in catechetical and Catholic school education, the Catholic Church has been a leading force in media literacy education.  Campbell (2010) notes that since its inception in 1948, the Pontifical Commission for the Study and Ecclesiastical Evaluation of Films on Religious or Moral Subjects has been instrumental in guiding church policy on how media should be used in Catholic education and on issues of media literacy.  In 1993, the Center for Media and Values worked with the National Catholic Education Association (NCEA) to produce Catholic Connections to Media Literacy, a project of the Catholic Communication Campaign.  It appears to have been the first faith-based media literacy curriculum packages developed for use in Catholic classrooms and parishes.  The potential market for the curriculum was impressive: at the time, the NCEA served 7.6 million students in Catholic education.  More recently, Sisters Rose Pacatte and Gretchen Hailer have developed media literacy curricula for use in Catholic education, and Mary Byrne Hoffman recently published a media literacy guide for use in catechesis.  Their work will be examined later in this article.

Though members of Protestant denominations have faced challenges of greater fragmentation and lack of unifying mandate, an early curriculum – earlier, even, than Catholic Connections – was created by the Media Action Research Center (MARC), a group of communication professionals from several Protestant denominations.  Published in 1980, Growing with Television: A Study of Biblical Values and the Television Experience, offered lessons for children, teens, and adults.  Its message was clear: the study of television is useful as a “values clarification resource” (Martens 1980, 4).  The goals, therefore, were to first strengthen the students’ faith, and second to teach them how to use critical thinking skills to avoid programs that were contrary to the faith and seek out those that were consistent.  Comparing television and Christian values would help the student “achieve freedom from the tyranny of the content values and the presence of TV” (4).  Around the same time, MARC, in conjunction with a number of Protestant denominations, created a media education curriculum with wider appeal, one that could be used in secular settings.  Television Awareness Training has been called “an influential ‘foreparent’ of today’s media literacy movement” (Logan and Price n.d.) and despite its lack of an explicitly religious viewpoint, was widely used in both Protestant and Catholic churches due to its “values-based” approach.

The United Methodist Church continues to actively respond to its members’ engagement with media by affirming the value of media literacy education (United Methodist Church 2004).  Other Protestant groups have recognized the need for formal instruction, though implementation of efforts has been inconsistent at best.  The National Council of Churches of Christ USA, which represents about 100,000 member congregations of varied Protestant denominations, issued a policy statement regarding the role of local churches in media education in which they stated unequivocally, “we must be media literate”  (National Council of Churches of Christ USA 1995).    This affirmation called upon member churches to create centers for media literacy training which would “develop and implement the use of media education materials to reinforce faith values.”  However, while the organization has developed initiatives in media justice, it is not clear that substantial progress in education has since been made. The same appears to be true for the United Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Media Mission, a non-profit organization of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., once planned to develop a media literacy curriculum but has since abandoned those efforts to reasons discussed later in this article.

As media literacy scholar Stout observed, religious media literacy has been “uneven both in terms of conceptualization and level of analysis achieved” (2002, 49).  He attributes this delay to several challenges unique to faith-based efforts that are not found in its secular counterparts, challenges resulting from religion’s often dualistic response to our pluralistic society.  He anticipated, however, that scholars would address religious media literacy with increasing frequency, and would particularly strive to understand what distinguishes religious media literacy from the more general embodiment of the term.  Nearly a decade later, one might wonder how well he predicted the scholarly development of the subfield.

The disappointing answer is, not particularly well.

The State of the Movement Today

Two qualifications to the preceding statement are worth noting.  The first is this: whatever advancements that have recently occurred have been the products of a handful of dedicated and passionate scholars and practitioners. If progress can be made by so few, then there is reason to be optimistic about future endeavors.  Secondly, a lack of articulated solidarity is rather understandable, given the same uncertainties within the broader movement.  Expecting religious-oriented scholars to have done much more by now would be, to return to our original analogy, a bit like asking interior decorators to arrange the furniture before renovators have settled on Georgian or Colonial Revival.  While faith-based media literacy education could certainly proceed along its own path, it certainly makes sense for it to draw upon the knowledge and materials of the broader movement where applicable.

Definitional Issues with Faith-based Approaches to Media Literacy

We will begin our analysis by examining the terms and definitions associated with this movement.   There appears to be little consistency in the terminology, which is unsurprising given the same inconsistencies in the broader field (Martens 2010) and is due, in part, to the independent development of efforts in the past several decades.  Two lines of heritage contribute to current efforts: one that developed concurrently and has a reciprocal relationship with the more general media literacy field, and one that originated outside of the media literacy framework but seeks to teach Christians how to develop similar skills.

Those approaches that draw upon the media literacy field often rely on commonly-accepted definitions of media literacy but add a theological element. We have adopted the term “faith-based media literacy” from Blythe, who defines it in terms of the framework and process used to analyze meaning created by media.  “Such an approach may be useful to viewers seeking a more substantive and conceptually rich definition of media literacy from a principle-based perspective,” she writes (2002, 139). In another text, however, she abandons that label in favor of “theological analysis of media” in which “principles of biblical exegesis are combined with principles used in the media literacy movement” (Blythe and Wolpert 2004, 54).  The term “media literacy” is used sparingly in an earlier text coauthored by Blythe (Davis et al. 2001), although the book clearly illustrates the application of media literacy principles. The preferred term therein is “theological interpretation,” presented not as an alternative to secular media literacy, but rather as the result of a sustained reflection achieved by first “reading” television using principles of media literacy, then by asking particular questions that arise from one’s theological understanding.

The same media-literacy-plus-faith conception is evident in the curriculum designed by Hailer and Pacatte. Drawing heavily the “five key questions” and “five core concepts” presented by the Center for Media Literacy, it coins the term “media mindfulness” to describe the “set of Christian life skills and a life style rooted in these concepts” (2007, 8).  They write, “Media mindfulness adds Gospel values to the media literacy approach, discerning God’s presence in media stories and discovering what this reflection process means for us as disciples” (14).

A term that has developed outside of the media literacy education framework is “media discernment,” a movement which Jenkins (2004) equates with the application of media literacy within a religious context.  Although the term is rarely used within scholarly literature, and rarely by media literacy advocates, it is frequently used within religious circles to refer to a process of engaging with popular culture that is thoughtful, nuanced, and informed by religious belief.  Denis Haack, the founder of Ransom Fellowship, an organization devoted to the interaction of the Christian faith and popular culture, defines discernment as “a process that involves answering simple but probing questions,” many of which echo the “five key questions” presented by CML.  Not only does the organization illustrate the application of media literacy principles to popular media texts, but it seeks to educate others about how to apply those same principles— often by asking questions without providing answers, allowing the reader to arrive at his or her own conclusions after engaging in critical reflection.

If Ransom Fellowship employs media discernment as a probe by which to actively seek out the best in popular culture, conservative evangelical Focus on the Family envisions media discernment as a shield by which to avoid immorality.   Framing the problem in warfare terms, authors of the site warn against the deception that is likely to follow from a lack of discernment— a process that involves asking a series of scripturally-based inquiries (“Does [the media text] present a temptation to sin?” “Does it honor and glorify God?”)— and suggest that action follows critique: “be willing to turn off the set, stop reading, or leave the theater. Always be ready to refute the false ideas or unbiblical thinking that will nearly always be present to one degree or another”  (Waliszewski and Smithouser 2011). While the authors raise many valid concerns about the deceptive nature of media images, the site provides little instruction on evaluating the more subtle messages inherent in media and acknowledges few motivations for cultivating discernment other than protection of the consumer and the consumer’s family.

The term “cultural agency” is one adopted by Warren (1997) to describe a process of critical analysis in which people of faith can make judgments about media consumption.  He draws inspiration from the process of “cultural action” developed by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, who developed a process of teaching reading and writing to illiterate adults in his country in the mid-twentieth century.  Traditional notions of literacy education, just like those regarding religious education, relied upon a unidirectional flow of information, one in which passive students accepted instruction from an authoritative source, a process which reinforced existing power structures and discouraged dialogue.  Freire’s work challenged that paradigm and contributed to current media literacy concepts by encouraging individuals to critique and challenge societal structures and gain voice through their newly acquired skills.   Although Warren does not explicitly rely upon the language or findings of media literacy scholars, his central concerns parallel theirs:

Full cultural agency… is an active way of looking at and making decisions about the meanings and values created for us in our society, but it is also an active way of examining and judging the channels by which these meanings and values are communicated to us.  Seen this way, cultural agency embraces as a basic tool cultural analysis: the ability to bring cultural products and their latent imagination of life before the “tribunal of judgment” to assess their value or appropriateness (18).

However, as Stout and Scott (2003) acknowledge, definitions that audience members attribute to media literacy are as important as those ascribed by scholars and practitioners.  What does being media literate mean to individuals as they negotiate their media use in practice as members of interpretive communities?  In their analysis of three groups of Mormon media users, Stout and Scott (2003) conclude that there are diverse approaches to media literacy even among that single faith tradition.  This suggests that while faith-based media literacy in theory might define a set of terms, approaches, and goals, media literacy in practice among different Christian traditions and denominations will likely look very different as congregations and families emphasize varied aspects of the analytic process.

Scholarly Approaches

Martens’ (2010) meta-analysis of the broader field identifies two primary theoretical research trends.   While both the media effects and cultural/critical approaches tend to focus on different aspects of the learning process—effects research on the development of cognitive abilities, and critical/cultural research on the dialogical process of reflecting on experience as consumers and producers— the field as a whole, he explains, tends to define media literacy education in terms of knowledge and skills acquired about media industries, production processes, messages, audiences and effects.

Tobias (2008) provides a review of four often overlapping approaches to media literacy education—protectionist/interventionist, critical thinking, critical pedagogy, and art/aesthetic—as well as a review of traditional and progressive pedagogies.   Like Martens (2010), Tobias notes that in contrast to other countries where media literacy education has a longer history, the protectionist/interventionist or media effects approach is by far the most frequently used construct in the United States.  Pragmatics and politics of the last several decades have contributed to this condition.  Studies suggesting links between media use and unhealthy attitudes and behaviors have prompted government programs, school officials, parents, and other sources of funding and support to be more likely to be persuaded by a results-oriented appeal.

Though these categorizations are instructive, it is difficult to similarly classify faith-based approaches.  Simply put, there isn’t a canon of research large enough to support such a division.  It would be more accurate to describe the approaches taken by individual researchers in the field. In order to identify these researchers, we conducted a survey of the scholarly literature on faith-based media literacy education. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of the field, a search was conducted in three databases: (1) Communication and Mass Media Complete (ESBCO) using the search terms “media literacy” or “media education” combined with “religion” or “faith” in the abstract; (2) ALTA Religion Database using “media literacy” or “media education” within any text; and (3) Education Research Complete (ESBCO) with “media literacy” or “media education” combined with “religion” or “faith” in the abstract.  The results included fewer than 50 articles; when narrowed to peer-reviewed journals, fewer than 20, and when narrowed further by eliminating those which referenced media literacy only tangentially, or which involved efforts outside of the United States, only a handful remained.  What follows is a discussion of this literature, as well as a handful of additional articles found elsewhere.

Religious media literacy faces a number of unique barriers which, according to Stout (2002), demand new approaches that leave behind the “culture wars-type analysis” that focuses on issues of moral conflict and fails to address ways in which media can enhance spirituality, be appreciated for aesthetic value, and serve a socializing function in communities.   One area for exploration, he suggests, is the way that religious media literacy is interpreted and practiced within familial, social, and political structures.  By viewing media use in its social context, questions of direct effects and the emphasis on content analyses that seek to uncover such effects are less helpful than questions about what media use means in any given situation.  By framing his later study in an audience-oriented perspective, he discovered that Mormons approach media literacy in various ways, some valuing structured guidelines, others relying on personal interpretation and autonomy, and others defining media literacy in terms of relationship dynamics.  “These findings suggest,” they write, “that the richest source of insight about media literacy is not the content of messages, but the expressed needs of the audience member” (2003, 155).  Understanding those varied needs, they argue, is necessary for the development of media literacy programs.

Stout (2002) further suggests that future efforts focus on ways in which media can enhance religious teaching and cites Hess’ (2001) argument on that theme.  Hess, a Roman Catholic education scholar, is by far the most prolific researcher in this area and situates her theoretical work squarely within a critical/cultural approach in which studying the process of consuming and producing media is more instructive than studying the process of decoding content (2003).  For Hess, media literacy is one way in which to build bridges between communities through theological dialogue:

What would we do if we would ask, not what is our community of faith’s perspective on this piece of media (translated into: do we approve or disapprove of its apparent content, or do we know how we can “use” it), but how is God speaking to us and through us in the midst of this conversation? (2004a, 93).

The challenge of religious educators, Hess argues, is to adapt their roles in a society in which religious meaning-making is happening without their intervention and often within unexpected contexts.  “Rather than being transmitters of doctrine,” she writes, “we need to become interpreters of culture—speaking both to and from the church about the ways in which the Holy Spirit is moving in the world” (Hess, 2004b, 154).   This requires a pedagogical transformation from a linear, instrumental paradigm to a communal, dialogic model—a shift to “knowing how” rather than “knowing that” (155).  Not only does this dialogic model allow for the deconstruction of media messages and a critique of power structures, but, following Freire’s conception of literacy as a tool of empowerment, gives voice to individuals as they both “read” and “write” media texts.  In tracing a history of religious media literacy education, Hess (2006) notes that religious communities were “focused on ways to get beyond mass-mediated popular culture, rather than seeing it as an original and crucial matrix in which to do theological reflection and live faithfully” (247).  These theoretical assumptions constructed the framework of Hess’ dissertation research on the use of media literacy in the context of religious education (1998), which employed a methodology of “participatory action research,” a process in which both researcher and subjects actively participate in the program under study (2001).

Hess’s approach has been met with a certain amount of skepticism.  In a review of one of Hess’ books, Shoemaker (2007) resists the collaborative model of learning she proposes, concerned that allowing students to inject texts with their own, often limited perspective may cause more harm than good.  Additionally, he argues that it isn’t “theologically productive” to put much value in the meaning-making that might be found by examining media texts, or that future research might be built upon those foundations.  “Such imaginings,” he writes, “only lead me to despair for the future of theology” (457).  Shoemaker’s critique underscores the philosophical resistance media literacy educators may confront from various religious communities who may otherwise agree that media education in some form is advisable but resist the dialogic strategy Hess and many media literacy advocates propose.

Working within a similar context as Hess (the teaching of religion) but with a theoretical orientation that leans more towards an instrumental approach, Cheung (2006) discusses many religious educators’ concerns regarding media’s potentially negative effects.  “[I]s it possible to empower pupils with the ability to be more discerning and to decide what is of value and what is not?” she asks.  “Media education seems to be a possible means of achieving this” (505.)  Indeed, not only did teachers in her study find media education helpful in connecting religious experience to everyday life, in finding common ground with students, and in increasing students’ interest in religious education, but Cheung found that students believed themselves to have increased their ability to decode “hidden messages” in media.  Though this research was conducted in two Hong Kong religious schools, we note it here because it is unique in seeking to assess the effectiveness of faith-based media literacy instruction through empirical means.

A media literacy advocate whose work appears in both scholarly journals and popular works, Teresa Blythe may be seen as staking out a middle ground.  Her conception of audience interpretation is grounded in cultural studies, but she does not ignore the potential negative effects media have on users and encourages Christians to actively critique media messages for adherence to biblical values.  Her aim is to provide a framework for guiding individuals through a theological evaluation of a media text: an episode of The X-Files (1999), top-rated television dramas (2002), or the film K-Pax (Blythe and Wolpert 2004).  By evaluating these texts in ways consistent with secular media literacy principles and then posing questions which integrate theological concepts, Blythe suggests possible connections between text and scripture but still provides room for viewers to reach their own conclusions.  Situating media literacy in a faith-based context necessarily leads to particular kinds of questions: “How does this show depict the human condition? What view of good and evil is implied? In what ways is this slice of American popular religion similar to or different from a Christian view of life?”  Such questions presume a level of “faith experience” that allow participant responses to proceed in a meaningful way, and yet do not require a particularly high degree of biblical literacy.  Asking “how does this story resonate with my life and spiritual journey?” (Blythe and Wolpert 2004) allows for a certain flexibility that asking about the scriptural implications of this story does not.  This may, some might argue, be an inherent weakness of this approach and lead to the conclusion there is in reality very little difference between such a faith-based approach and any other media literacy perspective which accounts for an individual’s life experiences in the development of meaning.

Principles of Faith-based Media Literacy

How, then, can we differentiate a specifically Christian approach?  Core principles of media literacy and media literacy education have been articulated by the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE), CML, and other organizations and scholars, and, among faith-based scholars and practitioners, there appears to be little, if any, direct disagreement with these concepts.  However, while there are many strong parallels with the secular model, several notable assumptions distinguish a Christian approach. Although there are many variations of and levels of commitment to the Christian faith, such basic ideas as a personal, all-knowing, ever-present, loving God, redemption though Jesus Christ, the authority of Scripture, absolute rather than merely relative truth, revealed realities about the spiritual world, and numerous God-given principles for living resonate with many in the Christian community. In one way or another, they in part can frame a Christian faith based media literacy education initiative.   What follows is a modest attempt to consolidate the guiding principles of faith-based media literacy education by those scholars and practitioners who have addressed them.

Media provide images of society that have powerful influences on our conceptions of reality. This recognition is at the heart of media literacy education, but support for this concept can be also found within the Christian tradition.  Canadian media literacy educator and Jesuit priest John Pungente draws upon the prayer method of St. Ignatius of Loyola to understand the power of imagination in shaping an individual’s sense of reality.  In his “imaginative prayer,” the disciple would envision a scene from scripture in such a vivid way that they could see, hear, smell, taste and feel the scene around them.  This was a recognition, Pungente asserts, that our imaginations powerfully construct the reality we inhabit.

When we watch movies and TV shows we are more than being entertained; we are being formed and shaped.  We expose ourselves to narratives that shape what is possible, and then we can—consciously or unconsciously—live out those possibilities (Pungente 2010).

Certainly, the images provided by media have the power to create a reality consistent with scripture. Hoffman writes, “Gospel and media both share the ability to reveal what is sacred through image” (2011, 54).  Because media’s imagined realities are so powerful and pervasive, however, members of religious communities often have a greater understanding of and faith in media images than in those presented in Scripture and in religious tradition.  “How do we cope with human life in which the common values no longer seem to be established by the Ten Commandments,” Thoman (1977) asks, “but by hundreds of thousands of TV commercials?”

However, individuals negotiate meaning according to their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. “[T]elevision,” writes Blythe (2004) “— just as books, music, or fine art — has no power in and of itself to inject us with values.” (140).  Hailer and Pacatte (2007) reassure educators that while media do have powerful influence on children and teens, most research has not established conclusive links between consuming media and specific behavior.  They further remind instructors that there is not a correct way to interpret movies, television, or music, and that they must remain open to the meaning found by students.  That does not imply that there is not another “reality” that is constructed by the media, but that the reality as interpreted by the instructor and the reality as seen by the student may be quite different things.

The values promoted by the media are often false, destructive, and thus in contradiction to those promoted by Christianity. Despite warnings from some church leaders of the depravity to be found in media, religious media literacy educators affirm that media are not inherently good or evil.  Hailer and Pacatte (2007) cite statements by Pope Pius XII declaring that motion pictures, radio, and television, “though they spring from human intelligence and industry, are nevertheless the gifts of God, Our Creator, from Whom all good gifts proceed.” The NCC agrees, reasoning that since media are indeed God’s gifts “they must be considered as being held in trust for the community by those who control them.  Therefore, stewardship is a necessary corollary of creation” (NCC 1995, 2).

There is a recognition, however, that the predominant worldview portrayed in media and that of Christianity are in contraposition.  The stories told by media are not neutral; they portray images of mankind, of God, and of the relationship between and among them that are, in varying degrees, either true or false.

In contrast to the media’s worldview that we are basically good, that happiness is the chief end of life and that happiness consists of obtaining material goods, the Christian worldview holds that human beings are susceptible to the sin of pride, that the chief end of life is to live in harmony with all of creation, and that happiness consists in creating the reign of God within one’s self and among one’s neighbors—which includes the whole earth. (Fore 1990)

The fundamental Christian doctrine of sin informs this view of the power of media.  With tremendous economic, social, and political power, media inevitably become “a primary locus of sin” (Fore 1988).  If sin is understood as a deviation from God’s word, then the myths perpetuated by media which are both systemic (such as the notion that fame alone is a desirable and meaningful achievement) and content-related (such as the persistent portrayal of authority figures as ignorant, inept, and ineffective) are sin.  When we accept the deviation, we accept sin.  However, the central Christian doctrine of redemption is neither necessary nor possible in its absence.  How media handle the sin and redemption narrative is of primary concern.

Critical inquiry and the skills of “reading” the media are necessary to discern between truth and falsehood in media representations of reality. Critical analysis is better than censorship, Christian faith-based media literacy advocates seem to agree.  One perspective holds that if God is the God of creation, newness and life, then censorship must be avoided because it restrains new information and ideas (Fore 1988, NCC 1995). Another perspective has a more pragmatic foundation.   Media avoidance, once advocated more heavily among religious organizations and still promoted by particularly conservative evangelical groups, is frequently considered neither effective nor practical, with unintended consequences—the “forbidden fruit syndrome” chief among them—making this approach a risky one.  “We do not consider media boycotts helpful,” explain Hailer and Pacatte. “[W]e believe that empowering others to choose media wisely and question everything they hear and see through media mindfulness is much more effective, influential, and long lasting” (2007, 9). Similarly, writes Cheung, “[t]he role of religious educators is not to denigrate media artifacts so pupils will turn off the tube. Instead, their role is to assist in the development of their understanding of media messages” (2006, 509).  Fore (1990) cites a quote by T.S. Eliot on the efficacy of this perspective:

So long as we are conscious of the gulf fixed between ourselves [as Christians] and the greater part of contemporary [culture], we are more or less protected from being harmed by it and are in a position to extract from it what good it has to offer us” (3).

This strategy assumes three competencies: a knowledge of Christian tenets, an understanding of contemporary culture, and the ability to contrast the two.  Media literacy skills of interpretation, analysis, and critique provide the latter skills, but varying levels of biblical literacy, as well as denominational differences in interpretation and application, must be accounted for in media literacy programs and teaching styles.   The responsibility to choose wisely is fundamental to the agency with which God has entrusted mankind. “Rationality and responsibility, rooted in an unshakeable faith in God, provide us a certain discernment and wisdom with which we can approach the options that the media poses” (Steyn 2006).

This is where faith-based media literacy most obviously departs from its secular counterparts, as it affirms that the legitimacy of the images and stories told by media can and should be judged according to adherence to scripture, church tradition, and personal spiritual experiences.  In the debate over whether media literacy education should have an explicit ideological agenda (Hobbs 1998), the faith community clearly argues for the affirmative. Of course, this is not the only purpose of media literacy education, but discriminating among the various representations of media is among religious educators’ top priorities.  “Debunking contemporary myths” (Steyn 2004) and identifying the “cultural biases and distorted values systems of our culture” (Fore 1988) allow Christians to be responsible and thoughtful media consumers.

It is important to note that rather than dictating specific conclusions the viewer is to draw, many of the current approaches provide various levels of guidance: “What Christian values, morals, or social issues are supported or ignored in this show?” (Hailer and Pacatte 2007); “Is the image of God portrayed here one that we have recognized or experienced?” and “How does this story resonate with our lives and our spiritual journeys?” (Blythe and Wolpert 2004) or “What does scripture/my faith tradition/my reason/my experience have to say about the issue presented in the text?” (Blythe 2002).  Scriptures are frequently provided to suggest connections between the text and the gospel.

Faith-based media literacy education develops Christians who are equipped to serve the society in which they live. Just as secular media literacy educators hope to develop engaged members of society, one of the aims of faith-based media literacy education is its widespread social benefit. Christian educators see their task as not only training students to skillfully negotiate their interaction with media, but equipping students for service to the community through spreading the gospel, revealing truth, building and sustaining community, and advocating for justice.

The Great Commission has long played an essential role in Christian engagement with media, but most commonly as a tool of production; that is, books, radio, television, and now interactive digital technologies have been seen as vehicles by which the gospel may be proclaimed.  For media literacy educators, the Great Commission is, indeed, a legitimate, even a primary, aim, but they envision a broader purpose.  It is not enough to convey the gospel message through existing media.  What’s needed is an understanding of the language of culture so that the gospel presented is relevant.  Fore (1993) explains:

We must re-present the Gospel— the meaning of the good news to us— in stories that connect with the lives of people living in today’s culture.  It is not enough to re-tell earlier stories.  Those stories belong to a completely different culture.  To reproduce them ‘without note or comment’ implies that to us ultimate meaning — the meaning of God —  is found in the past rather than in the present” (58).

Haack (n.d.) justifies engaging popular culture through discernment  “[b]ecause we live in and are part of culture, and when the gospel is brought to bear on culture, the result both brings glory to God and provides an opportunity for non-Christians to hear the good news in terms they can understand.”  Media literacy educators understand that technologies impose limitations on message content, and some see explicitly religious programming as problematic at best (Fore 1988; Potter 2001).   As producers, then, Christians are encouraged to approach content with “great caution and theological sensitivity” (Fore 1988, 10).

This social obligation also includes educating people on how to see truth over falsehood in popular culture, and faith-based media literacy ideally provides the skills of critical analysis necessary to do so.  Thoman (1977) argues that media literacy is needed by all, and providing that education is one way the church can serve society. In order to be effective educators, Christians must understand popular culture so they can know how society sees itself.  “[W]ithout this knowledge,” the Pope warned in his 1971 Pastoral Instruction on the Media, “an effective apostolate is impossible in a society which is increasingly conditioned by the media” (Thoman 1977). If Christians are concerned about helping people understand who they are and more particularly, who they are in relation to God, they need to understand who people believe themselves to be by attending to the cultural framework of media and how it influences thought, attitudes and behavior (Hess 1998).  Even within church communities, young people in particular are in need of guidance.  Hoffman (2011) writes that children are “crying for help” and that the job of the religious instructor is to “toss out the lifeline of media literacy and pull our children back into safe waters where they can navigate the often opposing currents of Gospel and culture” (69).

Additionally, media literacy can illuminate critical issues to which Christians should respond.  “If we are open to it, television has the ability to show us— in exaggerated forms—what we need to take a look at in our culture” writes Blythe (2002, 149).  Johnston (2000) put it this way:

Like the rabbits in the coal mines in nineteenth-century England that were used to sniff out poisonous gas, movies can smell the currents in our society, exploring dimensions of reality that are there for us as well but which we have not fully perceived (64).

Yet we cannot expect to renew culture without relationship.  Community can be enhanced or endangered by media content and technologies.  While some media educators recognized the divisive potential of communication technologies more than thirty years ago (Thoman 1977) it is a widespread concern today. Advocating before the FCC, Tessa Jolls, Thoman’s successor at the CML, stated that “all stakeholders—the media and communications sector, parents, teachers, schools, and students themselves —  need to fully engage in the enterprise of building communities of responsibility and care, online and off” (Center for Media Literacy 2009, ii).  Who better to add to that list of stakeholders charged with building community than religious communities?

Finally, Christians serve society through democratic participation and advocacy for social justice.  Both the NCC and the UMC point to dangers inherent in the highly commercialized and elitist media “which reinforce a limited worldview and provide enormous profit to a privileged few ” (NCC 1995, 5).  Christians are called upon to work for equal access, particularly within developing nations, and for advancing responsible knowledge in domestic affairs:

The Church carries a responsibility to helping its members achieve media literacy, not only to read and understand the gospel but also to discern from the flood of information an understanding of the events of our world today.  Citizens cannot get responsible political information without media literacy. The current media revolution challenges all people to resist becoming mere consumers of messages that are created and controlled by a relatively small number of super-powerful transnational media corporations (UMC, 2004, 2).

Christians can enhance their own spirituality by becoming media literate. Just as the men on the road to Emmaus encountered Christ in the midst of their daily business, God can be found in everyday experiences, even within popular culture (Hess 1998).  Johnston observes that throughout the Old Testament, God often chose nonbelievers to speak truth to his people.  Failing to acknowledge that God continues to work through believers and nonbelievers alike means that “we have failed  to see that God is in all of human culture, both in the way of life of a people and in the expression of that identity through human creativity” (2000, 67).  And, though Christians often overlook the affective qualities of their faith experiences, media can be powerful connectors to the divine by tapping into our emotions.  Popular culture, as Blythe puts it, can “shimmer with glimpses of God” (2004, 10). Because “God continues to speak to us through media in modern parables” (Hailer and Pacatte 2007), one of the dual purposes of their secondary school curriculum is to teach media literacy as a tool by which teenagers can “reflect, grow spiritually, and find meaning in ways that integrate faith and culture” (10).

Using traditional Christian spiritual practices such as lectio divina (“sacred reading”) or the Ignatian prayer of examen, Blythe and Wolpert (2004) illustrate ways in which Christians can heighten their spiritual awareness by connecting the secular and the sacred.  “Considering that the average American spends more than seven hours a day in front of a screen,” they reason, “… we had better hope that God meets us in and through visual media” (13).

Practical Applications

While scholars frequently reference the implementation of media literacy programs within churches and other religious settings, acquiring evidence of these efforts is problematic either because the programs are highly localized, short-lived, or both.  What follows is by no means a comprehensive review of practical applications of faith-based media literacy education, but rather an offering of examples of what has been and is being accomplished.

Twenty years ago, Media & Values magazine, published by the Center for Media Literacy, was a primary resource for critical reflection on the interaction of media literacy and Christianity.  Today, the CML website provides links to dozens of articles on that theme.  While magazine publication ceased in 1993, and archived articles about TV shows Dallas and The Cosby Show recall a simpler media landscape, many of the principles contained therein remain relevant today and remind readers of the movement’s foundations.  While the CML currently develops teaching resources, including the CML MediaLit Kit, none of them are from a specifically faith-based perspective.

Perhaps no media literacy advocate working in a religious context has made greater advances in program development than Sr. Rose Pacatte.  She is director of the Pauline Center for Media Studies, a project of the US/Toronto Province of the Daughters of St. Paul designed to promote media literacy education in churches and schools, and is a regular columnist for St. Anthony Messenger, a Catholic family publication, along with The National Catholic Reporter, and she has written several books designed to be lectionaries of popular films (Malone and Pacatte 2001, 2002, 2003).  Most recently, she co-authored two textbooks for use in elementary and secondary Catholic schools and in churches (Hailer and Pacatte, 2007, 2010).  The textbooks contain a number of cross-curricular applications (history, literature, art, health, etc.) making them adaptable for and by teachers of nearly any subject.  For adults working in ministry, the Pauline Center offers both a one-week summer course and a ten-month program in media literacy.  Sr. Pacatte also teaches an online course in media literacy at her alma mater, the University of Dayton.

While Hailer and Pacatte’s textbooks are designed for broader educational use, Mary Byrne Hoffman’s (2011) Catechesis in a Multimedia World is written specifically for the instructor of religion.  For Hoffman, the difference between Generations X and Z is not a gap but a chasm, one made almost impossibly wide by communication technologies.  Digital natives are of another universe, she writes, echoing the frustration and anxiety of religious education instructors.  Their challenge is to engage students in a shared spiritual journey, but they don’t speak the same language, don’t process information in the same way, and don’t even inhabit the same realities.  Written for the inexperienced but willing digital pilgrim, her book is divided into two parts.  The first is designed to cultivate within the educator a sense of appreciation for the gospel elements to be found in media. As Hess has suggested, Hoffman uses Freier’s empowerment spiral to guide catechists through a personal reflection of several films. The second half of the book introduces the core concepts of media literacy and provides lesson plans adaptable for grades 1-12 that encourage students to engage with television programs, films, and internet sites.  Supplemental material is available online through the publisher’s website, and readers would likely find the lessons easily adaptable for many denominations and religious settings.

Working within the Protestant tradition is Sue Lockwood Summers, whose media literacy research and teaching spans nearly 25 years.  In the late 1980s, as a library media specialist, she began researching media effects and even taught a college course on the topic, but it wasn’t until she was invited to a conference in Ontario that she heard the term media literacy.  Realizing her course “was off the mark” in focusing solely on the negative, she returned to create a college-level course on media literacy (personal communication, June 13, 2011).  She has since authored several textbooks on the subject (Quesada, Rosen, and Summers 1998; Summers 1997, 2005) but not until lately has she turned her attention to developing a curriculum specifically within a Christian framework.  She is currently (as of 2012) in the process of writing a curriculum, which she hopes will be implemented primarily by church groups.

According to its mission statement, the Presbyterian Media Mission (PMM), an outreach mission of the Presbyterian Church, “communicates a creative and compelling witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ through media” (Presbyterian Media Mission n.d.).  Additionally, it aims to provide media literacy education and is frequently contacted to provide speakers to churches and both public and parochial schools throughout western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.  According to director Craig Hartung, the organization once sought to develop a curriculum to support these efforts, but found it difficult to keep up with how quickly popular culture changed.  “So now we have a more customized approach,” Hartung says. The organization acts primarily as a connector between churches and college professors or other professionals with an expertise in a given area, although sometimes PMM staff will handle it themselves.  The most common requests they receive are by groups concerned with the effects of content either of children’s programming or of news and information shows, and are generally for single training sessions to answer specific questions.  He expressed doubt about the Presbyterian Church’s willingness to undertake the development of a formal, long-term course in media literacy, citing both a tendency to be a bit behind in media and technology issues, as well as a general misunderstanding about the purpose and value of media literacy education (C. Hartung, personal communication, June 6, 2011).

Outside the U.S., several initiatives are worth noting.  The Jesuit Communication Project (JCP) in Canada is led by John Pungente, a leader in the media literacy movement, who authored several curricula for use in Canadian schools as early as 1989. Like the CML, the JCP grew out of a desire to connect faith communities and media education, though much of Pungente’s work has been developed with secular education and audiences in mind.  Still, much of his writing, including his book Finding God in the Dark (2004) is written with a Christian framework.  In the UK, St. John’s College at Durham University has begun CODEC, a research institute designed to explore the intersection of Christianity, digital media and culture.  It offers an annual media literacy course for those involved in ministry, with a dual focus on critical thinking and production skills (St. John’s College 2011).

In addition to the books by Pungente (2004), Malone and Pacatte (2001, 2002, 2003), Blythe and Wolpert (2004) and other similar texts mentioned in this article that provide both a rationale and method for interacting with media from a theological perspective, Leonard’s (2006) Movies that Matter provides another notable example of the application of Christian principles to media consumption.  Director of the Australian Catholic Office for Film and Broadcasting, Leonard encourages filmgoers to engage in the process of inculturation, “discovering where Christ is already active within a given culture” (xii).  Fifty films provide the basis for questions prompting theological reflection.   While Leonard’s work focuses on the films and the specific questions they prompt, rather than on the process of asking questions itself, it does offer many useful examples which illustrate the application of critical inquiry informed by faith.  A skilled educator could certainly use Leonard’s example—and the examples provided by many other similar works—as the basis for translating this process of inquiry and reflection to other media texts.

Future Directions

Where are the architects of this corner of the media literacy edifice to go from here? With the understanding that “media literacy education is a highly contextualized activity that takes many forms in many different cultural and learning environments” (Hobbs and Jensen 2009, 2), it would be unwise to copy blueprints from secular media literacy education agenda and expect progress to occur in exactly the same manner.   While a great deal of similarities exist, significant differences in principles, objectives, attitudes, and context require a distinct set of expectations and implementations.

The necessary first step—the one to which this article contributes—is identifying the movement’s current orientation.   It is encouraging that media literacy education in general is gaining greater momentum in the United States, though widespread challenges must still be overcome if it is to be fully mainstreamed into our educational priorities.  Because some of these challenges are inherent in the complexities of government regulations, media education had, even in the 1990s, enjoyed greater success in private and parochial schools than in public schools (Kubey 1998), though not necessarily from a faith-based perspective.  There is little information available to show what curricula, programs, and methodologies are being utilized in Christian schools, in churches, home school organizations, and in private religious groups, or any evidence of their relative effectiveness.

Consequently, empirical research is necessary to determine the current state of affairs of faith-based media literacy education.  Questions that must be answered include the following: How do religious educators who currently implement some form of media literacy define the subject and its goals? To what extent is media literacy taught from a specifically Christian perspective in religious settings, and what is that perspective? If it is taught from a Christian perspective, to what extent does it enable learners to develop or apply their own views and conclusions? Can essential doctrines of the Christian faith that effectively universally frame these efforts or must Christian faith-based media literacy education initiatives be narrowly tailored to particular Christian group beliefs and practices?  Will religious communities perceive there is a need for a faith based media literacy education approach?  From a practical standpoint, one may ask: Does a comprehensive strategic plan govern the adoption of policies in these contexts, or does the impetus for media education spring from teacher interest?  Is media literacy taught as a separate course or integrated into existing courses such as English or history? Are faith-based curricula being implemented or are more general curricula and textbooks being adapted for use in religious contexts?  Descriptive research based on systematic investigations into the current practice of teaching faith-based media literacy in the United States would answer these important questions.

On an aspirational level, and to the extent possible, scholars and practitioners must come together on the objectives of media literacy education.  Parochial school administrators and teachers, clergy members, leaders of faith-based organizations, and scholars working in the fields of religion, education, and communication should contribute to a determination of the goals media education should serve.  As reflections on beliefs and values are within the purviews of religion and media literacy alike, their goals may, in fact, be closely aligned.  Some of the more frequently cited objectives of faith-based media literacy advocates include the recognition of media’s influence on our perceptions of self and on society; the development of skills necessary to critique culture through the lens of faith, with the specific ability to critique theological issues portrayed in media; an awareness by students of their own media use and its spiritual implications; advancing social justice; produce media messages consistent with the Christian faith; demonstrating responsible use of technology; spreading of the gospel, and enhancing students’ spirituality.

As Cheung (2006) noted, the development of 21^st century skills is an essential component of religious education as it is in secular education, and media literacy is increasingly seen as one of those skills.  Researchers surveying private schools’ use of technology argue:

In many Christian and non-Christian denominations, the purpose of religious education is to assist students to function in the world, while not necessarily being of the world. At this point in time, it would be impossible for students to function effectively in the world without the ability to not only use computer technology, but to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the data that they receive by using this technology (Dosen, Gibbs, Guerrero, and McDevitt 2004).

While these authors referred only to the ability to evaluate computer-mediated texts, one could easily extrapolate their argument to all media texts.  However, as Martens (2010) discovered, “media literacy is seldom taught as a goal in itself,” and that in practice it is frequently imbedded in efforts to promote active citizenship and public health.  To what ends will religious educators employ media literacy?  The answer may largely depend upon denominational differences both in terms of theology and practicality.  The field needs active discussion among interested parties in order to begin outlining commonalities and points of departure among faith traditions.

Doctrinal differences may be a challenge facing faith-based media literacy educators, but hardly an insurmountable one.  Hailer and Pacatte’s (2007) secondary school textbook is punctuated by references to the authority, ritual, and history of the Catholic Church. For example, a sidebar to each chapter entitled “Media Saints and Greats” references those in the Catholic tradition who have contributed to contemporary understanding of media.  However, because it primarily relies on a process of inquiry informed by scripture, a skilled educator could easily adapt this curriculum for use in a Protestant school.

A greater challenge than how to teach media literacy is whether to teach it at all. Certainly, this problem exists within the public school system and, as Kubey (1998) pointed out, may be less of a problem for private and parochial schools.  The relationship between federal and state governments and public education necessarily involves complex issues of power, politics, and competing agendas.  Private and independent schools have greater autonomy to implement programs more quickly and with fewer restrictions.  However, another problem plaguing media literacy education in public school systems may be an even greater problem for small private schools.  Unlike other countries, the decentralized nature of U.S. public education results in fragmented agendas and uneven implementation.  Private and independent schools, home school associations, and churches often lack needed resources.  So, even if decisions are made in favor of adopting a media literacy curriculum, textbooks and multimedia resources may not be available to meet those needs.  Dosen et al. (2004) note that recent surveys have revealed that private schools in the United States are less likely than public schools to own computer technology and have access to the internet and found, in their survey of Chicago area private schools, a reluctance among private school administrators to own or use televisions and other non-interactive media in the school.

Institutional challenges are one thing; philosophical challenges another.  As discussed earlier in this paper, Christian engagement with media runs from a full embrace of popular culture to complete avoidance, making the value of media education possibly a tougher sell within some religious communities.   Although Lloyd-Kolkin and Tyner (1988) found public and parochial school teachers equally enthusiastic about including media education in their curricula, they emphasized different goals and values in doing so.  Public school teachers were significantly more likely to support goals of understanding subjectivity of media content and how media works than parochial school teachers, who were found to be significantly more likely to teach students to distinguish fact from fiction.

Not only might Christian educators stress different goals of media literacy education than their counterparts in secular schools, but the pedagogical methods of religious education might not be favorable to the kind of dialogic approach necessary to media literacy.  Such approaches tend to be unidirectional, at least in Australian Christian schools, write Collier and Dowson (2008), resulting in a less than desired impact on students’ actual attitudes and behavior.  They elaborate:

One potential reason for this apparent lack of efficacy lies in the pedagogical approaches taken by at least some Christian educators (Cooling 1994c). Specifically, pedagogies that focus on the transmission of Christian beliefs rather than on more active and inductive approaches to Christian education fail to address underlying values, and thus typically fail to engage the allegiance of students within and beyond the walls of the classroom (Skillen 2000). Moreover, transmissional models also fail to engage students in religious exploration and thus in the exploration of “real life” issues pertaining to faith and faithful values (Cooling 2000).

Religious educators must overcome any hesitancy to be, as Hobbs has frequently put it, a “guide on the side” rather than the “sage on the stage,” or, as Hess encouraged, to focus on “knowing how” rather than “knowing that.”  The challenge in parochial schools, write Dosen et al. (2004), “is to realize that we are all learners, and there is one Teacher. Perhaps, technology may provide leaders and teachers in our religious schools with the impetus to make this more of a reality” (290). As Stout (2002) argued, the faith-based media literacy agenda must include research that explores such obstacles to the implementation of educational programs.  Both quantitative and qualitative research would be useful in identifying attitudes and beliefs that would hinder, as well as encourage, those efforts.

After identifying major challenges, both institutional and ideological, researchers should investigate the efficacy of existing faith-based curricula in achieving stated goals.  Experimental field research could contribute to our understanding of how media literacy education increases knowledge and skills as well as how it impacts actual media behavior.  Armed with that knowledge, educators might then begin to develop more effective curricula, programs and other resources that are narrowly tailored to the contexts in which they will be implemented.

Within religious contexts, media literacy education practices in the United States have been unevenly implemented and unsupported by relevant research.  However, the development of media literacy education in a broader sense opens the door for faith-based research to benefit from existing findings while building its own framework.  As it does, its contribution to the larger effort is promising.  Religion has the tendency to be invisible to someone who has only experienced one form; for them, the assumptions, beliefs, images, rituals, and symbols of their personal experience are taken for granted — they’re commonplace.  Trying to critique one’s own religion without having experienced another would be as productive as a fish—to paraphrase McLuhan— critiquing water.  But as anyone who has experienced a denominational or even entire religious conversion can attest, the new faith elicits a host of questions.  What is the meaning of this symbol, that rhetoric, these artifacts?

If media are indeed our national religion in twenty-first-century America, as some scholars suggest, then who better to ask some of the most insightful questions about their values, images and stories than those for whom another religion is their standard? Certainly, faith communities must be willing to engage in thoughtful discourse about media, one that is informed by both grace and humility.  If that is the case, then perhaps faith-based media literacy won’t be relegated to a spare room or the basement after all.  Perhaps, instead, it will be the dining room—the place where some of the most fruitful, engaging conversations take place, and where community is built and renewed.

References

Blythe, T. 1999. “Finding Religious Truth in The X-Files.” Gravitas: A Journal of Religion and Theology 1(1): http://pweb.jps.net/~tblythe/GravitasAJournalofReligionandTheology.htm.

———.  2002. “Working Hard for the Money: A Faith-based Media Literacy Analysis of the Top Television Dramas of 2000-2001.” Journal of Media and Religion 1(3): 139-151.

Blythe, T. and D. Wolpert.  2004. Meeting God in Virtual Reality: Using Spiritual Practices with Media. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Buckingham, D. 2003. Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Campbell, H. 2010. When Religion Meets New Media. New York: Routledge.

Center for Media Literacy.  2009. Comments of the Center for Media Literacy on FCC notice of inquiry regarding empowering parents and protecting children in an evolving media landscape. Submitted to the FCC: MB Docket No. 09-94.

Cheung, C. 2006. “Media Education as a Vehicle for Teaching Religion: A Hong Kong Case.” Religious Education 101(4): 504-515.

Collier, J. and M. Dowson. 2008. “Beyond Transmissional Pedagogies in Christian Education: One School’s Recasting of Values Education.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 17(2): 199-216.

Davis, W., T. Blythe, G. Dreibelbis, M. Scalese, E. Winslea and D. Ashburn. 2001. Watching What We Watch: Prime-time Television through the Lens of Faith. Louisville, KY: Geneva Press.

Dosen, A., M. Gibbs, R. Guerrero, and P. McDevitt. 2004. “Technology in Nonsectarian and Religious Private Schools.” Journal of Research on Christian Education 13(2): 289-314.

Fore, W. 1988. “Media, Religion, and the Church’s Task.” Quarterly Review 8(4): 3-13.

———. 1990. Mythmakers: Gospel, Culture and the Media. New York, NY: Friendship Press.

———. 1993. “The Religious Relevance of Television.”  In Religion and the Media: An Introductory Reader. edited by C. Arthur, 55-65. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Geertz, C. 1973. “Religion as a Cultural System.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, edited by C. Geertz, 87-125.  New York, NY: Basic Books.

Haack, D. n.d. “Discernment 101: An Explanation of Discernment.” Ransom Fellowship, http://www.ransomfellowship.org/articledetail.asp?AID=38&B=Denis Haack&TID=8.

Hailer, G. and R. Pacatte. 2007. Media Mindfulness: Educating Teens about Faith and Media. Winona, MN: St. Mary’s Press.

———.  2010. Our Media World: Teaching Kids K-8 About Faith and Media. Boston: Pauline Books & Media.

Hess, M. 1998. “Media Literacy and Religious Education: Engaging Popular Culture to Enhance Religious Experience.” Boston College Dissertations and Theses. Paper AAI9828025.

———.  2001. “Collaborating with People to Study “the Popular”: Implementing Participatory Action Research Strategies in Religious Education. Religious Education 96(3): 271-293.

———.  2003. “Marriage on TV.” Word & World 1: 48-56.

———.  2004a. “Transforming Traditions: Taking Popular Culture Seriously in Religious Education.” Religious Education 99(1): 86-94.

———.  2004b. “Rescripting Religious Education in Media Culture.” In Belief in Media: Cultural Perspectives on Media and Christianity, edited by Horsfield, P., M. Hess and A. Medrano, 153-164. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

———. 2006. “Media Literacy.” In Encyclopedia of Religion, Communication and Media, edited by D. Stout, 245-250. New York: Routledge.

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

Hobbs, R. and A. Jensen. 2009. “The Past, Present and Future of Media Literacy Education.”  Journal of Media Literacy Education 1: 1-11.

Hoffman, M.B. 2011. Catechesis in a Multimedia World. New York: Paulist Press.

Jenkins, H. 2004. “The Christian Media Counterculture.” Technology Review, March 2004.

Johnston, R. 2000. Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Kellner, D. and J. Share. 2005. “Toward Critical Media Literacy: Core Concepts, Debates, Organizations and Policy.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 26(3): 369-386.

Kubey, R. 1998. “Obstacles to the Development of Media Education in the United States.” Journal of Communication 48(1): 58-69.

Leonard, R. 2006. Movies that Matter: Reading Film through the Lens of Faith. Chicago: Loyola Press.

Lloyd-Kolkin, D. and K. Tyner. 1988. “Media Literacy Education Needs for Elementary Schools: A Survey.”  ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 324 370.

Logan, B. and N. Price. n.d. “Introduction: Television Awareness Training (TAT).” Center for Media Literacy, http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/introduction-television-awareness-training-tat.

Lyden, J. 2003. Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals. New York: New York University Press.

Malone, P. and R. Pacatte. 2001. Lights, Camera, Faith! Cycle A. Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

———.  2002. Lights, Camera, Faith! Cycle B. Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

———. 2003. Lights, Camera, Faith! Cycle C. Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

Martens, H. 2010. “Evaluating Media Literacy Education: Concepts, Theories and Future Directions.” Journal of Media Literacy Education 2(1): 1-22.

Martens, M. 1980. Growing with Television: A Study of Biblical Values and the Television Experience. USA: Abingdon.

Moody, K. n.d. “John Culkin, SJ: The Man who Invented Media Literacy: 1928-1993.” Center for Media Literacy, http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/john-culkin-sj-man-who-invented-media-literacy-1928-1993#top.

National Association for Media Literacy Education. 2007. Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States.

http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLE-CPMLE-w-questions2.pdf.

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. 1995. “The Churches’ Role in Media Education and Communication Advocacy.” National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. www.ncccusa.org/about/policy-churches-media-education.RTF.

Nord, D. 2004.  Faith in Reading: Religious Publishing and the Birth of Mass Media in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Potter, W. 2001. Media Literacy, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Presbyterian Media Mission. n.d. Web site. http://www.pmm4u.org/media/index.cfm.

Pungente, J. 2004. Finding God in the Dark: Taking the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius to the Movies. Boston: Pauline Books and Media.

———. 2010. “Pilgrims on a Popcorn Strewn Path.” Beyond the Screen. http://www.beyondthescreen.com/blog/pilgrims-popcorn-strewn-path.

Quesada, A., E. Rosen, and S.L. Summers. 1998. Changing the World Through Media Education. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.

Rogow, F. 2004. “Shifting from Media to Literacy: One Opinion on the Challenges of Media Literacy Education.” The American Behavioral Scientist 48(1): 30-34.

Romanowski, W. 2007. Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Schultze, Q. 1990. “Keeping the Faith: American Evangelicals and the Media.” In American Evangelicals and the Mass Media, edited by Q. Schultze, 23-45. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Corp.

———. 2002. Habits of the High-tech Heart: Living Virtuously in the Information Age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

———.  2004. High-tech Worship? Using Presentational Technologies Wisely. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Shoemaker,S. 2007. “Book Review.” Religious Education 102(4): 455-458.

Silverblatt, A. 2004. “Media as Social Institution.” American Behavioral Scientist 48(35): 35-41.

St. John’s College. 2011. “CODEC: Christian Communication in the Digital Age.” St. John’s College, Durham University. http://www.dur.ac.uk/codec/.

Steyn, D. 2004. “The Bible and Media Literacy.” Proceedings from the Second Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship, March 15-20, 2004.

———. 2006. “Screening the Screen: Media Literacy and the Christian.” College and University Dialogue: An International Journal of Faith, Thought and Action, http://dialogue.adventist.org/articles/17_3_steyn_e.htm

Stout, D. 2002. “Religious Media Literacy: Toward a Research Agenda.”  Journal of Media and Religion 1(1): 49-60.

Stout, D. and D. Scott. 2003. “Mormons and Media Literacy: Exploring the Dynamics of Religious Media Education.” In Mediating Religion: Studies in Media, Religion and Culture, edited by Mitchell, J. and S. Marriage, 143-158, London: Continuum International Publishing.

Summers, S.L. 1997. Media Alert! Littleton, CO: Sue Lockwood Summers.

———. 2005. Get Them Thinking!: Using Media Literacy to Prepare Students for State Assessments. Worthington, Ohio: Linworth Books.

Thoman, E. 1977. “I Hate It, but I Love It: Television and Listerine.” Media & Values, http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/i-hate-it-i-love-it-television-and-listerine.

Tobias, J. 2008. “Culturally Relevant Media Studies: A Review of Approaches and Pedagogies.” Simile 8(4): http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/journals/ejournals/simile.

United Methodist Church. 2004. “Proper Use of Information Communication Technologies.” United Methodist Church. http://archives.umc.org/interior_print.asp?ptid=4&mid=6813.

Waliszewski, B. and B. Smithouser. 2011. “Media Discernment.” Focus on the Family. http://www.focusonthefamily.com/entertainment/mediawise/media-discernment.aspx

Warren, H. 2001. “Southern Baptists as Audiences and Public: A cultural Analysis of the Disney boycott.” In Religion and Popular Culture: Studies on the Interaction of Worldviews, edited by D.A. Stout & J.M. Buddenbaum, 169-186. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Warren, M. 2007. Seeing Through the Media: A Religious View of Communication and Cultural Analysis. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

University of Ottowa, Ontario, CANADA

A decade after the 9/11 attacks, educators concerned with social justice issues are faced with the question of how media representations powerfully constitute the subjectivities of teachers and students. The roles of Muslim women in society are often narrowly construed and projected via media cultures – an unofficial curriculum of the everyday much more influential than the formal curriculum on offer in our schools. Given that much of what we “know” about Muslims we learn from the mass media, it seems urgent that as educators we become more attuned to how they are being portrayed and how such depictions are complexly taken up and/or resisted. In this paper I analyze how dominant meanings about Muslim women are produced in print news media sites, stressing connections in-between local and global contexts. I am particularly interested in visual epistemologies and how meanings produced via media images come to be at- tached to the bodies of North American Muslim women. I then propose three pedagogical strategies for taking up media images in the classroom to disrupt dominant meanings that reproduce binary understandings of self and other. Drawing upon relational theories of identity and learning, I argue for a need to interrogate and negotiate identities in ways that move us beyond simplistic understandings of self and other towards more complex, embodied meanings.

Keywords: intercultural education, Islamophobia, visual media literacy

In our troubled post-9/11world, intercultural education has become an urgent project. We learn more about issues related to our society and the world from media discourses than from all other sources of education (Macedo 2007), making media literacy a key to negotiating our relationships with difference, both locally and globally. Most are unaware of the ways we are being educated and positioned by the media because their pedagogies tend to be “invisible and absorbed unconsciously” (Kellner & Share 2007, 4). This is especially so with images, whose seldom-questioned messages on otherness circulate widely. By linking intercultural education with media literacy pedagogies and a social justice agenda, it is possible to examine the unspoken role visuality plays in our social relations. A vibrant democracy depends on an informed citizenry willing and able to engage with difference within and outside national borders. Drawing on the example of visual representations of Muslim women in the North American print news media, I argue that critical inquiries into such images open up spaces for much-needed intercultural conversations in the classroom.

Teachers may be uncertain about how to bring issues related to peoples and cultures they are unfamiliar with into the classroom, but doing so offers opportunities to grapple with the inevitable messiness and difficulty of complicated conversations as a necessary component of civic engagement and responsibility. An intercultural approach to media literacy therefore involves not only the ability to critically inquire into representations of otherness, but also a willingness to situate ourselves in relation to stories being told in the media. As Mihailidis (2009) argues, it is not enough to focus on media content alone, “but also on the citizen as the nexus of the information world” (65). Students should understand the media’s role and responsibilities in a democratic society and the importance of being able to critically read and respond to the messages on offer. With regards to intercultural education, this entails an awareness of how texts and images swirling in-between local and global contexts constitute our personal and collective stories, and the possible implications of these stories.

Our media-saturated lives are increasingly complex, and learning to acknowledge and negotiate this complexity is one of the major challenges of this century. During times of war and crisis the temptation to view the world in simplistic, binary terms intensifies. Recent events such as the tragic terrorist attacks in New York City and elsewhere have understandably led to increased distrust and fear. At the same time, as media literacy educators it is crucial to critically examine narratives that neatly divide up huge swaths of the world – and our own societies – into “us” and “them.” Such binaries do not reflect lived experiences, yet they have the power to impact on intercultural relations and on the life possibilities of marginalized groups. Critical inquiries into visual representations of otherness can provide insights into how inclusions and exclusions are structured in public discourse (Luke 1999), and permit us to examine our own positioning in relation to dominant discourses. Media literacy pedagogies designed to deconstruct binaries potentially enable more complicated readings of our selves and others to emerge.

Visuality and the Case of Muslim Women

The question of how we make meaning and construct our identities through seeing is indeed a pressing issue for media literacy education. I use the example of visual portrayals of Muslim women in the North American media to outline some of the issues and to propose pedagogical suggestions. I am particularly interested how meanings associated with the Muslim female bodies we see pictured in the news media impact intercultural relations. Women who wear Islamic covering are visually marked as Muslim and may be categorized and judged on that visual fact alone. We gain a great deal of information about another person solely based on visual perceptions (Berger 1999), and exclusionary practices may take place based exclusively on appearances. It is taken for granted that sight provides us with immediate access to the outside world. However, perception is never pure because it is always mediated by language. This means that as interpreters of “otherness” – either in face-to-face encounters or via images – we are part of the act of interpretation. The meaning of an image (or a body) is not inherent in the image, but is a process of exchange between the image and the viewer, whose beliefs inform one’s interpretation. Our interpretations depend on historical context and the cultural knowledge we bring to our reading of a photograph or another person.

Although visual cultures continue to be largely neglected in education, they are enormously significant given their epistemological authority in our image-saturated world. Rose (2007) describes vision as what the eye is physiologically capable of seeing, while visuality refers to how vision is constructed in various ways since it “learned and cultivated and not simply given by nature” (Mitchell 2002, 232). For Mitchell (2002), visuality refers to “practices of seeing the world and especially of seeing other people” (166). As Berger (1999) explains, when we look at a given photo it “activates” us by setting off the appropriate responsive chord; it “exploits what is already in our heads, the cultural lore we have stored up as a result of our education and experiences” (80). Mitchell thus suggests we turn the act of seeing into a problem for analysis. However, this task isn’t self-evident because “vision itself is invisible” (166). We don’t see what seeing is – how it is socially constructed. Mitchell argues that seeing needs to be put “on display” to make it accessible to analysis, a process he refers to as “showing seeing.”

Returning to the example of Muslim women (we could also refer to any other group or individual considered “different”), we might ask our selves and our students how we know what we think we know, as well as why the answer to this question matters in a just, democratic society. In spite of the fact that social practice varies widely, many non-Muslims have tended to view Islam – and particularly women’s roles – as fixed and homogenous, and western cultures produce a set of assumptions and representations about the Islamic practice of covering for women which construct it as a symbol of backwardness, religious fundamentalism, male oppression, and terrorism. Even women who choose not to cover report being questioned about their Muslim identity (Watt 2007, 2011). They are sometimes asked if it’s possible to be a “real” Muslim if you don’t wear hijab. An uncovered Muslim female disrupts assumptions about who a Muslim woman is and what she should look like, even though the majority of North American Muslim women don’t cover. A woman’s decision not to cover is seen by some as a sign that she is more “modern” and “open-minded.” Few realize there are numerous young, North American-born, Muslim women who are choosing to wear hijab for the first time even though their own mothers have never done so (Watt 2011). The point is, there is no single, fixed, Muslim, female identity (or any other identity) out there in the lived world, yet we live our lives as if there is.

Visual Media Representations of Muslim Women

In a course I teach on the sociology of schooling in a Bachelor of Education Program at the University of Ottawa, teacher candidates are asked to consider the role of the mass media as curriculum on otherness. To link intercultural education with media literacy and social justice issues, one of the topics we discuss is Muslim student identities, the mass media, and schooling. Teacher education programs have long been concerned with how teachers reproduce and challenge social inequalities, so one of the main goals of this course involves a personal inquiry into the social influences on identity. Many teachers aren’t aware of the mass media’s influence in defining otherness and in constructing an interpretive framework related to minority groups (Henry and Tator 2002; Grossberg et al. 2006; Hall 1997; Kellner and Share 2005, 2007). For this reason teacher candidates are asked to inquire not only into how media representations potentially constitute their students’ identities, but also their own. This work is ongoing over the course of one’s career given what we know about how classroom relations impact on the learning situation.

To provide background information, we start off looking at research on representations of Muslims in the mass media. This ensures teachers realize this body of research exists and also raises awareness about issues related to identities and the mass media as curriculum, including the role and ethical responsibilities of the news media in a democratic society. We look at a variety of texts and images to see how meanings are constructed and complexly taken up and/or resisted by various audiences. Recently, there have been greater efforts to represent the diversity of Muslim communities in North America. One example is the sitcom, Little Mosque on the Prairie (Nawaz 2007), produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In general, however, research shows that Muslim women and their roles in society tend to be interpreted in a limited number of ways through mainstream visual mediums such film, television, and the news media (Awan et al. 2010; Falah 2005; Jhally 2007; Jiwani 2005; Kassam 2008; Sensoy 2010a, 2010b; Shaheen 2003; Watt 2008a, 2011a, 2011b). Images of terrorists and burqa-clad women remain primary markers of the so-called Muslim world.

Representations of covered women as oppressed, exotic, and threatening are widespread, especially in the news media. Stories about terror, war, and the oppression of women in far off lands are frequently accompanied by photos of silent, anonymous, covered women who are often not directly connected to the content of the articles (Jiwani 2005; Fallah 2005; Kassam 2008; MacDonald 2006; Watt 2008b, 2011b). Seldom are details of a pictured woman’s life provided – not even a name or where she is from. It is also doubtful that permission to use the women’s images in these ways was ever sought, raising further ethical questions that can be discussed in the classroom.

Images of women from one part of the world are routinely placed with a story from another. This means that a photo of a Shia’a Palestinian refugee in Southern Lebanon could accompany a story about the activities of Sunni males in Afghanistan – even though the religious, gender, class, cultural, historical, and political differences between two such groups may be vast. When the “Muslim world” is seen as a single homogenous entity particularities don’t matter and are often erased in media representations and in our minds. Who a woman is as an individual is of little interest to those who deploy these images. Her experiences, beliefs, and social context are secondary to what she “stands for” as a covered woman in the particular historical, cultural, and political contexts of the day. Falah (2005) describes how photos of Muslim women are used to draw attention to an article and to catch the reader’s eye. Visuals silently contextualize the content of the text because we don’t think very much about them. Classroom discussions can focus on why editors might choose to use images in these ways, including questions about who has the power to represent whom and with what possible effects.

This is certainly not to deny there are Muslim women living in difficult conditions or who may have negative attitudes towards the so-called west. As Falah (2005) explains, the problem is that the constant repetition of a limited number of images, along with very little contextualization narrows our understandings of Muslim women’s lives, so we only come to “know” them via a few stereotypes. If we uncritically rely on Hollywood and the news media’s messages for our knowledge about Muslims, our understandings of the realities of their lives may be limited. Few are aware of the power the media have to influence our attitudes toward people we have never met, and places we have never traveled to. At home in our own communities our social relationships are also influenced by what we learn in the mass media. Meanings related to unknown women in far off places that are constructed in the media risk becoming attached to the bodies of North American Muslim females (Watt 2011b).

To provide historical context related to practices of othering, I also introduce postcolonial theory to teacher candidates. In Orientalism, Edward Said (1994) analyzes how the west creates knowledge about its oriental “other.” He demonstrates colonial discourse was not just about constructing the colonized other. The orient helped to define the west as its “contrasting image, idea, personality, [and] experience”(1). Colonial discourse was ultimately “a political vision of reality whose structure promoted the difference between the familiar (Europe, the West, ‘us’) and the strange (the Orient, the East, ‘them’)” (43). The binary logic of Orientalism demonstrates the tendency of western thought to see the world in terms of binary oppositions that establish a relation of dominance. Rizvi (2005), who writes about representations of Islam and educating for social justice, observes that in the North American context, when clear differentiations are drawn between an “us” and a “them,” those who are not “us,” do not belong “here.” Binary thinking may provide justification for the othering of all members of a group due to the actions or beliefs of a few.

An intercultural approach to media literacy fosters the notion that each new meeting we have with difference – whether in the form of an image or an actual person – should be considered a real-time negotiation we enter into with the other. This requires cultivating a willingness to avoid making judgments before the actual encounter. Just as becoming media literate is a never-ending process, so are efforts to remain open to difference in whatever form it might take, now or in the future. This is a life-long struggle we must all grapple with in our attempt to take seriously our responsibilities as citizens living in diverse, democratic societies in a globalized world. There are obviously no guarantees the world will somehow be better a better place if we manage to adopt such a stance towards our self and others, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the effort.

Three Pedagogical Strategies

The vision of the National Association of Media Literacy Education (2011a) is to help people develop habits of critical inquiry as well as the ability to communicate their ideas and opinions, so they can be active citizens in today’s world. With this in mind, I propose three pedagogical strategies for using media images of Muslim women in teacher education programs to link intercultural education, media literacy, and social justice issues:

1. Inquiry into images of Muslim women and how they construct meanings;
2. Making intertextual links to other cultural sites; and,
3. Examination of our own cultural assumptions.

If we expect teachers to initiate complicated intercultural conversations with their students, they need to be given opportunities to participate in such conversations themselves as part of their teacher education or professional development. These strategies are not meant to be prescriptive. Rather, I offer some ideas and resources that individual educators might adapt to suit their own pedagogical contexts.

The first classroom strategy examines how meanings are constructed at the site of production through image, captions, and headlines, and whose interests they serve. This includes examining the content and composition of an image, as well as looking into the mandate and intended audience of the publication in which an image appears. The second pedagogical activity is to have student teachers make intertextual connections. My own research focuses mainly on images from the print news media, but there are endless cultural sites teachers and students can examine to learn how meanings are constructed visually across texts and the possible impact. I provide examples of readings of depictions of Muslims in film, comic books, and cartoons that can serve as models when teachers are developing their own course materials. The third classroom strategy is to have students reflect on the assumptions they bring to their reading of a text or image through a form of reflective writing known as autoethnography. This involves examining our own social and cultural positions, and mapping out where and how we learned what we think they know about others. I focus on the example of Muslims in my own practice, but the same activities could be used with any cultural or social group.

Intercultural education questions the modernist notion of identities and cultures as homogenous and static, a view that continues to dominate in mainstream discourse. Recent understandings of identities and cultures as dynamic, contradictory, and relational offer a less colonizing, more complicating lens to consider intercultural relations at home and abroad. Postcolonial pedagogies go beyond multicultural education’s exclusive focus on learning about the other, and bring the self into the conversation. This is an ongoing decentering process that asks us to account for our own readings of otherness. Questions raised as part of this process include: From what social locations am I reading? How did I come to know what I think I know? What is my relationship to the bodies I am reading face to face and in the media? How do my personal readings intersect with broader cultural, historic, and political meanings circulating in society? This is not an easy project. However, if we can begin to make cracks in our own assumptions perhaps our habits of othering will be displaced by a desire to – at the very least – engage difference rather than view it as strange or threatening. The issue of what it means to “other” needs to be more fully engaged in education, and this in part involves turning a more critical lens on ourselves.

Teacher candidates often express concern that they don’t know enough about other peoples and cultures to work effectively with students from backgrounds different from their own. Asma Barlas (2007) writes that even though undergraduate students in her introductory course on Islam tell her they know little about Islam, they actually know a great deal from what they have learned in the mass media. Teachers need to be cognizant of the ways we have all been educated about otherness. Although I personally have first-hand experience living in the predominantly Muslim countries of Iran, Syria, and Pakistan, I still find it difficult to engage students in conversations related to Muslims, schooling, and the mass media in Canada. Especially after 9/11, these are difficult spaces, and part of being able to raise sensitive issues is accepting that tension is an inevitable part of the teaching and learning process. Schools should be places where our teachers and young people learn to feel comfortable with discomfort. True democratic debate necessarily involves disagreement and even conflict as differing perspectives and worldviews are engaged. For too long we have tended to avoid difficult conversations in our classrooms, which does not serve our democracies well.

Activity #1: Inquiring into Images of Muslim Women in the Print News Media

Most of the student teachers I work with do not have a Media Studies or Communications background, so I assume they have little or no knowledge about how to analyze media images to examine questions related to identities and cultures. It is important to stress teachers do not need to be experts to deconstruct images with their students. There is no one right way to do it and teacher and students can learn together.

After a review and discussion of the main research findings on representations of Muslims in the mass media, I lead a class inquiry into an image to model how an analysis might proceed. As Mihailidis (2009) explains, students need to be “taught the critical skills to access, evaluate, analyze, and produce media [so] they will better understand media’s roles and responsibilities in civic life” (53). In preparation for the analysis, we go over Project Look Sharp’s (2011) handout, Tips for Decoding Media Documents. Since the key to decoding media documents of any kind is the use of questions, I try to aim for making questions 80% of what I say during the session. Some of my questions ask students to respond to the image on a personal level, and others are formulated to help them make links to the research and course concepts related to social identity, schooling, and media literacy.

For the analysis I often use the following image of covered Muslim women on the cover of Maclean’s Magazine (2007, Oct.). This cover draws attention to the feature article written by Mark Steyn entitled, Why the Future Belongs to Islam. This issue caught my eye as I was strolling through a shopping mall and saw it on display at a newsstand. At the time, I was taking a course on racisms in education and we were encouraged by the professor to be on the look out for examples of exclusionary practices in our everyday lives. When I saw the image on this cover I decided to find out more about it and ended up publishing an academic article based on my inquiry (Watt 2008a). An image such as this can be analyzed from numerous perspectives, depending upon the educational context and objectives. For example, poststructuralist critique shifts the interest towards the reader of the text, to questions of identity and subjectivity. In addition, as Rose (2007) outlines in Visual Methodologies, an image can be read through the lens of semiotics, psychoanalysis, content analysis, discourse analysis, or by mixing methods, which is my preference.

Copyright permission obtained from Maclean’s Magazine.

This issue of Maclean’s provoked a great deal of controversy in Canada. Critics charged that it was a case of “media-propagated Islamophobia” (Awan et al. 2010). A complaint was filed to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, but the author of the article was not found guilty. The Ontario Human Rights Commission stated that the article “promotes prejudice towards Muslims,” but could not initiate a hearing into the case because magazines are not covered under the Human Rights Code. What struck me in this storm of controversy was the fact that nobody paid much attention to, or commented on, the image of covered Muslim women on the cover of the magazine. This was an excellent example of the silent power of images to create meanings about otherness in ways we barely seem to notice.

With this image projected onto a large screen, I first ask the class to think about and share their first impressions with a partner or in a small group. As Erickson (2010) points out, photographs operate on a number of levels and it is worthwhile to consider our personal and emotional connections to them. I then have a few volunteers share their impressions. Next, students describe what they see in writing. They name only what is visible in the image, which is difficult to do. Erickson suggests that by working in small groups on this task students may question and challenge one another. He explains:

[S]imple description of a visual form is quite difficult: all kinds of assumptions trouble the visual evidence photographs seem to hold. Identifying and distinguishing what students can determine as fact versus what they are making as assumptions can be a very useful way to start critical interpretations of images. The brief prompt “how do you know (that this is a fact and not an assumption)?” directs students toward greater self-reflexivity, particularly when treated as a mantra, and repeated with every apparent claim to certainty with photographs. (2)

All photographs are part reality and part construction. Although we may instinctively look for “the meaning” of a photo, there is no singular meaning. As Erickson asserts, “nothing can be closed with photography or language” (1). In terms of intercultural education, it is important to consider why we might be reading texts in the ways that we do.

Before proceeding with a more formal analysis, students are then asked to come up with a list of questions they have about the image. This is intended to get them into the habit of questioning what they see. The next set of questions relate more directly to the core principles of media literacy education, including an examination of audience, messages and meanings, and representations and reality (See: NAMLE 2009a, 2009b; Project Look Sharp 2011). It is also worthwhile at this stage to track down the original photograph if possible, so students gain a sense of how photos are worked on by editors to present the message(s) they wish to convey. Here is the original image, taken by Yoray Liberman (2007):

Copyright permission obtained from Getty Images.

Depending upon my pedagogical goals, I sometimes present excerpts from my own inquiry into these images to the class (see Watt 2008b), stressing again that multiple interpretations are possible depending upon who is doing the looking and the reading. Perhaps what students find most interesting from my piece is the fact that these are Turkish Shia’a women observing Ashura, which is an Islamic holy day of mourning. In general, mourners are expected to wear black. In light of this information, the women’s attire makes more sense to those who might otherwise have automatically assumed it to be a sign of female oppression. In addition, students don’t always realize Islamic covering for women in Turkey has been banned in public spaces since the days of Attaturk, so this photo was likely taken at a mosque rather than out on the streets in public.

Students then discuss how the Maclean’s cover image conforms to, or is different from, the research literature on representations of Muslims. For example, the women in this particular image have no connection to the content of the Steyn (2007) article accompanying the image and readers aren’t given any information about them or why they are dressed in this manner.  To wrap up this activity, students write a short reflection on what they learned from pedagogical and personal perspectives, with a focus on how images act as a curriculum on otherness. These reflections may be shared in a future class if students wish to do so.

Activity #2: Making Intertextual Connections

The second pedagogical approach I use with teacher educators to link media literacy and intercultural education is to have them make connections between visual texts to see what patterns of representation exist, if any. The power of the visual in the construction of identities is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a much larger system of intertextual meanings about Muslim women. Images do not gain meaning on their own, but accumulate meanings, or “play off their meanings against one another, across a variety of texts and media” (Hall 1997, 232). Even though each visual representation carries its own particular meanings, at the broader level of how “otherness” is being represented in a particular culture at any one moment we can see similar representational practices being repeated, with variations, from one site of representation to another. We are born into a particular cultural milieu where such meanings become part of the taken for granted world we inhabit, and it can be difficult to learn to see our selves and others from other perspectives.

With teacher candidates, we first look at and critique images of Muslim women from the print news media and then branch out to other cultural sites. Rather than viewing a given portrayal as “accurate” or “inaccurate” I encourage teachers to provide students with the means to ask critical questions and carry out their own inquiries based on their personal interests, keeping in mind there is no essentialized Muslim “out there” that we can measure representations against to determine their “accuracy.” Following are some resources educators can adapt for use in their own courses.

Representations in Film: Reel Bad Arabs

In Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People, Shaheen (2001) analyzes more than 900 Hollywood films featuring Arab characters. He describes a dozen of these portrayals as “positive” and 50 as “balanced,” concluding that Arabs look different and threatening through Hollywood’s distorted lens. In 2007, the Media Education Foundation produced a documentary based on Shaheen’s work (Jhally 2007). This organization’s web site offers this description of the documentary:

Reel Bad Arabs takes a devastating tour of the American cinematic landscape, moving from the earliest days of silent film to today’s biggest Hollywood blockbusters to reveal an astonishing pattern of slanderous Arab stereotyping.

When I present this documentary to teacher candidates I find it has a powerful impact on the class. Students are genuinely surprised to see Arabs depicted in similar, limited ways, across so many films, over such a long period of time. The fact they are familiar with many of the films presented in the documentary makes them take notice of representational practices they had not thought about before.

It is also an opportunity to point out that although Muslims are most commonly represented as Arabs in North America, this is actually a diverse group. As Abukhattala (2004) observes:

Western writers and news anchors use the terms Arab and Muslim interchangeably, although they are not necessarily the same: not every Muslim is Arab, nor is every Arab Muslim. In fact, Arabs comprise less than 15 per cent of the whole population of the Islamic world, and considerable numbers of Arabs are Jews or Christians. The largest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, with around 95 million non-Arab Muslims. Futhermore, Iran is not, as commonly thought in the West, an Arabic country. Iranians are Persians, and they speak Farsi, an Indo-European tongue closely related to several European languages. (160)

The clips presented in this documentary are from films many are familiar with, and they challenge us to reflect on how representations we see in the mass media provide powerful messages on otherness.

Holy Islamaphobia, Batman! (Dar 2010)

Comic books are another cultural site educators can draw on to have students make intertextual links. Dar (2010) analyzes what he refers to as “the demonization of Muslims and Arabs” in mainstream American comic books. He asks: “Where are the positive images? Where are the everyday Muslims?” and calls for more “accurate” representations. Again, I question the existence of an “ideal” Muslim that we can measure representations against to determine their “accuracy,” but Dar’s readings are valuable in the way they demonstrate how meanings about Muslims are constructed in everyday texts such as comic books. He critiques familiar comics such as Batman, and also introduces Naif Al-Mutawa’s new comic book series, The 99, which “presents Muslim women and men as three-dimensional characters and heroes” (109). Dar writes that these characters “have stories, families, and character flaws, and their identities are not limited to the context of terrorism and misogyny” (109). The characters are also “from multiple racial and religious backgrounds, which promotes Al-Mutawa’s aspirations for dialogue and coexistence” (109).

Bugs Bunny Pedagogy (Sensoy 2010a)

Sensoy’s (2010a) readings of representations of Muslims in Bugs Bunny provides an example of how Muslims are “othered” in children’s television programs. She describes Bugs Bunny as one of the “key tutors” (113) in her own education about Muslims, and situates this cartoon in mainstream western discourses about Muslims and people of the Middle East. Sensoy calls for a recognition in educational contexts that identities are shifting and relational and argues that “to understand one’s own, and other’s identity, we must help students see, talk about, and understand this complex relational aspect of group identities and identifications” (127). She also suggests a need for educators and students to understand how representation works to produce meanings, for as Kellner and Share (2005) point out, they may not be aware of how sexism, racism, ethnocentrism and other forms of othering are reproduced through media representations.

Muslimah Media Watch: “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves”

Until recently, it was difficult to find Muslim female perspectives on representations in the mass media, but Muslimah Media Watch (MMW) has changed that. It is a rich online resource that can be used by both teachers and students carrying out inquiries into media representations. Abura (2010) explains that Muslimah Media Watch started off as a one-woman blog by Fatemah Fakhraie, in 2007. It has recently been re-launched as a web site featuring 21 bloggers from around the world. The group’s mandate is described on the website:

Muslimah Media Watch is a forum where we, as Muslim women, can critique how our images appear in the media and popular culture. Although we are of different nationalities, sects, races, etc., we have something important in common: we’re tired of seeing ourselves portrayed by the media in ways that are one-dimensional and misleading. This is a space where, from a Muslim feminist perspective, we can speak up for ourselves.

Abura observes that a few years ago “if anybody wrote about Muslim women in the down-and-depressed, stereotypical manner then it would be left to some sensitive Muslim man to reply. Or more than likely, it would just be left.” Much has changed with the advent of the Internet, “due to a new generation of media-savvy Muslim women who are fighting back with articles, blogs and witty comebacks quicker than you can say ‘oppressed housewife.’” As Fakhraie (June 28, 2010) declares on her blog, “Sisters are doin’ it for themselves.”

Fakhraie is a young American Muslim who was uncomfortable with the mainstream media’s tendency to portray Muslim women as, “exotic sex slave, oppressed woman, or dangerous terrorist” and so decided to set up the blog. MMW critiques “one-dimensional and misleading” representations of Muslim women in cultural sites, from small-town newspapers to major news channels and women’s magazines. These insightful women blog on everything from Burqa Barbie (Dec. 3, 2008), to profiles of Muslim female comedians (April 3, 2008), to the two French web-activists who protest the burqa ban in France with their performance of “NiqaBitch” (October 5, 2010). The perspectives of Muslim women need to be brought into the media literacy classroom as well as into mainstream discourse on Muslims and Muslimah Media Watch makes that much easier for educators to do.

Activity #3: Autoethnographic Inquiries to Disrupt Assumptions About Self and Other

The third classroom strategy educators might consider using in teacher education programs to link media literacy and intercultural education is to have students write an autoethnography. Writing is deployed as a means to examine our assumptions about our selves and others, and inquire into to formation of our own subjectivities. In my classes, I encourage students to use the writing process to stimulate thinking about where and how they learned what they know about Muslims. As they go back into memory, students make connections between their personal experiences, popular cultural representations, and their face-to-face encounters with otherness.

Postcolonial curriculum theorist Nina Asher (2002) calls on educators to decolonize our thinking and our relation to others by revisiting our encounters with difference. She incites teachers to deconstruct processes of othering in relation to curriculum and teaching, and I would extend this to include our encounters with difference in the mass media. Asher (2002) critiques multicultural education for its exclusive focus on the marginalized other with little examination of the self (82). Western, Eurocentric knowledge and perspectives are therefore privileged and the binary split between self and other, margins and center, are normalized. Asher suggests a need to understand the other in relation to – rather than apart from – oneself. She describes a “hybrid consciousness” as “the awareness that emerges out of the struggle to situate oneself in relation to multiple borders at the dynamic intersections of race, culture, gender/sexuality, class, and nationality, in specific historical and geographic contexts” (p. 85).

Authoethnography (cf: Ellis, Adams, and Bochner 2010; Holman-Jones 2005; Morawski and Palulis 2009; Reed-Danahay 1997; Russell 1998) is a response to ethnography’s processes of othering. It is a form of reflective memory writing we can work with to make links between our personal stories and the broader cultural, political, and historical contexts in which we live. Autoethnography can be used in the media literacy classroom to examine our social locations, and to begin to map out our encounters with otherness, both face-to-face and via media texts and images. As we work to disrupt the self, we may begin to see identities and cultures as complex and fluid, rather than homogenous and fixed.

Conclusion

The importance of visual media literacy is increasingly recognized (Lipschultz and Hilt 2007), and should be considered a necessary component in any media studies curriculum. Drawing on the example of visual representations of Muslim women in the print news media as well as in other sites, I have offered suggestions for how links might be made between visual media literacy and intercultural education. Visual literacy as it relates to media studies is defined as “the ability to understand and interpret the representation and symbolism of a static or moving visual image — how the meanings of the images are organized and constructed to make meaning – and to understand their impact on viewers” (Media Awareness Network 2007, 3). Yenawine (2005) contends that “learning to look” is a process similar to learning to read and write. Just as the teaching and learning of other literacies requires sustained pedagogical efforts, becoming visually literate should not be left to chance.

Block (2010) insists that education should “lead students out and away from home…and not draw them back to that familiar address” (9). His assertion presents both opportunities and challenges for those who take seriously education’s promise to prepare students for democratic citizenship in a diverse society continuously bombarded with the mass media’s curriculum on otherness. Rather than think only in terms of preparing students for an imaginary future, what if educators could more fully engage them in what is happening in the here-and-now, in-between local and global contexts? And what if we could trouble and unsettle the sedimented layers of what we think we know about others? Denzin and Lincoln (2003) argue we “cannot afford the stubborn refusal we sometimes encounter from students who prefer their own comfortable worlds to confrontation with other, startlingly different worldviews” (274). The work of challenging assumptions is fraught with tensions and difficulties that many prefer to avoid. And yet, working towards more complicated readings of our selves and others via media literacy education seems urgent in the post 9/11world we struggle to inhabit together.

References

Abukhattala, I. 2004. “The New Bogeyman Under the Bed: Image Formation of Islam in Western

School Curriculum and Media.” In The Miseducation of the West: How Schools and the Media Distort our Understanding of the Islamic World, edited by J. L. Kincheloe and S. R. Steinberg,  153–170. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Abura, A. 2010. “Muslimahs in the Media Do It Themselves.” Elan: The Guide to

Global Muslim Culture, June 28.

http://www.elanthemag.com/index.php/site/blog_detail/muslimahs_in_the_media_do_it_t hemselves-nid95996145/

Ali-Khan, Carolyne. 2011. “Seeing What We Mean: Visual Knowledge and Critical Epistemology/”

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 24(3): 303-322.

Asher, N. 2002. “(En)gendering a Hybrid Consciousness.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing Winter:

81–92.

Awan, K., M. Sheikh, N. Mithoowani, A. Ahmed, and D. Simard. 2010. Maclean’s Magazine:

A Case Study of Media-propagated Islamophobia.

http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/ar/Report_on_Mcleans_Journalism.pdf

Barlas, A. 2007. “Teaching About Islam and Women: on Pedagogy and the Personal.” Intercultural

Education 18(4): 367-371.

Berger, A. 1999. Seeing is Believing: An Introduction to Visual Communication (2^nd ed.).

London and Toronto: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Block, A. 2010. “Homecomings and Leavings.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 26(1): 9–21.

Dar, J. 2010. “Holy Islamophobia, Batman! Demonization of Muslims and Arabs in

Mainstream American Comic Books.” In Teaching Against Islamophobia, edited by J. Kincheloe, S. Steinberg, C. Stonebanks, 99-110. New York: Peter Lang.

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. 2003. “Afterward: Marching Orders for a Divided Nation, Renewed

Commitment for an Engaged Social Science.” In 9/11 in American Culture, edited by N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, 272–274. New York, NY: Alta Mira Press.

Ellis, C., T. Adams, and A. Bochner. 2010. “Autoethnography: An Overview.” Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12(1).

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1101108

Erickson, Kris. 2010. Teaching Photography in the Classroom. Association of Media

Literacy Youtube Channel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/AssociationMediaLit#p/a/u/1/TPKaB2ic5RY

Fakhraie, F. 2010, June 28). “Sisters are Doin’ it for Themselves.” Fatemeh Fakhraie (blog), June 28,

2010.

http://fatemehfakhraie.com/2010/06/28/sisters-are-doin-it-for-themselves/

Falah, G. 2005. “The Visual Representation of Muslim/Arab women in Daily Newspapers in the

United States.” In Geographies of Muslim women: Gender, Religion, and Space, edited by G. Falah and C. Nagel, 300–329. New York & London: The Guildford Press.

Hall, S. 1997. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London:

Sage.

Heath, J. (Ed.). 2008. The Veil: Women Writers on its History, Lore, and Politics. Berkley and Los

Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Hobbs, R. 2007. Reading the Media: Media Literacy in High School English. New York, NY:

Teacher’s College Press.

Holman Jones, S. 2005. “Autoethnography: Making the Personal Political.” In Handbook of Qualitative

Research, edited by N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln, 763-791. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jiwani, Y. 2005. “Orientalizing ‘War Talk’: Representations of the Gendered Muslim Body Post-9/11 in the Montreal Gazette.” In Situating “Race” and Racisms in Time, Space, and Theory: Critical Essays for Activists and Scholars, edited by J. Lee and J. Lutz, 178–203. Montreal and Kingston, ON: McGill Queen’s University Press.

Johnny, L., and S. Shariff. 2007. “Critical Media Literacy to Counter Muslim Stereotypes.” In Media

Literacy: A Reader, edited by D. Macedo and S. Steinberg, 603–625. New York: Peter Lang.

Jhally, Sut. 2006. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. (DVD, 50 minutes. ISBN: 1-

932869-00-X).  http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=412

Kassam, Ashifa. 2008. “The Weak, the Powerless, the Oppressed: Muslim Women in Toronto

Media.” Canadian Journal of Media Studies 4(1): 71–88.

Kellner, D., and J. Share. 2005. “Toward Critical Media Literacy: Core Concepts, Debates,

Organizations, and Policy.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 26(3): 369–386.

——— . 2007. “Critical Media Literacy, Democracy, and the Reconstruction of Education. In Media

Literacy: A Reader, edited by D. Macedo and S. R. Steinberg,1-23. New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J., S. Steinberg, and C. Stonebanks. 2010. Teaching Against Islamophobia. New

York: Peter Lang.

Liberman, Y. 2007. Getty Images, Photograph #: 52276610. Available at:

http://www.gettyimages.com

Lipshcultz, Jeremy, and Michael L.  Hilt. 2007. “Editors’ Note: The Need for Media and Information Literacy in Graduate Education.” Studies in Media and Information Literacy Education vol. 7. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/ehost/delivery?vid

Luke, Carmen. 1999. “Media and Cultural Studies in Australia.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult

Literacy 42(8): 622-626.

Macedo, D. 2007. “Introduction: Deconstructing the Corporate Media/Government Nexus.” In Media

Literacy: A Reader, edited by D. Macedo & S. Steinberg, xxii–xxxii. New York: Peter Lang.

Maclean’s Magazine. 2006. Why the future belongs to Islam. Cover photo, October 26.

http://www.macleans.ca

Media Awareness Network. 2007. Media Education in Canada: An Overview.

http://www.mediaawareness.ca/english/teachers/media_education

Mihailidis, P. 2009. “The First Step is the Hardest: Finding Connections in Media Literacy Education.”

Journal of Media Literacy Education 1: 53-67

Mitchell, W. 2002. “Showing Seeing: A Critique of Visual Culture.” Journal of Visual Culture

1(2): 165–181.

Muslimah Media Watch. 2011.http://muslimahmediawatch.org/about-2/

National Association of Media Literacy Education. 2009a. “Key Questions to Ask When Analyzing

Media Messages. ”  http://namle.net/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/NAMLEKeyQuestions0708.pdf

———. (2009b). “Core Principles of Media Literacy Education.”

http://namle.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/NAMLE-CPMLE-w-questions2.pdf

———. 2011a. “NAMLE vision and mission.”  http://namle.net/about-namle/vision-mission/

Nawaz, Z. 2011. “Behind the Mosque: Zarqa Nawaz Talks About Her Controversial Comedy

Series, Little Mosque on the Prairie. ” Arts/TV CBC. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/little_mosque.html

Ontario Human Rights Commission. 2008. “Commission Issues Statement on Decision in

Maclean’s Cases.” http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/news/macleans

Prensky, M. 2010. Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin.

Project Look Sharp. 2011. “Tips for Decoding Media Messages.”

http://www.ithaca.edu/looksharp/?action=medialithandouts

Rizvi, Fazal. 2005. “Representations of Islam and Education for Justice.” In Race, Identity, and Representation in Education, edited by C. McCarthy, W. Crichlow, G. Dimitriadis, and N. Dolby, 167-178. London and New York: Routledge.

Rose, G. 2007. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials

(2^nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Russell, C. 1998. Autoethnography: Journeys of the Self.

http://www.haussite.net/haus.0/SCRIPT/txt2001/01/russel_X.HTML

Said, E. W. 1994. Orientalism. (Reprint from 1978). New York: Vintage Books.

Sensoy, Ö. 2010a. “‘Mad Man Hassan Will Buy Your Carpet!’: The Bearded Curricula of Evil

Muslims.” In Teaching Against Islamophobia, edited by J. Kincheloe, S. Steinberg, and C. Stonebanks, 111-133. New York: Peter Lang.

———. 2010b. “Ickity Ackity Open Sesame: Learning About the Middle East in Images.” In

Rethinking Curricular Knowledge on Global Societies, edited by B. Subedi, 39–55. Information Age Publishing.

Sensoy, Ö. and E. Marshall. 2009. “Save the Muslim Girls!” Rethinking Schools 24(2): 14–

19. http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/24_02/24_02_muslim.shtml

———. 2010. “Missionary Girl Power: Saving the ‘Third World’ One Girl at a Time.” Gender and Education 22(3): 295–311.

Sensoy, Ö. & Stonebanks, C. (Eds.). 2009. Muslim Voices in School. Rotterdam: Sense

Publishers.

Share, J. 2009. Media Literacy is Elementary: Teaching Youth to Critically Read and Create

Media. New York: Peter Lang.

Sperry, S. 2009. “Global Media Perspectives: Islam and Cultural Identity in Europe.” Project Look

Sharp. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College. http://www.ithaca.edu/looksharp/?action=globalmedia

Steyn, Mark. 2006. “The New World Order”. An excerpt from American

Alone. Maclean’s Magazine, October 23: 31-37. Available at: http://www.macleans.ca

Watt, D. 2007. “Disrupting Mass Media as Curriculum: Opening to Stories of Veiling.” In Curriculum and the Cultural Body, edited by S. Springgay and D. Freedman. New York: Peter Lang.

Watt, D. 2008a. “Challenging Islamophobia Through Visual Media Studies: Inquiring into a

Photograph of Muslim Women on the Cover of Canada’s National News Magazine.” Studies

in Media and Information Literacy Education 8(2): 1-14.

———.2008b. “Silent Meaning: A Cover Photo of Muslim Women. J-Source: The Canadian

Journalism Project. Available at: http://www.j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=3088

———. 2011a. “From the Streets of Peshawar to the Cover of Maclean’s Magazine: Reading Images

of Muslim Women as Currere to Interrupt Gendered Islamophobia.” Journal of Curriculum

Theorizing 27(1): 64–86.

———. 2011b. “Juxtaposing Sonare and Videre Midst Curricular Spaces: Negotiating Muslim,

Female Identities in the Discursive Spaces of Schooling and Visual Media Cultures.” Doctoral

Thesis. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

http://hdl.handle.net/10393/19973

Yenawine, P. 2005. “Thoughts on Visual Literacy.” In Handbook on Teaching Literacy Through the

Communicative and Visual Arts, edited by J. Flood, S. B. Heath, and D. Lapp, 845–845.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

]]> http://jmle.org/blog/?feed=rss2&p=823 0 http://jmle.org/blog/?p=820 http://jmle.org/blog/?p=820#comments Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:55:58 +0000 Benjamin Thevenin http://jmle.org/blog/?p=820 Gerard Tulodziecki

Department of Educational Sciences, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, GERMANY

Silke Grafe

Department of Educational Sciences, University of Bochum, GERMANY

In many countries, children, adolescents, and adults use a wide variety of media. These include news media and books, radio broadcasting and audio formats, film and television, computers and the Internet. In countries in which these media are based on constitutional rights securing freedom of opinion, information and the press, they offer a broad variety of programs, from information and communication to entertainment and gaming to education and counselling. In many democratic societies media sources are primarily in the hands of private investors and thus oriented towards economic success. However, with regard to broadcasting, Germany features a dual structure that is characterized by both commercial and public service products.

In industrialized countries, the amount of media equipment at home is usually substantial. For example, in Germany and the United States most households with teenagers were equipped with at least one television set (U.S.: 99% in 2009, GER: 97% in 2010), DVD or VCR player (U.S.: 97%, GER: 89%) and computer (U.S.: 93%, GER: 100%) (Kaiser Family Foundation 2010, 9; MPFS 2011, 5). The overall time for media use was 645 minutes per day in the USA in 2009 and 583 minutes in Germany in 2010 with television being the greatest attraction (U.S.: 269 minutes; GER: 220 minutes), followed by the radio (U.S.: 151 minutes, GER: 187 minutes) and the computer/Internet (U.S.: 89 minutes; GER: 83 minutes) (Kaiser Family Foundation 2010, 11; MedienPerspektiven 2010, 68).

In addition to media in the home, in many countries comprehensive media equipment is available in schools. The ratio of the number of computers and number of students has been frequently discussed in recent years. During this time the ratio has increased in the United States and in Germany: Almost 100 percent of public schools in the U.S. had access to the Internet in 2005 – compared with 35 percent in 1994 (National Center for Education Statistics 2006, 4). Furthermore, in U.S. public schools in 2005 the ratio of students to instructional computers with Internet access was 3.8 to 1, a remarkable decrease from the 12.1 to 1 ratio in 1998 (Ibid.,  6). In German schools, the ratio in 2002 was still 17 to 1, whereas for the school year 2007/2008 it has changed from 9 to 1 (Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann 2010, 164 ). At the same time, 88 percent of all German schools were connected to the Internet in this school year (Ibid., 6).

Overall, in industrialized countries media has a significant influence on leisure and work, learning and education, socialization and training, art and culture, economy and politics. By the same token, media use has been associated with increased problems, including distraction and manipulation, illegal propaganda and advertising, the dangers of data misuse, breach of copyright, personal rights, fraud, and other criminal activities.

Against this background, the aim of this article is to describe and discuss the development and current situation of learning with media and media literacy education in Germany. The focus is on education in schools. Such a country profile is internationally relevant in our opinion as it can be compared with developments in different countries and push forward new knowledge and information that can be used in different contexts. Our country profile is based on an analysis of various local publications of the last decades. We chose a hermeneutical-systematic approach to be able to give a systematic overview of developments and the current situation. Our article contains synoptical elements, interpreting and concluding statements as well as evaluations and recommendations for further developments.

Media literacy education in general has to deal with two questions:

• How can the wide variety of media be used in meaningful ways for both teaching and learning purposes?
• Which educational tasks result from the extensive use of media and how can they be realized?

Although both questions are variously linked with each other, respective conceptual thoughts and activities mostly develop in an unconnected way. This is the case in Germany as well as in other countries. For example, in the Anglo-American region, research results on teaching and learning with media (especially in educational technology) are discussed separately from those in the field of media literacy education. On the practical level, approaches to media in education are characterized by media use for teaching and learning purposes on the one hand and by the realization of media-related educational tasks on the other hand. According to this distinction on the level of theory and research, one can distinguish between “media didactics” (“Mediendidaktik”) and a “theory of media-related educational tasks” (“media literacy education” / “Theorie der Medienerziehung” or “Medienbildung”). The interpretation and distinctions of these terms, however, is by no means commonly agreed upon in Germany (Tulodziecki 2011a), and the use of the term “media didactics” (“Mediendidaktik”) is uncommon in many countries. It has most similarities to the field of educational technology in the Anglo-American region, whereas “Theorie der Medienerziehung” and “Medienbildung” can be compared with the discipline of media literacy education. In the following article the German developments in the areas of media use for teaching and learning purposes (“media didactics”) and the realization of media-related educational tasks and their theory (“media literacy education”) will be discussed. Due to the limited length of this article, it will not be possible to highlight and give equal weight to all aspects of the discussion. Our focus will be on questions of teaching and learning with media and about media in school (a comprehensive treatment with detailed references can be found as well in Tulodziecki 2005). Furthermore, it will not be possible to extensively compare the German situation with global developments of media literacy education. However, we will draw connections to the international situation in passages of particular relevance.

Media Use for Learning and Teaching from a Conceptual View

Thoughts on the question of how educational content for children and adolescents should be approached have a long historical tradition. As early as Comenius and his illustrated textbook Orbis Sensualium Pictus (1658), didactic concepts have focussed on adequate means and sources for teaching. In addition to this—and starting with the progressive educational movement in the first decades of the 20^th century—adequate materials for the teacher accompanied by working materials for students´ use became increasingly important. However, thoughts pertaining to this subject were considered to be part of methods of teaching until the 1950s in Germany. Only since Heimann (1962) pointed out that the choice of media was as important for teaching and learning as the decision on objectives, contents and methods has an independent field of “media didactics” been developed in Germany.

From the “teaching aid concept” to the “learning environment concept”

In the context of the developing field of “media didactics,” in Germany, early approaches to the use of media in teaching and learning can be summarized by two conceptual terms. The use of media for flexible and selective support of teaching can be subsumed under the label “teaching aid concept” and the use of media as a working tool for accomplishing given tasks by students can be called “working material concept”.

Different attempts to use films as a teaching aid in the classroom during the first half of the 20^th century emphasized the extended importance of this media for teaching and learning purposes. Especially with the development of more complex audio media and television programs for schools, there was a considerable change in the appreciation of media in teaching and learning processes. Thereby it is important to note that educational films and programs have not only specific contents but also a particular didactical structure. Therefore such media has to be seen not so much as teaching aids or working materials, but rather as “building blocks” for teaching and learning processes. In Germany, the so-called “building block concept of media use” was very important in the 1960s and 1970s. This period of time was characterized by an increasing production of educational films and audio media by the “Institute for Film and Pictures in Research and Teaching” (FWU) as well as by the further development of radio programmes for schools and the new development of educational television programmes by various broadcasting corporations.

However, during the 1960s, this “building block concept” was influenced—mainly in West-Germany— by the adoption of Anglo-American approaches of programmed instruction and concepts for the development of teaching machines and other programmed instruction material, which were first connected with a behaviorist learning perspective. These approaches were partly adopted, partly criticized and improved within the so-called “system concept” in Germany. This concept is characterized by the attempt to encompass as many teaching and learning aspects as possible in order to arrive at a technology that is ultimately meant to take over teaching. As in the 1960s and early 1970s there was not only a lack of teachers, but also a need for some curricular innovations in Germany. These thoughts generally fell on fertile ground. However, in schools neither such teaching machines nor comprehensive programmed technology including programmed instructional material—for instance, television programmes, books, and worksheets— were able to succeed.

Since the 1980s there has been a new educational development that can be distinguished from the other concepts and called “learning environment-concept”. It is fundamentally important for this concept that learning is not just viewed as a process of imparting knowledge, skills, and abilities from a teacher or a teaching system to a learner. Learning should rather be understood as an active process of dealing with meaningful tasks in a learning environment. Elements of such a learning environment could be different media ranging from newspapers to the Internet. The “learning environment concept” contains the following basic assumptions: Learners should—by dealing with relevant topics—differentiate complex tasks or develop their own questions. They should carry out analyses and come up with solutions independently by using relevant information and learning aids (e.g. different media). Furthermore, they should be able to present the results of their work in the form of a booklet, a video clip, a website, or any other medium.

The development of the “learning environment concept” was fostered partly by the change of position in theoretical approaches to learning—from behaviorism to cognitivism to constructivism. Thus, the approach of situated learning (as a connection of cognitive theory and constructivist learning concepts) is of particular importance (Mandl, Gruber and Renkl 2002). This approach is mainly based on the concepts of “anchored instruction,” “cognitive apprenticeship,” and “cognitive flexibility“ (CTGV 1997; Spiro et al. 2003; Collins et al. 1989).  On the other hand, so called “action-oriented principles of teaching and learning,” offer a good basis for the “learning environment concept” (see for instance Tulodziecki, Herzig, and Grafe 2010, 120). By the same token, technical developments—such as the computer, the Internet, learning platforms, and weblogs—facilitate the realization of the “learning environment concept” (Ibid., 134).

Additional developments

The digital opportunities not only led to new realizations of the “learning environment concept,” but also to various other developments in connection with e-learning. In a broad sense e-learning includes all forms of learning and teaching with digital media (Reinmann 2007, 179). Thereby various types of educational software can be differentiated (for example, according to the “State Institute for Schools and Further Training” LSW 1999): educational programs, exercise programs, open learning systems, learning games, experimentation and simulation environments, databases and tools, communication and collaboration environments. E-learning has certain conceptual relations to several questions: To what extent should learning be pre-structured in a didactic manner? What level of self-regulation is required? Which communication facilities need to be provided? Which types of learning are expected and accepted? What should the relationship between individual and shared learning be? How wide should the learning opportunities and learning objects be designed?

There are other questions to consider as well: In which scenarios can e-learning be realized? What is the ratio of personal and virtually designed learning and teaching? Schulmeister (2003), for example, selects the categories of form, function, and method to characterize these scenarios: Form ranges from solely class courses to various mixed forms up to exclusively virtual events or virtual self-study. Function ranges from information only to the exchange of files up to synchronous communication and cooperation. Methods range from simple instruction to tutor accompanied and interactive learning up to moderated groups and self-organized learning communities. In other systematizations the focus is on software features: a distinction is made between authoring software, Learning Management Systems (LMS), learning platforms, Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS) and Web 2.0 applications (each with different educational and organizational possibilities).

Apart from technical possibilities and organisational forms of e-learning from a didactic point of view, software can be used for a variety of functions (Tulodziecki, Herzig, and Grafe 2010, 124): to introduce cases or learning tasks, as an information source and a learning aid; as a tool to find solutions to an answer; as a tool for feedback to the learning process; to provide materials for their own analysis or processing; as an instrument to arrange, store, and present results; and to organize knowledge resources and tools for communication and cooperation.

To understand the debate in Germany it is important to realize that “media didactics” has traditionally been concerned with the use of existing media equipment in the classroom as well as with the development and design of media products (from the perspective of teachers or of producing media institutions). Right now—in connection with the possibilities of digital media—the design perspective is particularly stressed in “media didactics” associated with the claim “to solve a certain educational problem” by creating a media-based learning environment (Kerres 2008, 118, own translation). Moreover, in the context of a digital learning environment and an action-oriented approach there are new perspectives for the design of media by the learners themselves (Tulodziecki, Herzig. and Blömeke 2009; Tulodziecki, Herzig, and Grafe 2010, 120).

This is linked to the attempt to connect media use in teaching and learning processes and the design of learning environments with educational goals, which are considered important for the actions of people in a media-shaped world and for their participation in a mediated culture and society (Tulodziecki 1999; Kerres and de Witt 2002).

The development described above can be compared with international developments in many aspects (for an overview, compare the description of the American development of educational technology by Saettler 2004). As many research results regarding learning theory and technology instruction were adopted from international developments in the Anglo-American region, concepts regarding the media use for purposes of teaching and learning were based on similar ideas, which lead to similar developments or even adoptions. One main difference with regard to scientifc disciplines is that in Germany a distinct scientific field of “media didactics” exists, which originates in the strong tradition of the scientific field of “didactics.” The subject of “didactics” theory and research is the design of the instructional process as well as the identification and legitimation of goals and contents for learning in school. As a consequence, subjects of media didactics can be found internationally in the fields of educational technology, instructional design, curriculum studies or educational psychology.

Media Related Educational Tasks From a Conceptual View

Besides the question of how the wide variety of media can be used for learning and teaching, there is also a long tradition in Germany of discussing which educational tasks result from the extensive out-of-school media use of children and adolescents for parents, teachers, and educators. During the last decades different conceptual ideas that deal with these tasks have been developed.

From the “protecting-supporting concept” to the “action-oriented concept”

In the first decades of the 20th century, German considerations on media literacy education were initially associated with the mass distribution of certain print media that were considered valueless and were later associated with the dissemination of movies. They were based on the problem that children and adolescents needed to be protected against the possible dangers of such media, but that they should also be acquainted with valuable products. In the context of the “protecting-supporting concept”— flanked by youth protection policy— parents and educators supported valuable films through school film festivals and protected pupils from potential dangers through film analysis and discussions. These were meant to point out the moral aspects of actions shown in the movies and to deal with their aesthetic and technical realisation. Protection against damage and nurturing the valuable were therefore early guidelines for media literacy education in Germany and are still part of the German discussion. However, these principles seem to be even more important, for example, in American concepts where this approach is called “Protectionism” or the “Inoculationist approach” (Tyner 1991; Kubey 1998).

However, inherent in this concept is the problem that children and adolescents do not reach self-selection and evaluation of media. Therefore, against the backdrop of the development of film as art as well as the increasing availability of movies, many called for the  student to become a judicious and aesthetic literate recipient. As a result, in the 1960s an “aesthetic culture-oriented concept”, was developed that dealt with these phenomena. This concept— which is based on “visual literacy”—is similar to the concept of “media arts education” in the U.S. (Tyner 1998). Main goals of the aesthetic culture-oriented concept were not only to deal with the film as a work of art, but to truly understand its “language” and to focus on the critical reflection of both its contents and its realisation. “Optical literacy” and “visual literacy” were seen as main objectives. The appreciation of these media as works of art and the cultivation of adequate judgements are thus further principles of media literacy education.

The dissemination of television in the 1960s—mainly in West Germany—led to considerable hopes for new educational possibilities, for the economy, and with regard to democracy. The empowered recipients should be in a position to adequately understand and use as well as independently evaluate and categorize program offerings. Referring to the so-called “functional system-oriented concept”, which is comparable to the “film grammar approach” or the “Screen Education Movement” in the USA (Hobbs and Jensen 2009; Thoman and Hobbs 2009), media are seen as important instruments of information, opinion forming, and economic growth. Therefore, schools should offer different teaching units, for example, to news and advertising as well as to newspaper and television, which allows students to gain insights into the structure of media messages, conditions of media production and media reception, and the social relevance of public communication. A responsible use of media to promote education, economy, and democracy were seen as main objectives.

If the development of guiding ideas in media literacy education had been limited to the principles described above, we would have ignored the important problem of how media can be abused to manipulate and to disseminate ideologies in a societal context. In West Germany at the end of the 1960s, this problem was dealt with in the context of the student movement and neo-Marxist approaches. In this context the “critical-materialist approach” was developed to teach children and adolescents to analyze media, their ideological character and social conditions. In addition, learners should be enabled to create media messages and publicity for their own interests and needs. Thus, criticisms of ideologies and production of own media messages enhanced the spectrum of guiding ideas on media literacy education.

The principles of this concept can be closely connected with the “critical literacy” approach of Kellner and Share (2005) who demand the promotion of counter-hegemonic media products as well as a multi-perspective and critical analysis of media culture and media industry. However, the theoretical foundations of the concepts are different.

In international media research, the question “what media do to people?” changed to “what people do with media?”. In the 1970s (in West Germany) this brought into focus the fact that media use is a need-controlled social activity. Children and adolescents turn to the media with their needs and interpret media messages against the background of their own knowledge, their attitudes, and their social conditions. By the same token, one can say about the production of one’s own media that they have to be interpreted as a means of communication on the basis of individual and social prerequisites. The reflected use of existing media products and the own design of media contributions in the sense of communicative competence and social action, complete the range of media literacy education principles. These principles are dominant for the “action-oriented concept,” which is the leading concept in the German discussion about media literacy education up until now (e.g. Aufenanger 2001; Baacke 1997; Bachmair 1984; Schorb 1995; Tulodziecki 1997). With regard to the main principles, this concept shows many similarities with the Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the U.S., for example concerning to the development of “informed, reflective, and engaged participants essential for a democratic society” or “that people use their individual skills, beliefs and experiences to construct their own meanings from media messages” (NAMLE, 2007; see for more detail Grafe 2011).

Further developments

Since the 1980s and parallel to the considerations concerning media literacy education, a basic ICT-education has become a pedagogical task. Computer and microprocessor technology were initially understood to be an important key technology for economic growth. After this, there was an increased awareness of the cultural significance of computer-based information and communication. Against this background, there are two guiding principles in the concept for ICT-education of the “Joint Commission for Educational Planning and Research” (BLK 1987): a) understanding computer technology and its applications, and b) responsible use of ICT to promote the economy and society. These principles are fairly close to the “functional system-oriented concept” of media literacy education. Connected with these principles, there are four main conceptual contents: data processing and word-processing, file management and calculation, modelling and simulation, and telecommunication. Concerning the current state of the discussion in Germany, the medial aspects of computers are seen as a part of an all-encompassing media literacy education, whereby basics of computer science are understood as an important part  (Herzig 2001).

Besides attempts to integrate computer and Internet education in the context of media literacy education, different emphases—usually in connection with an action-oriented position— have been introduced in the media literacy education discussion. Thereby, design-, development-, education- and competence-perspectives are emphasized in a special way.

In the design perspective, the focus is on an appropriation of the media and of the world, which can be characterized as a practical-reflexive or sensory-aesthetic process. Moreover, the interest is on the extension of the communicative possibilities of coping with life and social participation (e.g. Schorb 1995; Röll 1998; Niesyto 2003).

The development perspective is based on the demand that media literacy education activities should be seen in the context of development processes and that educational activities with media should promote the affective, cognitive-intellectual, social, and moral development. Possibilities to promote such processes by media literacy activities are in the center of interest (Tulodziecki 1997; Spanhel 2006).

In the education perspective (“Bildung”), the focus is beyond the idea to make use of media for learning and teaching in the context of educational objectives (see section 1.2). Rather, the request is to set media-related education tasks in the context of general education goals and to justify it from this perspective (Tulodziecki 1997; Spanhel 2006). For the analysis of this issue two additional aspects are of importance: what contribution media can make to personal development and the education (“Bildung”) of a person (Marotzki and Jörissen 2008; Bachmair 2009) as well as how the term “Bildung” itself has to change due to new media developments (e.g. Sesink 2007). The range of educational theories that are used as a basis for such considerations range from the neo-humanist educational theory of Humboldt (1792) up to a structural theory of education, which draws—with reference to Kant (1800)—attention to a critical analysis and autonomous reflection of knowledge-, action-, transcendence -,and biography-related aspects of human life.

The competence perspective is based— like many others— on Baacke (1973) who connected the concept of communicative competence with reference to critical theories with mass communication. From the late 1980s, the term “media competence” has spread in Germany. In non-educational contexts it has often (only) taken a functional-pragmatic meaning and is understood as the ability to deal with technology-related requirements of media. In contrast, in educational contexts it is mostly understood as the reflection, critical analysis, and judgement of media and action in social contexts (e.g. Schorb 1995; Baacke 1997; Groeben 2002). In this sense, “media competence” can be summarized on a general level as “the ability and the willingness to deal with media in an adequate, autonomous, creative and socially responsible way” (Tulodziecki 1998, 700).

On a next level, different dimensions and different areas or fields of “media competence” are highlighted in the German discussion. Aufenanger (2001), for example, differentiates a cognitive, a moral, a social, an affective, an aesthetic, and an action dimension of “media competence.” In the description by areas or fields, there are many different variations. Baacke (1996) differentiates for example media criticism, media knowledge, media use and media creation. Tulodziecki (1997) selects a sub-division of two fields of activity (distinguishing and using appropriate types of media for a variety of purposes, creating and disseminating own media messages). Furthermore, three fields based on central aspects of communication and relevant for action and reflection are described (understanding and evaluating media messages, becoming aware of and dealing with media influences, identifying and evaluating conditions of media production and media dissemination), so that a total of five task areas of media literacy education emerge. Areas and fields of this type formed the conceptual basis for educational policy guidelines and recommendations for media literacy education in schools (see, for example, BLK 1995; KMK 1995).

The mentioned areas and fields also formed the conceptual basis for the guidelines “Media literacy education in school” by the “Commission for Educational Planning and Research Promotion of the states of the Federal Republic of Germany“ (BLK 1995) and for the declaration of the “The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Federal States in the Federal Republic of Germany” on ‘Media Literacy Education in Schools’ (KMK 1995). Furthermore they were subsequently fundamental for concepts of media literacy education at schools or frameworks of media literacy education in various German states (see, for example, Bavarian State Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, and Art 1996).

By contrast, in the 2008 published “competency-oriented approach to media literacy education at schools” by the “Conference Media Literacy Education of the Federal States” (LKM) the following six areas of competence are mentioned (in an eclectic way): information, communication, presentation, production, analysis, and media society (LKM 2008). In the “Expert Commission for media literacy education of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research” document, four areas of responsibility are described: information and knowledge, communication and cooperation, the search for identity and orientation, and digital realities and productive action (BMBF 2010).

In contrast to that, the areas and fields of “media competence” mentioned above are reflected in the “Manifesto for Media Literacy Education” which has been signed by many important German media literacy education organizations and institutions.

The term “media competency” can be found very rarely in international publications, even though sometimes media literacy educators talk about “media literacy competency (e.g. Tyner 2007, Hobbs 2011). If the fields or dimensions of these concepts are compared, various similarities occur, e.g. the ability to critically analyze and reflect about media messages as well as to create and disseminate media messages and take action (e.g. Hobbs 2011; Martens 2010; Buckingham 2003). Despite many similarities on the terminological level, one has to take into account that the theoretical foundations of competency in the German discussion are in linguistic theory (e.g. Chomsky (1968) and Habermas´s critical theory (1971)), whereas the understanding of literacy is based for example on insights of cultural studies or on the concept of pragmatism and is a modern concept of education in an information and knowledge society (Tulodziecki 2011c).

Research on Learning with Media and Media Literacy Education

In research and development on media in education in Germany, one finds individual studies and projects that evolve in certain universities or institutions because of their research interests and as a result of dissertations. There are also interconnected activities which often evolve when research is financially supported, for example by the German Research Foundation (DFG), the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), media institutions or individual ministries of the federal states, various foundations, or large companies.

From a methodological point of view, one can distinguish between surveys (e.g. on media use in schools), experiments (e.g. to measure the influence of image and text design on learning success) and evaluations (e.g. to assess the achievement of certain objectives using computer simulations).

Against this background, we will first outline the general situation, before we briefly describe recent developments in the research on competency models and standards as a goal for media literacy education.

The general situation

Early German (as well as Anglo-American) research within media didactics and educational technology focused on experimental comparative studies, for example between standard teaching and teaching using media. Since these studies often yielded non-significant results, they were replaced by studies that were concerned with the effects of specific characteristics of media on learners’ outcome. In some of these studies, the effect has been investigated taking into account the prerequisites for learning (for an overview see e.g. Tulodziecki, Herzig, and Grafe 2010).

Furthermore, several survey studies and numerous evaluations have been conducted on media use in the classroom, especially since the appearance of educational television in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1970s (for overviews of former research see Tulodziecki 1977; Strittmatter 1979). There are similar studies concerning the increasing computer and Internet use in the classroom (e.g. Schaumburg and Issing 2002; Schulz-Zander and Preussler 2005; Herzig and Grafe 2007; Bofinger 2007; Gysbers 2008; Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann 2010). Some results of these studies are described in section 4 of this article.

In Germany, research in the field of media literacy education is built on important international findings. For example, German researchers were also part of turning research focus from media effect research to reception studies where individual and social preconditions were considered. These approaches were, and still are, influenced by ethnographic research and the cultural studies approach. This transition from one approach to another can be seen as combined with a development from quantitative to qualitative methodology. In present-day German research, both approaches are employed side-by-side and also combined (an overview e.g. Sander, von Gross, and Hugger 2008). Furthermore, there are also several survey studies and evaluations on media literacy education in practice (see section 4 in this article).

Moreover, particularly with the advent of computer-based media, German attempts have been made to unite research and development in the field of media through extensive economic support. Prominent projects are as follows: the initiative “Schools Online” (Schulen ans Netz) of the “Federal Ministry of Education and Research” (BMBF) and “Deutsche Telekom AG”, which was launched in 1996 and continues in the form of a competence center, the BLK-priority program “Systematic integration of media, information, and communication technologies in teaching-learning processes (SEMIK)” (1998 to 2003), the BMBF program “New Media in Education” with the three pillars of school, vocational training, and university (2000 to 2004) and a number of other programs in different states.

On the one hand, programs such as these have brought great changes to the German educational scene and have raised discussions concerning the use of computers and the Internet in schools and other educational institutions. On the other hand, each program revealed its specific weaknesses. For example, the activities of the initiative “Schools Online” and many related initiatives of the federal states were initially too focused on technical issues, without relating such activities to adequate innovation strategies. In all programs, there is still a lack of sustainability. In addition to this, the programs listed above were specifically occupied with development rather than research. As a result of this, it was difficult to yield any new scientific insights that can be used for the further development of scientific theories. Consequently, these evaluations led to a desideratum of a theory-based investigation of the relation between prerequisites, relevant processes concerning media literacy education and their respective results. This desideratum is internationally evident (e.g. Hobbs 2010, Petko 2011). One solution for future programs is a concept that combines a practice- and theory-driven development and empirical evaluation of concepts for media literacy education actions (e.g. Tulodziecki and Herzig 1998; Grafe 2008). Such an approach is in some aspects similar to the “design-based research approach” which is has been developed and discussed in the U.S. since the early 1990s (cf. Brown 1992; The Design-Based research Collective 2003).

Development of competence models and standards

In Germany, educational standards for key school subjects have been developed as a consequence of the results of international comparative studies like PISA. Subsequently, supporters of interdisciplinary fields such as media literacy education have started calling for goals in the form of competency models and standards, too (e.g. Computer + Unterricht 2006, volume 63).

In the German-speaking area the “Zurich competency model” has been a forerunner. This model consists of three areas of activity (use and design of media products, exchange and transfer of media messages, media reflection and media criticism) and three personal competencies (knowledge competencies, methological competencies, and social competencies), which form the basis for four levels of competence standards. Besides the “Zurich competency model” there are different approaches, competence expectations, or standards for media literacy education in the German-speaking area.

However, only few of them have an explicit competence model as a basis like the “Paderborn Competency Standard Model” (Tulodziecki 2007, 2010). Taking into account important aspects of the discussion about media competence and media literacy education, the five tasks of media literacy (which have been described earlier) are defined as competence areas and are each differentiated by five aspects of competence as follows:

• distinguishing and using appropriate types of media for a variety of purposes by the following aspects: information, learning, entertainment and game, exchange and cooperation, analysis, and simulation;
• creating and disseminating own media by the following aspects: pictures/ photos, print media, audio media, video contributions, and interactive media;
• understanding and evaluating the design of media messages by the following aspects: representational systems, techniques of design, types of programs, structure of course, and types of media;
• becoming aware of and dealing with media influences by the following aspects: emotions, concepts and beliefs, behaviour patterns, value orientations, and social contexts;
• identifying and evaluating conditions of media production and media dissemination by the following aspects: technical conditions, economic conditions, legal conditions, personal and other institutional conditions, political, and further societal conditions (Ibid.).

On this basis, standards for three levels (at the end of the primary school, at the end of the sixth school year and at end of secondary education) are formulated with a mean level of abstraction so that no further indicators seem necessary for assessment. This competency standard model is the result of a complex decision making process. Decisions taken in this process are rationalized and theory-driven. Principally, different decisions could be taken to structure and design the model so that this innovative approach could be adapted to other international concepts of media literacy (see for more detail Tulodziecki and Grafe 2012). In future research the focus needs to be on the further development and validation of appropriate research instruments to assess media competence levels and their use in empirical evaluations.

The Current Situation of Media Use for Learning and Teaching and of Media Literacy Education in Practice

Corresponding to the various conceptual views of media literacy education, there is an extensive variety of materials and examples of applications in schools as well as in projects. These are developed either by teachers or by the Institute for Film and Images in Research and Teaching (FWU) or offered by publishing companies, State Institutes, media centres or film centres of the federal states, broadcasting corporations, Federal or State Agencies for Civic Education, societal alliances, churches, companies, and public or private institutions. The materials range from printed brochures, schoolbooks, and audiovisual media to computer- and net-based information. Materials offered through websites become increasingly important. In this context the portals “Teacher-Online“ of the BMBF and “lo-net“ (now “lo-net 2“) are of special importance. Additionally, the German media centers offer an important infrastructure for information about and distribution of media and advisory service.

Only a few representative studies about the current use of media for teaching and learning purposes and about the efforts of media literacy education literacy on a practical level can be found. As a consequence, the situation in Germany cannot be reviewed comprehensively. Nevertheless some conclusions can be drawn by present studies.

The frequency of media use in the classroom

Referring to the use of digital media in order to support teaching and learning processes in German schools one has to assume an underachievement. While school books and other print materials are used regularly, the empirical data concerning the use of computer and Internet is disillusioning (e.g. OECD 2011, 321). However, studies on the use of computers and the Internet in recent years show an increasing—although only moderate—trend. For example, Herzig and Grafe (2007) found in their survey study an increasing use, but still “it can not be spoken of a comprehensive integration of digital media in the classroom” (14). Summarizing the results of different studies, they expect that “depending on the type of school there is a core group of 10% to 30% of teachers who are regular users of digital media in the classroom” (Ibid., own translation). The PISA 2009 study results indicate that 64.6% of 15-year-old students use a computer at school—this is below the OECD average of 71.4%. However, 98.4 % of German students use a computer regulary at home, which means a place in the middle group of OECD countries (which have an average of 92.6 %) (Ibid.). Regarding online reading, German students are also above the OECD average and especially the results for reading online news and chatting are higher than the average (Artelt, Naumann, and Schneider 2010, 85).

In some studies teachers have been asked to describe problems in the media use or reasons why they do not use media in their classroom. For example, according to the study of Bofinger (2007), teachers waive media because of a general time pressure, little recognizable value, other more suitable methods, insufficient media equipment and learning environments, inappropriate or missing software, and lack of technical knowledge (see also Gysbers 2008; Tulodziecki and Six 2000). Similar reasons appear in various international contexts (for an overview, see Bingimlas 2009).

The frequency of media literacy education activities in the classroom

With regard to the practice of teaching about media in schools, empirical results show that many activities already exist, but that there are still significant expansion needs. Tulodziecki and Six (2000) found out that most primary school teachers consider teaching about media as an important task, but only a few of them perform media-educational activities in their lessons. Teachers in a study by Gysbers (2008, 153) also describe teaching about media as an important task of school: 79% of these teachers agree with the statement “Teaching about media should be integrated in as many school subjects as possible” and 98% think that students should learn in school to critically review and analyze media. With regard to the question of implementation, the results showed that on average every teacher carried out 2.7 media literacy activities or projects of a given list of seven at least once in their teaching career. However, with regard to the planning frequency for future lessons or projects more of a decline than a rise can be expected (Ibid., 138).

In the study by Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann (2010, 110) 74% of the teachers agree that media should be a topic in as many subjects as possible and 32% state that current TV shows are regularly or occasionally a topic in their teaching, while only 44% discuss contributions from newspapers and 39% discuss the content of Wikipedia in their classrooms. Twenty percent of the teachers say that they address the responsible use of media regularly or occasionally in their teaching (Ibid., 126). Using a slightly different question Bofinger (2007, 26) found out that only 8% of teachers often or very often teach about media in their lessons or in projects, but that at least 44% do so occasionally or rarely.

Besides the above mentioned reasons for waiving various media, the following reasons can be responsible for the divergence between the acknowledgement of media literacy education and its practical and effective implementation: other priorities in the school subjects and learning areas, lack of training for lessons or projects on teaching about media, doubts about the effectiveness of media literacy education at school, and resignation considering the media use of students in their leisure time (Tulodziecki and Six 2000; Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann 2010)

It can be assumed that further developments are—above all things—dependent on the successful integration of media literacy education into processes of school development. School guidelines, curricula and standards offer important conditions for implementation. In the present situation, the content of media literacy education is an important part of the curriculum and standards for different academic subjects and areas of learning in Germany (e.g. Tulodziecki and Six 2000; Wagner 2008; Kammerl and Ostermann 2010; Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann 2010). Furthermore, different cross-curricular guidelines point out the importance of teaching about media in the classroom (e.g. “Saxon State Ministry of Culture and Sports” (Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Kultus 2004); “Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Youth and Sports, Baden-Wuerttemberg” (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg 2004)). Moreover, many federal states have developed concepts for media literacy education in schools. These were essentially based on published recommendations by BLK (1995) and KMK (1995) (e.g. “Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, Thuringia” (Thüringer Kultusministerium 2002)). Such recommendations led also to the implementation of non-compulsary courses of media literacy education (e.g. “Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs of Saxony-Anhalt” (Kultusministerium des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt 2000), “Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science, Saarland” (Ministerium für Bildung, Kultus und Wissenschaft, Saarland 2006)).

However, despite of promising developments the analysis of relevant documents shows a very heterogeneous picture in the different federal states. In particular, weaknesses remain about the systematic integration and the liability of media literacy education (c.f. a summary: http://www.vision-loom.net/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=sekundarstufe:arbeitsbereich). This picture is not unfamiliar in countries, where media literacy education is not a compulsory subject, but where concepts and ideas have to be developed to be integrated across the K-12 curriculum (e.g. Scheibe 2004). Current developments of compulsory core curricula, the demand to develop school curricula as well as calls for an “all-day school” offer fundamental chances for media literacy education. However, one has to wait and see if they will be realized.

On Teacher Training within the Field of Media Use and Media Literacy Education

In addition to the aspects mentioned above, for the use of media and the implementation of media literacy education it is particularly important to examine the extent to which respective topics are implemented in initial training and continuing professional education of educators.

In the Federal Republic of Germany, media literacy education is a compulsory or an elective field in different vocational trainings: in the training of kindergarten teachers, in the study of social pedagogy at technical colleges and universities, in educational sciences, in teacher education, and in other study programs as well (e.g., media studies). In the last years, there have been extensive activities to implement media literacy education into teacher education programs. For example, after pilot tests in the second half of the 1990s, the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Heinz-Nixdorf Foundation supported the development of a high school network “teacher training and new media” in which seven universities were involved (Bentlage and Hamm 2001). In this context, the following parts of pedagogical media literacy skills, were—and still are—taken into account (e.g. Blömeke 2000; Spanhel and Tulodziecki 2001; Gysbers 2008):

• general media literacy to provide a basis,
• becoming aware of the importance of media as a part of the socialisation of children and adolescents,
• using media for teaching and learning purposes,
• designing and carrying out projects and other media literacy education activities,
• developing and implementing programs of media literacy education in schools.

One can assume that every German teacher education program at universities offers lectures and courses dealing with media issues, especially as teacher training curricula and teacher training examination regulations demand dealing with media issues (e.g. Tulodziecki and Six 2000 ; Kammerl and Ostermann 2010; Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann 2010). Moreover, there are some universities that offer to set a major field of study in the field of media or offer an additional qualification certificate (Herzig and Grafe 2007). However, all in all, the present situation shows that the recent activities—including the involvement of approaches for the second phase of teacher education—are still not sufficient to secure that all future teachers acquire the necessary skills for teaching about and with media (Ibid., 20; Breiter, Welling, and Stolpmann 2010, 206). This is the case in other countries, too (see e.g. Hobbs 2010). The future will show if the existing activities in the currently ongoing restructuring of teacher training courses (conversion to Bachelor- and Master-degree programs) can be intensified.

At least, media literacy education is mentioned as a major focus in the field of education sciences in the KMK’s (2004) “Standards for Teacher Education” (Ibid., 5). In addition, there is the attempt to develop—on the basis of recent discussions about pedagogical media literacy skills and goals for teacher education—a competency standard model for teacher education (Tulodziecki 2011b).

In addition to the special activities in the field of teacher education, there were and still are extensive initiatives concerning continuing professional teacher education in the different federal states. Thus, practically every federal state has organized continuing teacher education programs for the introduction of computer-based media. In this context, to some extent, various materials have been developed (e.g. “Media Literacy in Schools and Teaching” http://thales.cs.upb.de:8080/mksu). Furthermore the teacher training program “Intel—Teach to the Future” has to be mentioned, which was started under the auspices of the KMK president in 2000 and carried out to 2004. It yielded the projects “Intel ® Teaching” and “Intel ® Teaching – Interactive”. Moreover, the platforms “Teachers-Online”, “lo-net 2” and the education servers of the federal states offer useful material for teacher training on media use and media literacy education. Some federal states also offer the opportunity to use portfolios as a purposeful collection to exhibit and reflect efforts, progress, and achievements concerning skills in media literacy education in the first and second phase of teacher education, in professional development and other contexts.

In future research the focus needs to be on the development of a deductive and inductive derived and empirically verified structural model of pedagogical media literacy skills of teachers and the development and validation of an appropriate research instrument for empirical evaluations of teacher trainings. Such efforts have been recently started in Germany by the authors in collaboration with other universities.

Future Prospects

Due to the rapid developments in the fields of computer and Internet the use of computer-based media in educational institutions has been thoughtfully regarded by German educational policy and funds since the 1990’s. Initially (and unfortunately), funds were basically used for technical equipment. Furthermore, there was a lack of corresponding innovation and implementation strategies. But as time went by, the importance of initial and continuing teacher training and of the development of concepts and research for the successful implementation of media literacy education was realized.

Later, the results of the PISA-Study have led to a shift of interest from media literacy to different fields (e.g., reading literacy, mathematical and scientific literacy, national educational standards, and core curricula). However, the fact that there is a relation between these subjects and media issues is often ignored. Against this background, one has to state that questions dealing with the use of computer and media as well as media literacy education are not fundamental subjects of education policy any longer. In the context of a general shortage of financial resources, funds for media literacy education are reduced or used for other fields. Furthermore, one has to notice that independent media institutions are scaled down or are integrated into other units.

The shift is also evident in the BMBF’s “program to promote educational research” of 2007 because media education issues are only explicitly mentioned in two places in connection with the optimal design of teaching and learning processes (Ibid., 12). However, there might be the opportunity to work on media literacy education issues in the specified thematic focus, (e.g. “competence diagnosis” and the “professionalization of teaching staff”). Different project proposals allow for this suggestion (http://www.bmbf.de/foerderungen/677.php). And of course, research projects on media literacy education are still supported by DFG media priority programs, for example educational media research is possible in the current priority program “Mediatized worlds: culture and society in a media age” (http://www.mediatisiertewelten.de).

In this situation, where there is not always public attention for media literacy education, it is important to preserve and if possible to improve media literacy education activities and research and to also raise awareness for media questions which are of central importance for education because children, adolescents and adults—whether intentionally or not—learn much about the world through media experiences. In this sense, the above-mentioned German “Manifesto for Media Literacy Education” helped to keep the media issue in the public consciousness and the related conference in March 2011 in Berlin made an important contribution to it (http://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de).

Current media literacy education activities and future projects will benefit from several scientific and practically oriented associations, consortia, and institutions dealing with media literacy education issues in Germany, e.g. the “Media Literacy Education section” of the ‘German Association of Educational Science” (DGfE), the “Association of Media Pedagogy and Communication Culture” (GMK), the “Society for Media in Science” (GMW) and the “Institute for Media Research and Media Literacy Education” (JFF).

All in all, German activities regarding learning with media and media literacy education—despite of some deficiencies—have considerable potential. This potential is based on the conceptual work and the approaches to integrate teaching with and about media in schools, teacher education, and other educational contexts as well as on conditions of infrastructure and institutions. Due to this background, in the next years we might witness fundamental developments in German media research and media literacy education as well as German contributions to international discussions on media literacy education. Furthermore, we think that national efforts should lead more often to international and interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships in research and practice to globally promote developments of learning with media and media literacy education. To understand the national context in different countries is a necessary prerequisite to find links for partnerships and joint efforts. This article is meant to foster respective activities.

References

Artelt, C., J. Naumann, and W. Schneider. 2010. “Lesemotivation und Lernstrategien.” In PISA 2009, ed. E. Klieme et al., 73-112. Münster: Waxmann.

Aufenanger, S. 2001. “Multimedia und Medienkompetenz. ”  In Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik, ed. S. Aufenanger, R. Schulz-Zander, and D. Spanhel, 109-122. 1st edition. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Baacke, D. 1973. Kommunikation und Kompetenz. München: Juventa

———.1996. “Medienkompetenz als Netzwerk. Reichweite und Fokussierung eines Begriffs, der Konjunktur hat. ”  medien praktisch 20(78): 4-10.

———.1997. Medienpädagogik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Bachmair, B. 2009. Medienwissen für Pädagogen. Wiesbaden: VS.

Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Unterricht, Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst ed. 1996. Medienerziehung in Bayern. Donauwörth: Auer.

Bentlage, U., and I. Hamm, Eds. 2001. Lehrerausbildung und neue Medien. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Bingimlas, K. A. 2009. “Barriers to the Successful Integration of ICT in Teaching and Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature. ” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 5(3): 235-245.

BLK 1987. Gesamtkonzept für die informationstechnische Bildung. Bonn: BLK.

———.1995. Medienerziehung in der Schule. Orientierungsrahmen. Bonn: BLK.

Blömeke, S. 2000. Medienpädagogische Kompetenz. München: KoPäd.

BMBF 2007. Rahmenprogramm zur Förderung der empirischen Bildungsforschung. Bonn/ Berlin: BMBF.

BMBF, Ed. 2010. Kompetenzen in einer digital geprägten Kultur. Berlin: BMBF

Bofinger, J. 2007. Digitale Medien im Fachunterricht. München: Staatsinstitut für Schulqualität und Bildungsforschung.

Breiter, A., S. Welling, and B. E. Stolpmann 2010. Medienkompetenz in der Schule. Berlin: Vistas.

Brown, A. L. 1992. “Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(2): 141-178.

Buckingham, D. 2003. Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt.

Collins, A. et al. 1989. “Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing,

and Mathematics.” In Knowing, Learning and Instruction. ed. L. Resnick, 453-494. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Comenius, J. A. 1658. Orbis sensualium pictus. Reprint of the first edition from 1658. 2nd edition. Dortmund: Harenberg 1979.

CTGV 1997. The Jasper Project: Lessons in Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grafe, S. 2008. Förderung von Problemlösefähigkeit beim Lernen mit Computersimulationen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

———. 2011. “‘Media Literacy’ und ‘Media (Literacy) Education’ in den USA.” In Medienbildung und Medienkompetenz. ed. H. Moser, P. Grell, and H. Niesyto, 59-80. München: kopaed.

Groeben, N. 2002. “Dimensionen der Medienkompetenz.” In Medienkompetenz, ed. N. Groeben and B. Hurrelmann, 160-197. München: Juventa.

Gysbers, A. 2008. Lehrer – Medien – Kompetenz. Berlin: Vistas.

Habermas, J. 1971. “Vorbereitende Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. ” In Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, ed. J. Habermas, J. and N. Luhmann, 101-141. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

Heimann, P. 1962. “Didaktik als Theorie und Lehre.” Die Deutsche Schule 54(9): 407-427.

Herzig, B. 2001. “Medienerziehung und informatische Bildung.” In Medien machen Schule, ed. B. Herzig, 129-164. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

Herzig, B. and S. Grafe, S. 2007. Digitale Medien in der Schule. Bonn: Deutsche Telekom AG.

Hobbs, R. 2010. Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. Washington: The Aspen Institute.

———. 2011. Digital and Media Literacy. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Hobbs, R., and A. Jensen. 2009. “The Past, Present, and Future of Media Literacy Education.” Journal of Media Literacy Education 1(1): 1-11.

Humboldt, W. von 1792. “Theorie der Bildung des Menschen. Bruchstücke.” In Wilhelm von Humboldt. Werke in fünf Bänden. Band I: Schriften zur Anthropologie und Geschichte, ed. A. Flitner and K. Giel 2000, 337-375. 4th edition. Stuttgart: WBG.

Intel, Ed. 2000. Lehren für die Zukunft. Deutsche Adaption: Akademie Dillingen. Donauwörth: Auer.

Kammerl, R., and S. Ostermann. 2010. Medienbildung – kein Unterrichtsfach? Hamburg: Universität.

Kant, I. 1800. Logik. Ein Handbuch zu Vorlesungen. Königsberg.

Kaiser Family Foundation 2010. Generation M². Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. Menlo Park: Kaiser Family Foundation.

Kellner, D., and J. Share 2005. “Toward Critical Media Literacy: Core Concepts, Debates, Organizations, and Policy.” Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education 26(3): 369-386.

Kerres, M. 2008. “Mediendidaktik.” In Handbuch Medienpädagogik. ed. U. Sander, F. von Gross, and K-U. Hugger. 116-122. Wiesbaden: VS.

Kerres, M., and C. de Witt 2002. “Quo vadis Mediendidaktik?” Online-Zeitschrift Medienpädagogik 3(2).

KMK 1995. Medienpädagogik in der Schule. Bonn:  KMK.

———. 2004. Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften. Bonn: KMK.

Kubey, R. 1998. “Obstacles to the Development of Media Education in the United States.” Journal of Communication 48(1): 58-69.

Kultusministerium des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt, ed. 2000. Vorläufige Rahmenrichtlinien “Moderne Medienwelten”. Sekundarschule. Halle: Kultusministerium.

LKM 2008. Kompetenzorientiertes Konzept für die schulische Medienbildung. LKM-Positionspapier.

LSW ed. 1999. Lernen mit Neuen Medien. 4th edition. Bönen: Verlag für Schule und Weiterbildung.

Mandl, H., H. Gruber, and A. Renkl 2002. “Situiertes Lernen in multimedialen Lernumgebungen.”  In Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und Internet, ed. L. J. Issing and P. Klimsa, 139-149. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.

Martens, H. 2010. “Evaluating Media Literacy Education: Concepts, Theories and Future Directions. ”  Journal of Media Literacy Education 2(1): 1-22.

Marotzki, W., and B. Jörissen. 2008. “Medienbildung.”  In Handbuch Medienpädagogik, ed. U. Sander, F. von Gross, and K. U. Hugger, 100-109. Wiesbaden: VS.

MedienPerspektiven. 2010. Basisdaten: Daten zur Mediensituation in Deutschland 2010. Frankfurt a.M.: Media Perspektiven.

Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport, ed. 2004. Bildungsplan 2004. Allgemein bildendes Gymnasium. Stuttgart: Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport.

Ministerium für Bildung, Kultus und Wissenschaft, Saarland. 2006. Achtjähriges Gymnasium. Lehrplan Neue Medien. Saarbrücken: Ministerium für Bildung, Kultus und Wissenschaft.

Moser, H. 2006. “Standards für die Medienbildung.”  Computer + Unterricht 16(63):16-18 and 49-55.

mpfs 2010. JIM-Studie 2010. Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media. Stuttgart: mpfs.

———. 2011. JIM-Studie 2011. Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media. Stuttgart: mpfs.

NAMLE. 2007. “Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States.” http://namle.net/publications/core-principles

Niesyto, H., ed. 2003. VideoCulture. München: kopaed.

OECD. 2011. “PISA 2009 Results: Students onLine: Digital Technologies and Performance.”  (Volume VI). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264112995-en (accessed January 19, 2012)

Petko. D. 2011. “Praxisorientierte medienpädagogische Forschung.”  In Medienbildung und Medienkompetenz. ed. H. Moser, P. Grell, and H. Niesyto, 245-258. München: Kopäd.

Reinmann, G. 2007. “Wissen – Lernen – Medien: E-Learning und Wissensmanagement als medienpädagogische Aufgaben.”  In Medienpädagogik – Standortbestimmung einer erziehungswissenschaftlichen Disziplin, ed. W. Sesink, M. Kerres, and H. Moser, 179-197. Wiesbaden: VS.

Röll, F. J. 1998. Mythen und Symbole in populären Medien. Frankfurt a.M.: Gemeinschaftswerk der Evangelischen Publizistik.

Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Kultus, ed. 2004. Lehrpläne für das Gymnasium. Radebeul: Sächsisches Staatsinstitut für Bildung und Schulentwicklung.

Saettler, P. 2004. The Evolution of American Education Technology. Greenwich: IAP

Sander U., von Gross, F., and K. U. Hugger, ed. 2008. Handbuch Medienpädagogik. Wiesbaden: VS.

Schaumburg, H., and L. J. Issing. 2002. Lernen mit Laptops. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Scheibe, C. 2004. “A Deeper Sense of Literacy: Integrating Media Literacy Across the K-12 Curriculum.”  American Behavioral Scientist 48(1): 60-68.

Schorb, B. 1995. Medienalltag und Handeln. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Schulmeister, R. 2003. Lernplattformen für das virtuelle Lernen. München: Oldenbourg.

Schulz-Zander, R., and A. Preussler 2005. “Selbstreguliertes und kooperatives Lernen mit digitalen Medien.”  In Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 4, ed. B. Bachmaier, P. Diepold, and C. de Witt, 213-228. Wiesbaden: VS.

Sesink, W. 2007. “Bildung und Medium.”  In: Medienpädagogik – Standortbestimmung einer erziehungswissenschaftlichen Disziplin, ed. W. Sesink, W., M. Kerres, and H. Moser, 74-100. Wiesbaden: VS.

Spanhel, D. 2006. Medienerziehung. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta

Spanhel, D., and G. Tulodziecki 2001. “Rahmenkonzept für neue Medien im Lehramtsstudium: Basis- und Zusatzqualifikation.”  In Lehrerausbildung und neue Medien. Erfahrungen und Ergebnisse eines Hochschulnetzwerks, ed. U. Bentlage and I. Hamm, 9-25. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Spiro, R. et al. 2003. “Cognitive Flexibility Theory: Hypermedia for Complex Learning, Adaptive Knowledge Application, and Experience Acceleration.”  Educational Technology 43: 5-10.

Strittmatter, P. 1979. “Unterrichtswissenschaft — Wissenschaft für Unterricht? ”  Unterrichtswissenschaft (7)1: 13-23.

The Design-Based Research Collective 2003. “Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry.”  Educational Researcher 32(1): 5-8.

Thoman, E., and R. Hobbs. 2009. “The History of Media Literacy in the United States – A Timeline.”  http://www.xtimeline.com/timeline/History-of-Media-Literacy

Thüringer Kultusministerium, Ed. 1999. Medienkunde. Erfurt: Kultusministerium.

TYNER, K. 1991. “The Media Education Elephant.”  Strategies Quarterly Summer.

———.1998. Literacy in a Digital World. Mahwah/London: Erlbaum Associates.

———. 2007. “Media Literacy, Aims and Purposes of.”  In Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media. ed. J. Arnett. 523-525. London: Sage.

U.S. Department of Education. 2006. Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994–2005 – Highlights. Washington, DC.

Tulodziecki, G., Ed. 1977. Schulfernsehen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Köln: Verlagsgesellschaft Schulfernsehen

Tulodziecki, G. 1997. Medien in Erziehung und Bildung. 3rd edition. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

———. 1998. “Entwicklung von Medienkompetenz als Erziehungs- und Bildungsaufgabe.”  Pädagogische Rundschau 52(6): 693-709.

———. 1999. “Neue Medien – Welche Bedeutung haben sie für die Schule der Zukunft?”  In Multimedia: Chancen für die Schule, ed. D. M. Meister, and U. Sander, 20-34. Neuwied: Luchterhand.

———. 2005. “Zur Situation der Medienpädagogik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.”  Online-Zeitschrift MedienPädagogik 6(5): 1-44.

———. 2007. “Was Schülerinnen und Schüler im Medienbereich wissen und können sollen – Kompetenzmodell und Bildungsstandards für die Medienbildung.”  Medienimpulse 15(59): 24-35.

———. 2011a. Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung zentraler Begriffe bei der pädagogischen Auseinandersetzung mit Medien. Forthcoming in a collection of essays about a media literacy education conference which took place in Zürich in November 2010 (ed. H. Moser)

———. 2011b. “Medienpädagogische Kompetenz und Standards in der Lehrerbildung.”  Forthcoming in Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 9, ed. R. Schulz-Zander, and B. Eickelmann. Wiesbaden: VS.

———. 2011c. “Kompetenz und/ oder Bildung.”  In Kompetenzorientierung in Schule und Lehrerbildung aus der Perspektive der Bildungspolitik, der Bildungsforschung und der Mathematik-Didaktik. ed. K. Eilerts et al., 53-70. Münster: Lit.

Tulodziecki, G., and S. Grafe. 2012. Forthcoming. “Competence Model and Standards for Media Education.”  Esenanza & Teaching 29

Tulodziecki, G., and B. Herzig 1998. Praxis- und theorieorientierte Entwicklung und Evaluation von Konzepten für pädagogisches Handeln. Paderborn: Universität, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft.

Tulodziecki, G., B. Herzig, and S. Blömeke. 2009. Gestaltung von Unterricht. 2nd edition. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt/ UTB.

Tulodziecki, G., B. Herzig, and S. Grafe. 2010. Medienbildung in Schule und Unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt/ UTB.

Tulodziecki, G., U. Six et al. 2000. Medienerziehung in der Grundschule. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Wagner, W.R. 2008. Medienbildung im Rahmen von Bildungsstandards und Kerncurricula. 2nd edition. Hannover: NiLS.

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

Media Literacy Education and Politics

Despite the efforts made by the media literacy movement in the U.S. to institute media education as a means of addressing social issues, there still exists the potential for a more politically empowering media literacy education. While media literacy scholars and practitioners’ avoidance of adopting particular political or social agendas is understandable, others have noted that while an apolitical media literacy curriculum might be easier to pitch to schools and parents, this approach is ultimately inadequate at addressing problems that plague modern society (Lewis and Jhally 1998; Kellner and Share 2005, 2007). This paper argues that by reexamining the foundational philosophies of Plato and John Dewey, tracing the development of their ideas in contemporary social theory and media scholarship, and identifying their application in media literacy scholarship, we may be able to create a media literacy education that more effectively confronts injustice and promotes social change. I call this process the ‘re-politicization of media literacy education’ because I argue that at the heart of the philosophies of Plato and Dewey, from which current approaches to media education commonly draw, is a commitment to the creation of a just society through critical civic engagement.

Plato

The writings of Plato, describing the dialogues engaged in by the Greek philosopher Socrates, account for some of the most foundational theoretical principles underlying Western thought in general, and the fields of communication and education in particular. To distill the entirety of Plato’s philosophical work into a few key concepts is inevitably inadequate. But for the purposes of this paper, I have identified some salient themes from some of Plato’s most well-known writings in an effort to identify how his discussions of communication and education correspond with issues of political participation. I argue that utilizing Plato’s discussions of (1) communication media enabling (or disabling) philosophical discourse and (2) communication as a potential means of oppression and education as a means of overcoming that oppression, as theoretical foundations for contemporary media studies and media literacy scholarship may increase the efficacy of media education in encouraging and preparing communities to engage in social change efforts.

Probably most evident in the content of Socrates’ dialogue with Phaedrus—but demonstrated in the conversation format of all of Plato’s writings—is his valuing of oral over written communication.  Citing Egyptian mythology, Socrates debates Phaedrus on the potential dangers of replacing dialectic with rhetoric:

I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing is unfortunately like painting; for the creations of the painter have the attitude of life, a solemn silence. And the same may be said of speeches. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if you want to know anything and put a question to one of them, the speaker always gives one unvarying answer. (Plato 47)

At the heart of Plato’s argument is the limiting nature of a static statement—in speech or in writing—on the potential for arriving at truth. This, then accounts for the organization of Socrates’ philosophical arguments, contrived as they sometimes may seem, in the form of dialogues. Among Socrates’—and Plato’s by implication—apprehensions about the adoption of written communication is that it “will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves” (Plato 46). And this argument provides a foundation for contemporary discussions of communication media. In abandoning oral for written culture, Plato fears that the most effective means, in his opinion, of acquiring knowledge and arriving at truth will be lost. And it is this pursuit of truth at the core of any human activity—poetry, oration, and probably most importantly, legislation—that ultimately provides it with any value.

Now this celebration of particular modes of communication is something that can also be found in contemporary discussions of mass media. Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan, both prominent media scholars, share a similar position as that voiced by Socrates in his discussion with Phaedrus. They attempt to identify how emerging communication technologies, specifically that of television, may influence human comprehension, philosophical discourse, and social and political participation. Interestingly though, the traditional means of communication that they defend is the very written culture that Socrates attacks. McLuhan’s emphasis of the medium as the message is evident in his own analysis of Plato’s writing:

Socrates stood on the border between that oral world and the visual and literate culture. But he wrote nothing. The Middle Ages regarded Plato as the mere scribe or amanuensis of Socrates. And Aquinas considered that neither Socrates nor Our Lord committed their teaching to writing because the kind of interplay of minds that is in teaching is not possible by means of writing. (McLuhan 1962, 23)

Here McLuhan discusses the historical debate, from Socrates to Aquinas, over the value of literacy. Now ultimately, while encouraging awareness of the medium’s importance, McLuhan—most especially in his discussion of the ‘global village’—champions contemporary communication technology as a means of enabling social cohesion and global peace. Postman, while also citing Plato in his discussion of the role of the medium in cognition, culture, and society, comes to the opposite conclusion. He argues that because of the popularization of televisual communication,

Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice. The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death. (Postman 1985, 3-4)

Postman clearly values written over televisual communication and is fearful that such a shift in the dominant mode of mass communication will negatively effect every aspect of our society. And due to Postman’s alarmism (and Plato’s before that), this technological determinist argument has gained popularity.

It is no wonder, then, that among the first efforts to promote media literacy was what is now commonly designated as the ‘protectionist approach.’ Scholars like Bob McCannon, Erica Austin and Kristine Johnson, Smita Banerjee and Kathryn Greene, Sahara Byrne, and Bruce Pinkleton are influenced by Postman to create media education curriculums with the objective of mitigating the perceived negative effects of media consumption on (particularly children’s) attitudes and behaviors. These initiatives stress a media effects paradigm that positions consumers as passive victims of violent, consumerist or otherwise socially undesirable media and positions education as the primary measure to prevent antisocial behaviors, rabid consumption and the loss of traditionally held values. Now while the motives for and efficacy of such media literacy initiatives are up for debate, I argue that it is evident that the politics of both Plato and Postman’s arguments are under-emphasized. Rather than understanding media as (in part) constituting culture and society, the protectionist approach views media as antagonistic to ‘literary culture’ or ‘traditional values.’ And because of this flawed understanding, emphasis is placed on the perceived negative effects of media on individual attitudes and behaviors rather than the complexities of media’s relationship with social institutions, relations and practices (including politics). So, a re-politicized media literacy education would not only recognize the role of the medium in the nature and content of communication, but would also confront how this then determines the nature and content of social relations, political perspectives and practices.

Plato’s most commonly recognized philosophical argument is perhaps that of the allegory of the cave. In a few words, Plato’s allegory consists of a number of prisoners chained down in a dark cave and forced to view the shadows of figures on the cave wall.

They’ve been there since childhood, fixed in the same place, with their necks and legs fettered, able to see only in front of them, because their bonds prevent them from turning their heads around. (Plato, in Cohen 504)

If a prisoner were to escape his bondage, he would struggle accepting the reality of his new environment, but newly enlightened, would be obligated to lead his former fellow captives to freedom. Plato’s narrative of slavery may function as a metaphor in which the mass is ignorant of the truth and the escaped prisoner (the philosopher) is compelled to lead the quest for truth. Now, undoubtedly the means of imprisonment are symbolic of many aspects of society that inhibit philosophical discourse, but I argue that among these is that of mass communication. This indictment of communication to the masses helps contextualize a statement made by Socrates in his discussion with Gorgias:  “What cosmetics is to gymnastics, sophistry is to legislation, and what pastry baking is to medicine, oratory is to justice” (Plato, in Richter 184) Here, Plato emphasizes the role of oratory in falsely contributing to social justice.

The argument that mass communication—whether it be oration, print, or film—inhibits justice is further developed by a number of social theorists and media scholars, but probably most notably by the Frankfurt School. Including a number of German critical theorists, the Frankfurt School engages in a Marxian cultural critique that holds as one of its primary theses the argument that the growth of capitalism has made possible the complete cooptation and commoditization of culture for the purpose of perpetuating oppressive ideology among the public. And despite the obvious disparity between the philosophical perspectives of Plato and the Frankfurt School, this ‘culture industry’–first identified in Horkheimer and Adorno’s work Dialectic of Enlightenment–interestingly resembles the enslavement in Plato’s cave. Like Plato’s allegory, the culture industry thesis emphasizes the social construction of false consciousness as a means of perpetuating injustice. And like Plato’s philosopher who endeavors to liberate the captives by “go[ing] down again to the prisoners in the cave and share their labors and honors,” the intellectual is obligated to work toward the “awakening of the subject” (Plato, in Cohen 509; Horkheimer and Adorno 1967, 5).

The correlation I make between that of Plato’s cave and culture industry is, admittedly, forced to some extent. But I argue that the correlations between the discussions of education—in Plato’s allegory of the cave and the work of the Frankfurt School—legitimize such a comparison. After sharing his allegory, Plato expounds upon the application of the narrative in the construction of the Republic, and interestingly, he identifies education as the means by which the deliverance and subsequent governance of the cave-dwellers will be accomplished. He writes

The power to learn is present in everyone’s soul and that the instrument with which each learns is like an eye that cannot be turned around from darkness to light without turning the whole body…Then education is the craft concerned with doing this very thing, this turning around. (Plato, in Cohen 508)

Education, then, requires the philosopher to facilitate a reawakening of critical thought and a shifting of perspective in the public. Now, this conception of education as the means of escape from mental slavery is, almost eerily, echoed in the work of the Frankfurt School. Quoting Rudolf Borchardt, Walter Benjamin articulates his own conception of revolutionary pedagogy: “To educate the image-making medium within us, raising it to a stereoscopic and dimensional seeing into the depths of historical shadows” (Rudolf Borchardt, in Benjamin 1999, 458). Then, Benjamin’s work—representative here of the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School—shares Plato’s vision for education, even to the extent of employing the same metaphorical language. And it is by this education that both Plato and Benjamin see the establishment of a just society:

Thus, for you and for us, the city will be governed, not like the majority of cities nowadays, by people who fight over shadows and struggle against one another in order to rule—as if that were a great good—but by people who are awake rather than dreaming… (Plato, in Cohen 509)

Now, I argue that media literacy scholarship—in its emphasis of the cultivation of critical analytical skills applied to media institutions, texts, and audiences—commonly draws upon the culture industry thesis, but does so often without citing the work of the Frankfurt School. Interestingly though, Plato’s allegory of the cave is commonly used in media literacy curriculums, and it is no wonder—the visual of a crowd watching flickering images of a supposed reality on the wall of a dark room almost exactly prefigures the contemporary cinematic experience. Issues of power, ownership, ideology, and citizenship—evident in both Plato and the Frankfurt School—comprise part of the media analysis emphasized in many media literacy initiatives. Renee Hobbs, Paul Mihailidis, and Henry Jenkins, among others, have recently published reports that emphasize the potential for media literacy to function as a means of civic education and encourage active citizenship among young people (Hobbs 2010; Mihailidis 2009; Jenkins et al. 2006). But arguably the work that most effectively draws upon the work of these philosophical discussions of power, communication and education is that of Douglas Kellner and Jeff Share. They respond ambivalently to the uncritical and depoliticized character of today’s media literacy movements and seek to establish a critical media literacy that emphasizes more than conscious consumption or cookie-cutter citizenship.

Critical media literacy offers the tools and framework to help students become subjects in the process of deconstructing injustices, expressing their own voices, and struggling to create a better society. (Kellner and Share 2005, 19-20)

A re-politicized media literacy education goes beyond deconstructing texts and, as stated by Kellner and Share, “deconstructs injustice.” It would not only encourage civic engagement but informed social activism. And a re-politicized media literacy education would not only pay attention to issues of power between media producers and consumers, but would also encourage the development of critical consciousness and engagement in transformative politics.

John Dewey

Drawing upon some of the educational philosophy introduced by Plato, John Dewey—possibly the most influential American educator and social theorist—also makes substantive arguments about the role of education in political participation. I have identified a few fundamental principles in Dewey’s philosophy of education that are particularly relevant to this project. First, according to Dewey, democracy will only be effectively realized if education—in both form and content—is conscious of its role in preparing individuals for political participation. In fact, according to Dewey, this relationship between democracy and education is almost self-evident. In his book Democracy and Education, he writes:

The devotion of democracy to education is a familiar fact. The superficial explanation is that a government resting upon popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated. (Dewey 1916, 101)

Democracy’s success relies on the citizenry’s ability to determine the public interest, select governors and determine policies that will realize this interest, and then live in accordance with this interest. But Dewey extends his argument further, noting that it is insufficient to come to any consensus; rather, the public interest must necessarily be ‘good.’ And education’s role is the transmission of this ‘best interest’ to future generations.

As a society becomes more enlightened, it realizes that it is responsible not to transmit and conserve the whole of its existing achievements, but only such as make for a better future society. The school is its chief agency for the accomplishment of this end. (24)

So, an essential part of Dewey’s education would not only include the dissemination of information—perhaps that of public discourse or parliamentary procedure, economic relations or international regulations—that would enable individuals to participate in democracy as informed citizens, but also the moral instruction of beings—perhaps that of recognizing and challenging injustice.

If Dewey is the first among the most influential philosophers of education, Paulo Freire cannot be far behind. And interestingly, Freire—a Brazilan educator and social activist—is able to take some of the principles that Dewey introduces and apply them in a radically different context. Like Dewey, Freire sees ‘critical pedagogy’—that is education with the aim of social justice—as essential to effective democracy. Most significantly in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire emphasizes the development of ‘conscientizacao,’ roughly translated as ‘critical consciousness,’ as one of the primary objectives of education. He writes

The central problem is this: How can the oppressed, as divided, unauthentic beings, participate in developing the pedagogy of their liberation?…The pedagogy of the oppressed is an instrument for their critical discovery that both they and their oppressors are manifestations of dehumanization. (Freire 1970, 48)

Like Dewey, Freire recognizes the necessity of an education that prepares its students to realize the public good, in this case, the humanization of all members of society. And explicit within Freire’s education is the idea that in order to achieve such humanization, students must participate in transformative social change. In their development of ‘conscientizacao,’ they “must perceive the reality of oppression not as a closed world from which there is no exit, but as a limiting situation which they can transform” (49). Critical pedagogy, then, enlightens its students to the inequities of the society in which they live, enables them to envision a society free of those inequities, and encourages them to participate in the achievement of such society.

Influenced by both the work of Dewey and Freire, contemporary media literacy scholarship does, to some extent, recognize the role of media education in political preparation. In the National Association of Media Literacy Education’s “Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States,” this correlation is made clear: “Media Literacy Education develops informed, reflective and engaged participants essential for a democratic society” (NAMLE 2007, 5) By encouraging students to “question textual authority and use reasoning to reach autonomous decisions,” media literacy movements like NAMLE intend to use media analysis and production as a playground for developing skills that may later be applied in the students’ civic engagement. Ultimately though, I argue that this approach is insufficient in realizing Dewey’s “better future society” in that it shies away from the development of a true conscientizacao. Media literacy education may function as a means of preparing students for citizenship, but not necessarily for mobilizing them to challenge injustice or inequality. In her famed essay on the “7 Great Debates of the Media Literacy Movement,” Renee Hobbs makes this clear:

This agenda is radical enough, without adding additional baggage associated with other explicitly formulated political or social change objectives…Additional political or social change goals may be unlikely to be accepted in the decentralized, politically divided, and community-centered context of mainstream public education. (Hobbs 1998, 23)

Hobbs, representative here of popular media literacy movements in the U.S., is reluctant to fully employ the philosophies of education forwarded by Dewey and Freire for fear that an explicitly political education would may alienate potential sponsors, practitioners, and participants with diverse political orientations.  Now, I argue that while a re-politicized media literacy education may avoid partisan politics, it would definitely not shun its potential in preparing students for meaningful political participation. And a re-politicized media literacy education would not only recognize the connection between successful democracy and political and moral education, but it would also draw attention to the responsibility of that education to address injustice and inequality.

Lastly, Dewey’s discussions of education emphasize not only the transmission of values—like that of overcoming oppression—but perhaps more importantly, stress the importance of an active learning process as the means of effectively achieving that end. Not only must students learn principles that will guide their participation in democracy, but they must also learn those principles in ways that will prepare them for such participation. So among other things, Dewey stresses the importance of an active learning process. The traditional model of education of inscribing information and values on the blank slates of the students’ minds is insufficient: “This static, cold-storage ideal of knowledge is inimical to educational development,” (Dewey 1916, 186). For students to learn to govern themselves in a democracy, they must participate in the learning process—evaluate information, make arguments, and come to conclusions—and the passive role of students in traditional education does not allow for such participation. The result is, then, that students in the classroom and citizens in society are incapable of independently arriving at solutions to problems.

Most objectionable of all is the probability that others, the book or the teacher, will supply solutions ready-made, instead of giving material that the student has to adapt and apply to the question in hand for himself. (185)

Here, Dewey underlines not only the content of education but also its form in contributing to the success of democracy.

This concept of active learning is further developed in the ‘democratic education’ and ‘critical pedagogy’ of Freire and later Stanley Arnowitz and Henry Giroux. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire emphasizes a reorganization of traditional relations between teachers and students. Rather than passive students being force-fed information and values from an authoritarian schoolmaster, Freire argues for the development of “teacher-students” and “student-teachers.” In this reconceptualization of the classroom,

The teacher is no longer merely the one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. (Freire 1970, 80)

Democratic education uses the classroom as a microcosm for society, and encourages interactions among students and teachers that mirror ideal relations among the public and governmental authorities.

This revision of traditional education is further developed in the work of Arnowitz and Giroux. In Postmodern Education, they heavily emphasize the role of not only rethinking relations in the classroom, giving the students more of a voice in their own learning, but also legitimizing the knowledge that traditional education has excluded but on which the students are often experts. Oftentimes, Arnowitz and Giroux argue, the authority in schools is comprised of not solely the teacher, but also the canon of knowledge that traditional education holds up as legitimate. In response to this anti-democratic hierarchy of knowledge, they argue that

popular knowledge, even if it does not possess the same apparatus of inquiry that has marked legitimate academic knowledge, is nevertheless a form of intellectual knowledge. Jazz buffs, rock music fans, and those who closely follow various professional and college sports are required to abstract from the particular to find commensurable and incommensurable features of various genres within their fields. The degrees of specialization that mark the discourses of popular culture are no more parochial than those of academic disciplines. (Arnowitz and Giroux 1991, 18)

They do not argue for a replacement of so-called ‘legitimate’ intellectual knowledge with trivia, but they encourage educators to simply acknowledge the students’ knowledge of popular culture as not wholly inconsequential. A postmodern education would then confront the anti-democratic consequences of learning that discourages active participation of students, of rigid authoritarian relations that place teachers in domination over their students, and of the hierarchy of canonical thought over popular culture.

Efforts have been made among contemporary media literacy initiatives to institute educational reform and rethink the form and content of education to meet the needs of a successful democratic society. Curricula that emphasize media analysis and production are designed to empower students, encouraging them to evaluate the media they consume using the critical capacities they develop and then to participate in the creation of media according to the principles that they have determined to be important (some great examples include the Educational Video Center in New York City, the Youth as Public Intellectuals project in San Francisco, the Social Justice Education Project in Tucson, and national and international efforts like Youth Radio and the Global Action Project). The fact that classrooms in which media literacy is being taught often resemble workshops is also not incidental. Here, students engaged in media production are more self-directed, and the teacher functions to facilitate learning and growth. And lastly, the fact that media literacy takes on the task of making sense of the mass media perfectly corresponds with the legitimization of popular culture as worthy of analysis.

A particular example of this effort is found in Henry Jenkins’ scholarship on fandom and political participation. Jenkins (2006a, 2006b) argues that in fan communities, individuals are motivated by their love of a particular piece of popular culture to engage in public discourse, create communities that bridge individual differences, and often use these communities to organize efforts for social change. And regardless of the fact that they center on Harry Potter or Star Trek, these communities are a place in which new models of social interaction and political participation may develop. I think that this understanding of fan communities as ‘cultural public spheres’ in which people’s engagement in popular culture may potentially generate new political perspectives and practices is promising. A re-politicized media literacy education would not only encourage active learning and restructure classroom relations, but it would also value popular culture as a site of developing new methods of political participation.

Application

As previously mentioned, a few media literacy scholars have recently made efforts to emphasize media literacy education’s potential for civic education. By acknowledging the efforts of these scholars, conceiving a media literacy education with Plato, Dewey and other thinkers’ critical political education in mind, and then envisioning a media literacy initiative with social activism as its primary objective, I hope to start a conversation about the possibility for and potential of a re-politicized media literacy education.

Again, recently some scholars within the media literacy movements have called for greater focus of civic education as part of media education. Rather than solely prepare students to become critical consumers and producers of media, these media literacy efforts should also prepare students to become informed, engaged citizens. For example, in her 2010 white paper, “Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action,” Renee Hobbs acknowledges that while the media literacy movement may not adopt a specific political or social agenda, successful media education may encourage social transformation. She writes:

When people have digital and media literacy competencies, they recognize personal, corporate and political agendas and are empowered to speak out on behalf of the missing voices and omitted perspectives in our communities. By identifying and attempting to solve problems, people use their powerful voices and their rights under the law to improve the world around them. (Hobbs 2010, 17)

And Paul Mihailidis’s report “Media Literacy: Empowering Youth Worldwide” concludes with some guidelines for future media education efforts, among them a re-politicized media literacy education:

Successful media literacy programs are a way to combat social problems and human injustices, such as finding ways to use media literacy as a tool for human rights. (Mihailidis 2009, 24)

The emphasis of media literacy education as a means of social transformation evident in these statements, among others, by leaders in the field provides some momentum for further efforts to create a re-politicized media literacy education, mine included.

A re-politicized media literacy curriculum—informed by the work of Plato, Dewey, Freire, the Frankfurt School, Arnowitz, Giroux, Kellner, Share and others—would place student involvement in positive social change as its primary objective. The following sketch of such a media literacy curriculum is just the beginning of a conversation. And especially given that such a program has not been practically implemented, let alone assessed, the following framework should not be interpreted as a solid criteria for an effective social-activism-oriented media literacy initiative. That being said, I imagine a re-politicized media literacy initiative as addressing the following points:

• Objective. Students’ exercise of critical thinking and acquisition of media analysis and production skills are staples to existing approaches to media education, as is the understanding that media both are produced by and contribute to larger social, cultural, economic and political relations. Key, though, is seeing critical thinking, media analysis and production as not an end in itself, but as skills and perspectives necessary to address social injustices, cultural crises, economic problems, and political divisions.
• Pedagogy. Efforts to democratize the classroom and legitimize students’ knowledge and experience are already aspects of media literacy education. Key, though, is finding an approach to learning that encourages students to be self-directed in identifying social issues that interest or affect them, gaining an informed opinion about these issues using media analysis, and engaging with these issues through media production. I think that the Youth Participatory Action Research approach is a particularly interesting and potentially effective means of integrating media education with critical civic engagement, in a way that empowers students to identify, analyze, and address problems facing their own communities.
• Context. The location for media literacy education is variable—it can take place in a high school or undergraduate level course, an after-school program, a public library or museum-sponsored initiative or a privately-operated ‘camp.’ Key, though, is the acknowledgement of context. Students and teachers should discuss how, for example, institutional structures and guidelines, the program’s time and place, available resources, classroom dynamics, and representation of diverse perspectives and experiences influence their engagement in these issues of media and society.
• Content. Media literacy curricula are flexible. Existing initiatives commonly address different types of media content (entertainment, journalism, advertising), media channels or modes (television, radio, internet), formal elements (sound, visuals, text), and/or methods of media analysis (political-economic, feminist, critical theoretical). Key, though, is that student learning is comprehensive—including media institutions, messages and audiences—and that these discussions of media are contextualized within larger discussions of culture and society, economics and politics.Product. Final projects often include student-produced PSAs or digital stories, documentaries or personal inventories. Effective projects would require students to develop new media production skills, to apply their critical thinking skills used in their research to the creation of this text, to account for the anticipated impact of the medium, mode, form, and content of their creation, and to engage with not only the perspectives voiced in the discourse relating to their issue but the people (preferably in their own community) who are voicing these perspectives. Key, though, is not that students use their newly acquired critical thinking, media analysis and production skills to solve a problem plaguing society, but that their project empowers them to engage with such problems in the future.
• Evaluation. New approaches to evaluating the relative merit of media education programs, using both qualitative and quantitative data collection, are constantly being developed. Key, though, is critical self-reflection. Students and teachers should be engaged constantly (not just at the project’s conclusion) in a conversation about successes they experience and challenges they face, new information they discover and understandings they develop.

Again, this framework is by no means an exhaustive list of necessary characteristics of a re-politicized media literacy education curriculum. But I see some potential in an activism-oriented program as the means of using media education to encourage young people to be more informed, critical, and concerned with social issues that matter to them.

Conclusion

Given current media literacy scholars’ efforts to address social issues, there still exists the opportunity for a more critical, political media literacy education. By returning to the foundational philosophies of Plato and John Dewey, tracing the influence of their ideas in contemporary social theory and media scholarship, and identifying their application in media literacy scholarship, we may be able to re-politicize media literacy education. And by building on recent efforts to emphasize media education’s potential to encourage informed, engaged citizenship, we can envision and implement activist-oriented media literacy initiatives in an effort to confront injustice and promote positive social change.

Works Cited

Arnowitz, S. and Giroux, H. 1991. Postmodern Education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Benjamin, W. 1999. The Arcades Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.

Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Hobbs, R. 1998. “The Seven Great Debates in the Media Literacy Movement.” Journal of Communication, 48 (1).

———. 2010. Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. The Aspen Institute. http://www.knightcomm.org/digital-and-media-literacy/

Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. 1967. Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Jenkins, H., K. Clinton, R. Purushotma, A. Robison, and M. Weigel. 2006. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21^st century. Retrieved from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation website: http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Kellner, D. and Share, J. 2005. “Toward Critical Media Literacy: Core Concepts, Debates, Organizations and Policy.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26 (3).

McLuhan, M. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of the Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mihailidis, P. 2009. Media Literacy: Empowering Youth Worldwide. Retrieved from the Center for International Media Assistance website: http://cima.ned.org/sites/default/files/CIMA-Media_Literacy_Youth-Report.pdf

National Association of Media Literacy Education. 2007. “The Core Principles of Media Literacy Education in the United States.” http://namle.net/publications/core-principles/

Plato. Gorgias. In The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Third Edition. Ed. David H. Richter. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007.

Plato. Phaedrus. In The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2001.

Plato. The Republic. In Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: From Thales to Aristotle. Third Edition. Eds. S. Marc Cohen et al. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2005.

Postman, N. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Books.

Research for Action, Philadelphia, PA, USA

mentored by Rhys Daunic

The Media Spot, Brooklyn, NY, USA

“If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.” – John Dewey

Today’s youth are failing to meet measures of traditional literacy, but  they are quickly and easily acquiring skills using new tools for communication. Several national surveys show a striking picture of adolescent literacy in the U.S. today:

• 24% of high school seniors tested at or above proficient in writing (NCES 2007);
• 38% of high school seniors tested at or above proficient in reading (NCES 2009);
• 85% of teens use new forms of communication, like text messaging, at least occasionally (Lenhart et al. 2008, ii);
• “Teens tend to uphold traditional definitions of writing such that the socially oriented writing they do using electronic devices is considered ‘communication’ (and not ‘writing’) even though it is text-based” (Lenhart et al. 2008, 3).

These results indicate that many youth today fail in traditional measures of literacy, but participate in new forms of communication, and see those worlds of “literacy” and “communication” as completely separate from one another.

Given this situation, many have called for an “increased use of standardized reading and writing tests [that] continue to perpetuate a focus on teaching print literacies, at the expense of teaching media/digital literacies” (Beach and Baker 2011). Like many students, educators also tend to view literacy and communication as separate skill sets, so schools emphasize the testing regulations and demands focused on traditional literacy. As a result, today’s educational environment is moving away from the inclusion of media literacy education in academic literacy instruction even though youth need media literacy skills at an ever-increasing rate.

Today’s society is bombarded with messages in different forms of media, and although young people are increasingly able to use these new forms of communication with ease, they do not necessarily have the abilities to fully analyze and evaluate media messages (Beach and Baker 2011); that is to say that they are not necessarily media literate. Media literacy, the abilities “to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate information in a variety of forms” (NAMLE), is necessary to help people understand the information presented to them and make informed decisions. However, despite decades of work to include media literacy education in academic learning (Hobbs and Jensen 2009), American education continues to emphasize its focus on testing of traditional literacy. While there must be continued efforts to teach new literacies in mainstream education, it is also crucial for educators to understand how traditional literacies can be supported by media literacy in ways that meet the demands of today’s high-stakes testing environment. This article strives to do just that: detail key links between literacy in its most traditional sense and how people are reading and writing in the 21^st century so educators can immediately help learners build media literacy skills while developing traditionally tested skills and critical thinking abilities demanded in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative.

After a year of qualitative research at two out-of-school media literacy programs for adolescents in the Philadelphia area, I identified important connections between these two generations of literacy.  Based on the experiences and understandings of the youth participants in the programs, these links include:

1. Media literacy as a gateway to more frequent use and practice of traditional literacy;
2. Media production as a method to build on traditional writing skills; and
3. Analysis of media as a way to enhance traditional critical reading skills.

These findings will be explained in more detail after positioning them within my larger research context. First, this research must be situated within the larger body of media literacy education research. Second, there are several key assumptions about learning and literacies that informed this work. Finally, the research took place at two specific sites, The Philadelphia Student Union and Chester Voices for Change, each of which sets a particular context for an examination of literacy. With these understandings in place, the research findings and implications for how educators can use them to make immediate changes will be discussed.

Media Education as a Tool for Literacy Learning

There is already extensive evidence of how media can be used as a tool for students to learn traditional literacies. Throughout its history, media literacy education has emphasized using media to engage students in academic learning (Considine, Horton, and Moorman 2009; Hobbs and Yoon 2008; Hobbs and Jensen 2009; Barrance 2010). In addition, examinations of the connections between new and traditional literacies are becoming increasingly common (Alvermann 2002; Moje, Overby, Tysvaer, and Morris 2008; Hobbs 2010; Gainer and Lapp 2010; Buckingham 2003). However, despite the extensive literature available on these two topics, I will argue that today’s learners need help making the connections between new and traditional literacies. Educators must better support students by explicitly linking literacies while actively working to incorporate media literacy into today’s educational context. This will help learners to engage and see the importance of both forms of literacy in today’s society.

For a number of educators, a main reason to teach media literacy is to motivate reluctant learners in academic learning. Considine, Horton, and Moorman (2009) explain that engaging curricula involve and respect students’ existing interests and that the use of media helps to connect students to the content. Similarly, a recent publication from the British Film Institute said that film is being used to re-engage and motivate learners with more frequency (Barrance 2010, 2). This use of media in education seems to stem from a “longstanding and widespread argument … about the need for education to be relevant to the lived cultural experience of students with mass media and popular culture” (Hobbs and Jensen 2009, 5). However, as Hobbs (2010) explains, “Although educators know that motivation and engagement are enhanced when mass media, popular culture and digital media and technology are incorporated into learning, this is not (and should not be) the sole rationale for implementing digital and media literacy into the curriculum” (31). Indeed, there is further evidence that media literacy can help students learn traditional literacies. In a review of research about literacy development in out-of-school programs, Moje and Tysvaer (2010) note that youth who use literacy outside of school appear to have “high levels of proficiency in reading and writing sophisticated texts, even among youth identified as ‘struggling’ in school” (39). Furthermore, Hobbs (2010) notes that good media literacy instruction “can support the acquisition of literacy competencies including comprehension, inference-making, analysis and predication. Concepts like audience, purpose, and point of view must be applied to messages from digital media and popular culture as well as printed texts” (31).

As such there are connections between out-of-school literate practices and traditional academic literacy skills, but given that 60% of teens do not see new forms of communication as writing (Lenhart et al. 2008, 24), the links between new and traditional literacies have yet to be established for the majority of learners today. As Elyse Eidman-Aadahl, director of national programs and site development at the National Writing Project, said, “We know that students often don’t make connections between the writing and publishing they do on their own and their work in schools. So that’s a connection we [as educators] need to help them make” (Live web chat, April 4, 2011). Clear, specific links between traditional literacy and the new literacies students use in their lives outside of school must be made by educators to help youth use their existing knowledge to be prepared as effective communicators and critical thinkers in the 21st century. To support students’ learning and help them master multiple literacies, this study highlights existing connections so educators can recognize the links and better support learners to connect multiple literacies in today’s educational environment.

Key Assumptions

In order to fully contextualize my work, there are five key assumptions that must be explained because they greatly inform my understanding of and approach to examining the learning of new and traditional literacies.

Assumption: Literacy is about the communication of ideas.

At its core, I understand literacy to be about communicating. Defining literacy as reading and writing in a strictly traditional sense limits our understanding of how ideas and information can be conveyed to an audience. Writing shares ideas and reading allows people to understand information. Recognizing reading, writing, and literacy as ways to communicate and share with others allows for changes in the specific methods of sharing. People’s ways of gathering information, distributing ideas, and answering questions are shifting, as evidenced by the 85% of teens who used electronic communication in 2008 (Lenhart et al. 2008, ii). These shifts in communication create new ways of using literacy, and media literacy is one logical extension of our fundamental definition of literacy.

Assumption: Schools today tend to emphasize traditional literacy.

In the United States, measures of academic learning in reading and writing are focused on more traditional definitions of literacy. State examinations and most literacy-related assignments in schools emphasize reading and writing in print form, and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) initiative highlights the essential parts of this traditional literacy. The CCSS include vital literate practices like being able to understand words in context and use evidence to support arguments, but the standards also emphasize what is at the core of literacy – what is important for students to learn now and in the future. In recognizing the CCSS as standards that measure traditional literacy while offering guidelines for the future, I offer connections to the CCSS throughout my findings as ways to demonstrate the connections between new and traditional literacies and to help teachers find ways to incorporate and justify media literacy in schools that are currently focused on traditional literacy.

Assumption: Thoughtful writing is a process.

Although it is not the same for everyone, I believe that all writing is a process. Most often, this process involves brainstorming, researching, drafting, revising, sharing, editing, and producing a final product, but the order, timing, and route between stages can change from person to person or from product to product. Although some communications do not follow this process, I assume that thoughtful writing with details, explanations, and organization requires the author to go through a writing process. This is the quality of writing that is most often valued in schools and jobs because it demonstrates careful thought and analysis, and as such, I use this idea of a writing process as an important aspect of literacy learning and media production.

Assumption: Learning occurs within a community.

Informed by the work of Lave and Wenger (1991), I think that true learning happens when learners are part of a community of practice. True learning is when a student fully engages, practices, and masters a skill, set of knowledge, or practice—the kind of learning that leads people to remember, use, and build knowledge. I believe real learning happens in communities with specific goals and ways of communicating, which newcomers must learn and practice as they join the group. Within the community, there are experienced members or experts who teach new members how to participate in the group through a sort of apprenticeship. These experts lead by example and provide feedback to students before stepping away to allow the apprentice to become a new expert. As such, I approached this study by viewing both of my research sites as communities of practice, and I tried to identify how each community interacted and apprenticed new members into the group.

Assumption: Learners are active producers of content and knowledge.

Finally, I also firmly believe that learners are producers. This is closely tied to the idea of a community of practice, which asserts that new members actively contribute to the production of the community through their increased involvement. Moving beyond this, I believe that students are producers of culture and knowledge. Rather than seeing learners as empty vessels to fill with knowledge, I contend that students and teachers create knowledge and learning together and that learners play a key role in that process. Because youth in this study are producers of media as well as contributing producers in their communities of practice and, at a larger scale, makers of youth culture, I often refer to them as “young producers” to recognize them and their power as creators.

The Study

As a Stoneleigh Junior Fellow[1] at Research for Action[2] in Philadelphia, I spent a year researching how urban youth learn during out-of-school media literacy programs. This qualitative research was conducted at the Philadelphia Student Union (PSU)[3] and Chester Voices for Change (VFC)[4], with observations and interviews conducted within the programs. These case studies took place from the summer of 2010 through the winter of 2011. Although both sites involved adolescents in media literacy education programs outside of school, they were distinct from one another and required slightly different research methods, which will be explained in more detail.

Research Sites

The Philadelphia Student Union is a youth organizing group that has worked for improvements in the city’s public education system since 1995. A youth-led organization, PSU’s workshops, trainings, campaigns, and actions are organized and carried out by young people from across the city. PSU members, primarily high school students, collaborate to improve education by organizing around issues like nonviolent schools and funding equity. PSU teaches media literacy to members as part of its organizing work. This includes opportunities for critical analysis of media and media production. With several hundred members in the whole organization, PSU has youth-produced written journalism, music, video, and radio. My research followed PSU’s radio program, On Blast, which has an online podcast[5] and a live radio show on a local low-power radio station.

Voices for Change started in 2009 in Chester, Pennsylvania, a city about 15 miles southwest of Philadelphia where youth also face issues connected to poverty and failing public schools. I founded and led VFC while pursuing undergraduate studies at Swarthmore College, running it first as a six-week summer program in 2009 and later as an afterschool program twice a week in the fall of 2010. In my role at VFC, I worked as the primary instructor with a small number of volunteer college instructors and local middle and high school participants. There were 10 members in 2009 and five in 2010. In both versions, VFC participants worked together to write, act in, film, produce, and edit their own short film based on teen issues.[6] The program’s main focus was to foster positive youth development through media literacy, specifically through the use of video production.

Research Methods

This work is based on qualitative research involving two case studies and some cross-case analysis. Each case study required slightly different methods according to the site. At PSU, I was an outsider and newcomer with the sole purpose of conducting research. I used interpretive research methods over my seven months with PSU, taking detailed field notes during my observations coupled with deliberate reflection on emerging themes throughout that process. Drawing on interpretive methodology, I first focused on understanding the organization as a whole before moving to examine the radio program specifically. This was accomplished by observing a summer leadership training and talking with PSU staff members, both of which provided an overview of PSU’s work before going to specific radio trainings or meetings.

In contrast, at VFC, I was actively involved in the development of the program. As the main program instructor and researcher, I utilized practitioner inquiry, so both theory and my practice informed my work. I also looked for ways to improve the program in a more immediate way, using my field notes and reflections to inform future practice. In addition, my field notes were taken immediately after the program rather than during the activities because I was often teaching in program time. Despite these differences in my position in the organizations, the research at both sites involved detailed notes on the interactions, conversations, and activities of the participants.

In addition to program observations of a wider number of participants, I interviewed a select number of participants. Demographic data for the interviewees is included in Table 1.

All field notes and interviews were transcribed fully and analyzed by coding for common themes. The coding list[7] was developed while reviewing the transcriptions upon completion of the data collection, and it included different aspects of the learning process students used in the programs, the development of their communities of practice, and the myriad motivations found among the participants. The coding process helped identify ideas, goals, interests, and actions or activities that were shared between individual interviews, observations, and the two sites while also signaling the variations between them.

However, there are some characteristics of the research that place specific parameters on the application of these findings. First, the data involves youth who were actively involved in the programs, and the interviews were voluntary and likely drew from participants who were more engaged and positive about PSU or VFC. As such, these findings may reflect selection bias, but they still represent the realities experienced by youth involved in these programs. In addition, these case studies relied on limited access to the participants’ lives beyond their participation in the programs. Without access to the students’ school performances or their development outside of the programs, the findings are specific to these programs and their effects on the participants. Although these findings may be limited, it is important to recognize the voices and experiences of the youth participants as a way to build the research on the connections between new and traditional literacies in ways that can be applied immediately in academic situations.

Findings

The results of this study detail the experiences and understandings of young producers to build on existing research focused on using media literacy to engage learners or help students learn and practice literacy-related skills. First, this study reaffirmed the existing knowledge that, for some youth, involvement in media literacy programs can spark interest to engage in literate practices. However, beyond motivating some learners, this work shows that media literacy can support traditional literacy skills like:

1. using the writing process (CCSS ELA6-12 W5)[8],
2. targeting a specific audience (CCSS ELA6-12 W4),
3. understanding perspective (CCSS ELA6-12 R6, 9), and
4. evaluating arguments (CCSS ELA6-12 R7, W8).

Interviews with youth participants and observations of program activities at PSU and VFC provided evidence that these media literacy programs can offer opportunities for youth to strengthen traditional literacy competencies while producing media. Based on these findings, I suggest that media literacy includes a number of activities that can support the mastery of skills outlined in the CCSS, indicating connections between new and traditional literacies. By highlighting some of the specific ways that media literacy can engage learners, develop writing abilities, and hone reading abilities, this article aims to help provide K-12 educators with a window to out-of-school media literacy and push them to bring the lessons of afterschool programs into their classrooms so they can better support students in learning and linking their skills in new and traditional literacies.

Media Literacy for Engagement

This study further supported the existing argument that media can help motivate some students to engage in literate practices. For some youth participants, experience in PSU or VFC sparked an interest in reading or writing. Given that both programs are out-of-school activities where youth develop stories and write interviews or scripts in their spare time, the voluntary and sustained participation from young people indicated that media literacy may be one way to interest, engage, and educationally support adolescents in their lives beyond the classroom. However, beyond this, participation also helped some youth engage in literacy-related activities conducted on their own more frequently.

Most commonly, youth noted their increased motivation to write; although some mentioned more interest in reading as well. For example, one radio producer from PSU explained:

I think my involvement in radio made me more eager to read the newspapers and blogs online. I also get the impulse to write down my ideas for music and other inspiring things. … Radio taught me the value of recording ideas and working them out so now I record all of my creative ideas on my free time hoping that one day I can turn them into full projects. (PSU member, personal communication with author, April 29, 2011).

In this case, radio sparked some new interests and motivations to read and write beyond the program or school. Similarly, for some youth in VFC, their participation in the program helped them “discover a passion” that led to more writing on their own. Two VFC members from 2009 explained how this happened to them:

It [VFC] made me want to write more. I’m starting writing now my own screenplay. … [VFC] has really inspired me to start getting out and start making films. (VFC member, interview by author, January 13, 2011).

I actually had a [sic] idea of like, well, me and [another VFC member] were just actually talking about like writing a movie or something. … But like, before then [VFC], I wouldn’t’ve thought about actually doing it (VFC member, interview by author, December 8, 2010).

VFC helped inspire these young producers to write films on their own, outside of school and the program itself. PSU members also talked about wanting to write more for their own interests after being involved in media production at PSU (interviews by author, January 3 and March 10, 2011). In addition to the PSU member quoted above, members wrote poems or music to be used in radio pieces or as part of PSU’s music production program. These youth all demonstrated how opportunities in media literacy programs can engage and motivate some youth to write more frequently on their own, which is one reason many educators include media in their curricula.

Although some would argue that writing scripts, poems, and songs are not the most important aspects of literacy, for students like those quoted above engaging in these kinds of writing was interesting and inspiring. This newfound motivation to write and develop pieces on their own engaged them in literate practices like brainstorming, writing, revising, and editing. When students are motivated to express themselves in writing, it can help teachers focus on supporting and challenging students, rather than simply working to engage students at a basic level. Although this engagement in literacy learning is very important for both educators and learners, as Hobbs (2010) noted, “this is not (and should not be) the sole rationale for implementing digital and media literacy into the curriculum” (31).

Media Literacy for Writing

Beyond the sparks in students’ motivation that often accompany the use of media literacy education, in learning these skills, students can also develop their traditional writing skills. There are myriad connections between traditional academic writing and the writing involved in media education, including both process and skills-based links.  Specifically, media literacy education at PSU and VFC helped students meet at least two of the CCSS for English Language Arts in grades 6-12, one focused on the writing process and another on writing for different audiences.

In both new and traditional literacy, writers must go through the process of brainstorming, gathering information, drafting, revising, re-drafting, and editing, which is demanded by the CCSS. The CCSS English/Language Arts Standards for grades 6-12 call for students to “develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach” (CCSS, 2010, 41). One vivid example of how the revision part of this process occurs in media literacy education involved a radio producer at PSU. This producer, Celine[9], revised with the adult radio coordinator, Megan:

For a while, Megan and Celine worked on her [Celine’s] narration together. Celine would write and then read something out loud, and they worked on transitions, wording, and moving things together. …They started to listen through all of the segments that Celine had laid out for her piece… Megan then said that Celine should listen to all the pieces and decide which ones she was actually going to keep. Celine deleted some segments, and then crossed out some of her [handwritten] narration that had accompanied that piece. They kept revising, with Celine asking about ideas and Megan asking about what she [Celine] already had covered in the piece and where things would fit in (Field notes, October 15, 2010).

In this instance, Celine spent a lot of time thinking through ideas and working to revise, rework, cut down, and explain parts of her piece. Throughout this process she revised and edited with audio segments and handwritten narration, which she recorded later. She navigated both the interview clips and her own plans for her voiceover, identifying how to use the interviews as evidence and writing her narration to help tie ideas together and offer analysis or background. In the process of revising, Celine practiced the same skills that students should use in academic writing: connecting ideas, using evidence, and developing a main theme or story throughout the piece. Revising during the writing process was a crucial part of media production at PSU and VFC. In both programs, students critiqued along the way, gave each other feedback, and re-edited scenes as they wrote, recorded, and edited. Students’ involvement in activities and programs like this, which allowed ample time for students to work through the writing process, has the potential to help students recognize the value of the writing process, gain experience moving through it, and become more comfortable with the different steps.

The youth in PSU and VFC gained practice in meaningful writing process activities, which helped some understand why the process is important in all writing. As one PSU youth explained, “In school, when a teacher tells you that you have to have a main idea and supporting points, it didn’t use [sic] to seem that relevant to me. But when I started making radio pieces, I learned about why it’s so important to structure your main points and make a strong message” (PSU member, personal communication with author, April 28, 2011). By making these skills important and relevant while also providing opportunities to practice those skills, PSU and VFC strengthened students’ traditional writing skills. These activities supported one of the CCSS for writing, the ability to “develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach” (CCSS ELA6-12 W5). By offering opportunities to plan, research, draft, revise, edit, and rework media pieces, PSU and VFC met this standard and supported traditional literacy through media literacy education.

Additionally, activities in both programs also met the CCSS goal to “produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience” (CCSS ELA6-12 W4). During the production process in PSU and VFC, participants were frequently encouraged and reminded to consider their products from the audience’s perspective, working to readjust and adapt their pieces to better reach their intended audience. At PSU, the radio program had developed worksheets to guide students through the process of writing a piece, which typically included considering audience from the beginning of the process as they framed their pieces and decided who to interview. PSU also had media literacy workshops for the entire organization that encouraged youth to consider how point of view and target audience work together, challenging them to present an argument or write a short news article given a specific perspective and a particular audience (Field notes, August 9, 2010).

At VFC, college instructors and youth participants challenged each other to consider the audience throughout the process of developing their product. They did this by questioning how to film specific scenes during script writing, trying to figure out what the audience would expect to see in the video and what kinds of shots would best convey the information that the audience needs (Field notes August 5 and November 9, 2010). VFC members also told each other as actors to “get real” in rehearsals (Field notes, November 18, 2010), challenging each other to ensure that the emotions and experiences of the characters were effectively felt and shared by the audience. Finally, students in VFC also offered suggestions during the editing process, encouraging each other to think about scene transitions, using different shot angles, or adding in music or special effects to enhance the audience’s experience (Field notes, August 24, 2010). These activities helped students think concretely about how the audience would see, hear, and relate to the product, supporting their understanding of having an audience and how to best convey ideas to a specific group.

Throughout the media literacy education in PSU and VFC, adolescents were given opportunities to learn, practice, and hone skills involved in both new and traditional literacies. By creating their own media pieces, youth were able to go through the writing process from start to finish: brainstorming, drafting, revising, and creating a final product. This supported participants in developing the skills to move from one stage to another and go back and forth between phases to effectively create a coherent piece. Media literacy education also challenges young writers to be aware of their audiences and recoganize that “people use their individual skills, beliefs, and experiences to construct their own meanings from media messages” (NAMLE, 6). Since media products developed in PSU and VFC were shared with a wider community and posted online, the students were forced to consider who would read or consume their products and what steps they needed to take as authors to ensure that their messages were reached the audience. Both of these skills, writing process and understanding audience, are important in writing for traditional and new forms of communication. These strong connections between traditional writing and the writing of media at PSU and VFC indicate that media literacy education offers important opportunities for youth to build on and further develop their academic writing skills.

Media Literacy for Reading

In addition to the connections between different kinds of writing, there are a number of ways that media literacy can encourage students to develop reading skills that are also used in traditional literacy. In media literacy education at PSU and VFC, students learned what is involved in creating a product, examining how ideas are conveyed and what components of a video or audio piece contribute to consumers’ perceptions and understandings of the message. In essence, they learned how to analyze and break down a media text much like skilled readers do to newspaper articles, novels, and reports. By practicing and developing these skills in media education, students in PSU and VFC also honed their understanding of perspective and bias and their ability to assess an argument, helping them to become critical thinkers and readers of media texts. These both meet standards in the CCSS (CCSS ELA6-12 R6, 9, W8), demonstrating how media literacy education supports skills used in traditional literacy.

Some of the core questions of media literacy focus on understanding messages, who sends them, and why they are sent in a particular manner, which pushes readers to think about how arguments are conveyed and manipulated in the media (NAMLE). VFC members did this by analyzing types of shots and angles used in videos (Field notes, November 4, 2010) and thinking about how to use music and sound effects to create a particular mood or feeling (Field notes, December 14, 2010). This helped them see how filming and editing can create different arguments. In PSU, they spent time listening to different kinds of radio pieces to see how genre can affect the information presented (Field notes, January 19, 2011) and looked at how different authors conveyed the same information in written texts (Field notes, August 9, 2010). These activities encouraged youth to think critically about what is included, what is excluded, and how everything is edited together, helping them evaluate the producers’ arguments. This supported their abilities to “delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence” as outlined in the CCSS (CCSS Reading, 2010, 10). Being able to assess and analyze arguments is a core part of both traditional and media literacy education.

In addition, involvement in these media literacy programs helped students meet another standard outlined in the CCSS, the ability to “assess how point of view or purpose shapes the content and style of a text” (CCSS Reading, 2010, 10) while also challenging them to develop skills that are essential parts of media literacy (NAMLE, 6). In both PSU and VFC, adolescents learned how to do this as they examined examples of media texts to help them understand the tricks of the trade and learn from experts in the field. After learning these skills through radio production and reading other media products at PSU, one youth radio producer explained:

I think in high school, one of the major things they want you to do is kinda read between the lines, and it [radio] really helps you do that. Like the skills we learn really help you do and understand that, and understand themes and motives, and things like that in stories (PSU member, interview by author, March 10, 2011).

Using what he learned in radio, this producer was better able to “read between the lines” and figure out what authors mean, why they choose particular words, and what they hide between the lines of a text. This ability to critically examine messages in media texts supports traditional literacy’s focus on understanding authors’ points of view because the readers are better able to recognize how the authors’ positions or perspectives influence their writing. Thus, work in media literacy at PSU and VFC helped students identify, understand, and analyze perspectives, as outlined in the CCSS. Through exercises like this, media literacy at PSU and VFC encouraged students to think critically about media texts and understand how and why they are constructed, making it easier for some students to apply the same skills to traditional texts, building and developing their skills in multiple literacies. Throughout the reading and writing in media literacy, youth at PSU and VFC strengthened and honed skills that are also used and valued in traditional academic literacy. Both forms of literacy encourage young people to critically examine perspective, analyze arguments, practice the writing process, and learn to write for specific audiences.

Making Media Literacy a Priority in Education

The experiences of participants at PSU and VFC demonstrate how media literacy can build from and further strengthen skills used in traditional academic literacy. For some participants, media literacy helped them “discover a passion” and inspired them to write creative works in their own time, an important step in engaging learners in mastering literacies. Furthermore, in both PSU and VFC, young producers gained experience in reading and writing media texts, which pushed them to develop skills in understanding perspective, analyzing arguments, practicing the writing process, and writing for target audiences.

However, these links between generations of literacies must be more explicitly connected in the minds of teachers and learners to help youth build skills and proficiency in both. Rather than simply advocating for increased use of media literacy throughout curricula, stakeholders in education must also make connections like those detailed earlier explicit in order to promote both traditional and media literacy immediately. Youth need help understanding how these varied forms of communication are related and how they can support one another. Teachers, both in and outside of school, must help students understand these connections while also analyzing and producing new media in their current literacy instruction. By understanding and emphasizing these existing connections, teachers can help prepare students with the skills they will need in the 21^st century while also meeting the demands of the CCSS and the high-stakes testing environment they are faced with today.

In addition to this shift in curricula with teachers using media literacy and helping students link their literacies, there must also be an accompanying change in our forms of evaluation to ensure that evaluations measure true learning and mastery in a subject or skill. It is impossible to fully judge how well someone can produce a video or host a radio show through a multiple choice examination. Instead, evaluations must become more performance-based, offering opportunities for students to fully demonstrate their varied literate skills.  By expanding both curricula and evaluation measures, education can better prepare students by developing 21^st century literacies and strengthening more traditional literacies simultaneously.

Finally, researchers must continue to look at these connections between new and traditional literacies. More research is needed to examine relationships between students’ mastery of media literacy and their abilities in traditional literacy. To help build a solid and widespread understanding of how new and traditional literacies are connected, there must be more studies that follow students’ literate practices in both in-school and out-of-school settings and more research focused on schools or classrooms that already incorporate media literacy into their curricula. Stakeholders in education must continue to demand and support quality instruction that will effectively engage and challenge students while preparing them for the literacy demands of the 21^st century. As educational philosopher John Dewey said, “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow,” and education and literacy instruction must adapt to meet the needs of students now. Pushing for continued and extended work in media literacy education is one important way to ensure that today’s youth are motivated and learning the skills needed to read, write, and communicate effectively. However, more immediately, educators must help students understand and embrace the connections between new and traditional literacies while challenging administrators to recognize the importance of building these competencies in multiple ways.

For more information about this research, visit http://www.researchforaction.org/content-areas/media-literacy.

[2] For more information about Research for Action, go to http://www.researchforaction.org.

[3] For more information about PSU, go to http://www.phillystudentunion.org.

[4] For more information about VFC, go to http://www.chestervfc.wordpress.com.

[5] To hear PSU’s podcasts, go to http://www.onblast.podomatic.com/.

[6] To see VFC’s videos, go to http://www.youtube.com/user/chestervfc.

[7] The full coding list can be found in the appendix.

[8] When referring to specific standards from the CCSS, the following format will be used: CCSS (Common Core State Standards) + ELA (English/Language Arts for Grades 6-12 + W (Writing) or R (Reading) + # (number of standard as listed by the CCSS).

[9] The names of all students have been changed.

Appendix – Coding List

Teaching & Learning – How they learn and practice media literacy skills

●      Experiential/Hands-On – When/ how/why they’re using equipment, practicing skills in real situations/contexts, or rehearsing

○      Real Products – student comments about the importance of having real products

●      Student-Centered – When/how/why youth’s experiences, thoughts, opinions, etc. are asked for, used, and valued in the learning process

●      Apprenticeship – When/how/who is involved when modeling, coaching, fading, what signals the movement from one stage to the next

○      Practice – examples of students using and developing skills

●      Peer-to-Peer – learning from fellow participants

Community of Practice – Describing and establishing the context in which this all occurs

●      Formation – Signals/signs or ways of showing that a group is established and exists, what it means to be part of that CoP

●      Entrance – How newcomers join, who they interact with, how they engage

●      LPP – Legitimate Peripheral Participate, how they engage when they first join the group and what takes them from LPP to full participation

●      Relationships – notes on importance of relationships/friendships with peers and adults in organization

●      Contrasts – How VFC (a new community) and PSU (an established community) differ

●      Mentors – Who is a mentor to youth, how the relationship between mentor and mentee works and develops

Motivation – Why they join, stay, and decide to participate in media literacy/production

●      Initial – How they hear about it and decide to get involved

○      Friends/Family – suggested/connected via friends or family members

○      Existing Interest – general interest in topic/idea

○      Learn New – excitement and interest in learning something new and different

●      Shared (both organizations) – motivations that seem to hold true across PSU and VFC

○      Positive activity – it’s something positive to do with their time, wouldn’t be doing anything else

○      Raising voice – desire to be heard, why that’s important

○      Future skills – useful skills to be used later in life

○      Unique opportunity – special chance for youth or a specific community (often disadvantaged)

●      Organizing – use as a tool for organizing, spread ideas, gather support

●      Interest/Development – use as way to gain skills for future use for a job

Skills – What skills and abilities they developed through participation in the programs

●      Collaboration – how to work with others on projects, shows, etc.

●      Communication – how to communicate with others (peers, adults, authorities, etc.)

●      Confidence – pride and personal belief in oneself, one’s ideas, the ideas/power of youth, etc.

●      Critique – ability to effectively analyze one’s own work and the work of others

●      Dedication – commitment to one’s work and projects

●      Diversity – moments relating to (and often challenging youth to examine) issues of diversity like race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.

●      Independence – ability and confidence to work and think individually

●      Leadership – willingness to lead others and take on responsibility/ownership of a project

●      Literacies – skills directly related to literacy formation

○      Reading – skills in reading media, analyzing information, and connections to traditional reading

○      Writing – skills in writing, interest in writing, etc.

○      Process – opportunities to develop skills in the writing process

○      Perspective – understanding, analyzing, and using perspective in media

●      Patience – ability to deal with difficult situations in a controlled manner

●      Perseverance – willingness to keep working through difficult situations and work towards end goals

●      Personal Development – growth as a person, which is attributed (in part) by the youth to their participation in the program

●      Political Education – understanding and development of critical thinking skills as it relates to political issues (used for PSU)

●      Responsibility – willingness to take on responsibility for one’s work, decisions, etc.

Advice for Adults – ideas suggested by youth for adults who work with young people

Possible Selves – ideas suggested by youth for what they will do/who they will be in the future

School vs OST – how youth view school and compared to afterschool programs

References

Alvermann, D. E. 2002. “Effective Literacy Instruction for Adolescents.” Journal of Literacy Research 34(2): 189-208.

Barrance, T. 2010. “Using Film in Schools: A Practical Guide. Film: 21^st Century Literacy.” http://www.mediaedwales.org.uk/training_and_consultancy/using-film-in-schools/

Beach, R.  and F. Baker. 2011. “Why Core Standards Must Embrace Media Literacy.” Education Week, 36(30). http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/06/22/36baker.h30.html (accessed June 29, 2011).

Buckingham, D. 2003. Media Education: Literacy, Learning, and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Considine, D., J. Horton, and G. Moorman. 2009. “Teaching and Reading the Millennial Generation Through Media Literacy.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6): 471-481.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2010. “Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.” http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Common Core Standards. “English Language Arts Standards: Anchor Standards: College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Writing.” http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/anchor-standards-6-12/college-and-career-readiness-anchor-standards-for-writing/

———. English Language Arts Standards: Anchor Standards: College and Career Readiness Anchor Standards for Reading. http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/anchor-standards-6-12/college-and-career-readiness-anchor-standards-for-reading/ (accessed March 1, 2011).

Eidman-Aadahl, E. 2011. “Teaching Digital Writing: More Than Blogs and Wikis.” Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/events/chats/2011/04/04/index.html/

Gainer, J. and D. Lapp. 2010. Literacy Remix: Bridging Adolescents’ In and Out of School Literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hobbs, R. 2010. Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute. http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_A_Plan_of_Action.pdf

Hobbs, R. and A. Jensen. 2009. “The Past, Present, and Future of Media Literacy Education.” Journal of Media Literacy Education (1)1: 1-11. http://jmle.org/index.php/JMLE/article/view/35/1

Hobbs, R. and J. Yoon. 2008. “Creating Empowering Environments in Youth Media Organizations.” Youth Media Reporter. http://youthmediareporter.org/2008/08/creating_empowering_environmen.html

Johnston, N. 2011.“Obama Says U.S. Can’t Sacrifice Education in Cutting Deficit.” Bloomberg Businessweek, March 8. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-08/obama-says-u-s-can-t-sacrifice-education-in-cutting-deficit.html

Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lenhart, A., S. Arafeh, A. Smith, and A. R. Macgill. 2008. “Writing, Technology and Teens. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.” http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3.pdf.pdf

Moje, E.B., M. Overby, N. Tysvaer, and K. Morris. 2008. “The Complex World of Adolescent Literacy: Myths, Motivations, and Mysteries.” Harvard Educational Review, 78(1): 107-154. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~moje/pdf/Journal/ComplexWorldOfAdolescentLiteracy.pdf

Moje, E.B and N. Tysvaer. 2010. Adolescent Literacy Development in Out-of-School Time: A Practitioner’s Guidebook. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. http://carnegie.org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/tta_Moje.pdf

National Association of Media Literacy Education (NAMLE). “Media Literacy Defined.” http://namle.net/publications/media-literacy-definitions/

National Center for Education Statistics. “The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007.” http://nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2007/w0003.asp?tab_id=tab2&subtab_id=Tab_1#chart

———. “The Nation’s Report Card: Grade 12 Reading and Mathematics 2009 National and Pilot State Results.” http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2009/2011455.asp#section1

Journey School, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA

mentored by Kelly Mendoza

Common Sense Media, San Francisco, CA, USA

All media work us over completely. They are so persuasive in their personal, political, economic, aesthetic, psychological, moral, ethical, and social consequences that they leave no part of us untouched, unaffected, unaltered. The medium is the massage. Any understanding of social and cultural change is impossible without a knowledge of the way media work as environments (McLuhan 1967, 26)

When renowned media theorist Marshall McLuhan wrote the above passage, he scarcely could have imagined the Internet we know today, let alone the plethora of digital devices and assorted networks that have cropped up since the general public was first granted Internet access in 1992. Social networking, blogging, gaming, video and picture-sharing, iPods, iPhones, iPads, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and more have become part of the common vernacular of our time. It is hardly believable that less than a decade ago most of these devices and networks did not exist. Yet McLuhan’s words are as salient today, if not more so, than they were when published over four decades ago.

While for many of us it feels as though the ground is continually shifting beneath our feet, for “digital natives” (Prensky 2001) this environment represents the world as they know it. A survey published recently by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 8- to 18-year-olds spend an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes (7:38) using media on a typical day (and this does not include time spent using the computer for homework, texting or talking on the cell phone). Additionally, because today’s youth are so good at multi-tasking, they actually fit 10 hours and 45 minutes (10:45) of media content into those 7½ hours. This represents an increase in media usage of more than an hour a day compared to just five years ago (Rideout et al. 2010). In fact, today’s young people spend more time online, texting, watching TV and movies, and playing video games than they do in school or with their parents (Common Sense Media 2009).

Even those young people who may not have computers and Internet access in their homes are still participants in a shared culture where social media, and digital media distribution and production have become commonplace (Horst, as cited in Ito et al. 2010). “Media no longer just influence our culture.  They are our culture” (Thoman and Jolls 2008, 21).

It is not simply the amount of media exposure that has changed so dramatically in recent years, it is the nature of this exposure. Young people are no longer just consumers of media; they are producers as well. In Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, Jenkins et al. (2006) describe this new environment as a participatory culture. According to this report, a participatory culture has the following characteristics: low barriers for artistic expression and engagement, strong support for creating and sharing, informal mentorship whereby experienced users pass their knowledge on to novices, an atmosphere that encourages a sense that contributions matter, and an opportunity for social connection.

While this new cultural landscape seems ripe with fresh opportunities for learning, schools have largely been either slow to react or have missed the mark completely when it comes to capitalizing on its educational benefits. But this is hardly surprising, few institutions are as slow to respond to change as education; and few changes today are as mercurial as technology. It is no wonder that these two forces have had trouble learning how to co-exist.

A Short History of Media Literacy Education

Take One- A Focus on Technology Literacy

The proliferation the Internet in the mid 1990’s kick-started a national debate about how to best use digital technologies for teaching and learning, causing many to rethink education in light of all the new possibilities technology afforded  (Ohler 2010).  When computers made their way into the classroom, driven primarily by proponents of educational technology (i.e., vendors of product), the focus was primarily on teaching students how to use the tools (Ohler 2010; Jenkins et al. 2006; Cordes and Miller 2004; Oppenheimer 2003). One of the most influential groups spearheading this approach was the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). In 1998, ISTE developed the first national standards for students (referred to as the NET’s), and subsequently, standards for educators and administrators. Finally, educators could “point to a nationally recognized professional group for support, recognition and the articulation of standards that were specifically developed to address the presence of computers in the classrooms” (Ohler 2010, 19). Although ISTE was not the only organization to develop technology standards for education, they were and still are the most active group in advocating for these standards at state and national levels (Cordes and Miller 2004).

ISTE’s efforts thrived in a political atmosphere that also propelled the broader standards movement. Over $55 billion was spent on computer technology and related services during the ten-year span from 1994 to 2004 (Cordes and Miller 2004). The impact of this investment proved to be disappointing, however, as study after study showed little or no improvement in student learning as a result (Oppenheimer 2003). Susan Patrick, director of the United States Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology, affirmed in 2004 that, “despite a decade of investment (in educational technology), most achievement indicators are flat” (Branigan 2004, paragraph 6).

Many reasons were cited for technology’s failure to transform education: inadequate teacher training, lack of technical support, too much focus on drill and practice programs, stubborn adherence to traditional instructional methods, lack of time, etc. MIT computer scientist Seymour Papert, who spent five years studying with Swiss childhood development expert Jean Piaget before becoming one of America’s leading experts on children’s technology, summed it up as follows: “as long as schools confine technology to simply improving what they are doing rather than really changing the system, nothing very significant will happen” (as cited in Oppenheimer 2003, 25).

But another piece of this complicated puzzle may simply have been that computers were introduced to education ahead of their time, in the era proceeding Web 2.0, or the social net, which transformed computing from a passive viewing experience into an interactive one, thus setting the stage for Jenkins’ participatory culture.

Take Two- A Shift to Media Literacy

The same technologies that failed to transform schools instead transformed the world outside the hallowed halls of education. As the digital environment changed, so too did everyone’s ideas about how to best to teach students about these technologies.  It became increasingly apparent that it was unnecessary to teach young people how to use the tools; they were already using them far more proficiently than their “digital immigrant” (Prensky 2001) parents or teachers. As Collins and Halverson (2009) observed, “teens who are creating web pages with animated computer graphics and sound, remixing images to develop music video, participating in web chats and forums, and writing their own blogs are engaged in developing a sophisticated media literacy not taught in schools” (13).

Jenkins et al. (2006) suggest that the media literacy skills required for participation in this new world are all essentially social skills, including:  play, performance, simulation, appropriation, multitasking, distributed cognition, collective intelligence, judgment, transmedia navigation, networking, and negotiation. Because they are social skills, our interactions with one another take on a heightened significance, thus “one important goal of media education should be to encourage young people to become more reflective about the ethical choices they make as participants and communicators and the impact they have on others” (Ibid., 17).

The Skill Du Jour

With this new power of participation comes new responsibility. Every time a student creates, shares, interacts, produces, downloads, uploads or remixes, he or she is faced with a choice: do I credit the photographer for the photo I just added to my paper? Should I post that unflattering picture of a classmate on Facebook? So while critical thinking is still, well, critical… ethical thinking (which has largely been given a back seat in education) is suddenly becoming the skill du jour.

Ethical thinking is the central theme in a Goodwork Project Report (2008) from the Harvard Graduate School of Education’s Project Zero. This report suggests “for the promises of the NDM (new digital media) to be positively realized, supports for ethical participation— indeed for the creation of “ethical minds” (Gardner 2007a, as cited in James 2009, 42)—must emerge” (James 2009, 42). Because young people don’t just use media, but help shape it, becoming thoughtful and reflective about their actions is essential. These key skills “are not learned in a vacuum, and certainly cannot be assumed to accompany technical skills. Here the responsibility lies with adults (educators, policymakers, parents, etc.) to provide young people with optimal supports for good play and citizenship” (James et al. 2008).

Prensky (2010) suggests that ”installing ethical behavior—figuring out the right thing to do and how to get it done—ought to be our number one concern. We need to best configure students’ brains so that they can constantly learn, create, program, adopt, adapt, and relate positively to whatever and whomever they meet, and in whatever way they meet them, which increasingly means through technology” (12).

Likewise, in an article exploring Web 2.0’s influence on learning and teaching, Drotner (2007) asserts that media literacy education needs to extend beyond teaching technical skills to encompass the skills and ethical issues surrounding all the digital activities that young people are engaged in, including texting, blogging, editing images and sound, circulating files through mobile phones, and gaming (as cited in Greenhow et al. 2009, 252). Even the ISTE is in agreement on this, as evidenced by their reworked standards which place less emphasis on technology operations, and new emphasis on the five collaborative skills they list before it, including digital citizenship (ISTE 2007).  Finally, in a book about digital citizenship, Ohler (2010) writes that the new digital environment calls on all of us to “develop a personal ethical core that can guide us in areas of experience that are in many ways unfamiliar” (4).

So the question that new media literacy educators should be asking themselves today is this: how do we cultivate ethical thinking skills?

A Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Ethical Thinking

Ethical thinking, characterized as the highest plane of thinking, involves taking the perspective of others, awareness of one’s roles and responsibilities in the online communities in which one participates, and reflection about the global harms or benefits of one’s actions to communities at large (Davis et al. 2010). While the terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably, “morality deals with how we act, while ethics deals with how we think about how we act” (Ohler 2010, 157). It’s important to remember that developing the cognitive capacity to engage in ethical thinking takes time.

Cognitive and Moral Development

The aim of education is growth or development, both intellectual and moral. Ethical and psychological principles can aid the school in the grates of all construction – the building of a free and powerful character. Only knowledge of the order and connection of the stages in psychological development can institute this. (Dewey 1964, as cited by Kohlberg 1975)

It is impossible to consider cognitive and moral development without mentioning the two most prominent figures to study both, Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg. While Kohlberg focused primarily on moral development, he based his theories on the cognitive development understandings of Piaget who forged what is still considered the single most comprehensive and compelling theory of intellectual development for children (Crain 2005).
Piaget observed that children think differently from adults, most notably, they start out with a completely egocentric view of the world, unable to understand how someone else’s viewpoint might differ from their own. Although children slowly decenter from this mindset as they move through the developmental stages, a sense of egocentrism lingers even into the formal operational stage, or the teen years (Blake and Pope 2008).

Like other prominent developmental theorists, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Maria Montessori, Piaget believed that to best foster cognitive development, learning should be a process of active discovery geared towards a child’s developmental stage (Crain 2005). He also believed that children progressed through these stages guided by play and direct sensory contact with the environment. In fact, it was by observing children at play that Piaget determined that morality, too, was a developmental process (Murray n.d.).

Kohlberg advanced the work of Piaget by developing a stage theory of moral development based upon his predecessor’s cognitive development understandings. He identified three levels of moral development: Preconventional, Conventional and Postconventional. Kohlberg believed that during the Preconventional Level, which often lasts until age nine, children’s moral judgment is characterized by a concrete, individual perspective. Like Piaget, Kohlberg thought children at this level progress slowly from egocentrism and the inability to consider the perspectives of others to the beginnings of moral reciprocity, although still only able to reason as isolated individuals, not as members of a larger society (Murray n.d.).

Kohlberg postulated that it is not until somewhere between the ages of 10 to 15, when children enter the Conventional Level, that they start to believe people should live up to the expectations of their community and behave in ‘good’ ways. Finally they begin to understand that “good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust and concern for others” (Crain 2005, 155). At the completion of this level, children develop the cognitive capacity to perceive themselves as citizens of a larger society, an understanding attained as a result of their social interactions with others.

Kohlberg believed the Postconventional or final level of moral development, which encompasses the upper domain of abstract thinking, could be entered into as early as age 12. However, some individuals simply never attain this level of moral thinking.

Like Piaget, Kohlberg (1975) thought, “since moral reasoning clearly is reasoning, advanced moral reasoning depends upon advanced logical reasoning; a person’s logical stage puts a certain ceiling on the moral stage he can attain”  (671). Thus, children whose logical stage is Concrete (which can last up and into middle school) are still at the Preconventional moral level. So to ask children at this stage to reason through the ethical considerations often required by powerful electronic devices that connect them to the outside world is, according to these developmental theories, simply beyond their cognitive capacities.

A Developmental Trajectory for Digital Media Use

Both Piaget and Kohlberg believed that children spend the first 12 years of life developing the cognitive structures that enable them to grasp the abstract, metaphoric, and symbolic types of information that lead to ethical thinking. This understanding of cognitive and moral development requires us to at least consider how and when the youngest members of our society should be turned loose in a digital environment.

Developmental psychological research largely supports a trajectory for digital media use where “early childhood (up to about eight years old) is a time of high physical activity and low media use with media use at home increasing beginning at ages 9 through 11” (Livingstone 2008, as cited in Bauman and Tatum 2009, paragraph 10). However, traffic on websites for young children (ages 3-12) has increased dramatically in recent years. Data from 2007 shows that monthly visits to one popular site for children (Club Penguin) more than doubled to 4.7 million from the previous year (Buckleitner 2008). Shellenbarger (2006, as cited in Bauman and Tatum 2009) observes that many social networking sites compete for subscribers as young as eight, and since many parents don’t even follow this guideline, younger and younger children are going online.

While much attention has been placed on the activities of older children on social networking sites like Facebook, largely absent from public discourse “is any discussion of the increasing availability and presence of websites designed for younger children that have components of social networking (e.g., Club Penguin, Webkinz, Kidzworld)” (Bauman and Tatum 2008, paragraph 7). These sites all include interactive components similar to elements found on adult social networking sites. While there are safety measures in place on most of these sites, Bauman and Tatum (2008) suggest, “younger children may not be developmentally ready to understand the dynamics of these kinds of relationships and communication” (paragraph 5).

Some concerns that experts raise include the inability of young children to distinguish between reality and the virtual world (Baumgarten 2003; Buckleitner 2008; Shellenbarger 2006, as cited in Bauman and Tatum 2008, paragraph 14).  For example, attachments to virtual friends or pets that may get disrupted for a variety of reasons (an online friend is no longer on the site, an online pet gets ill) can cause real distress to a child that a parent or teacher may not understand (Ibid.; Fryer 2009).  Greenfield (2004) expresses concern with the way advertising is integrated within the content of these sites, as children younger than five are unable to distinguish between commercial and noncommercial content and children younger than seven or eight cannot understand that commercials are shown in order to sell things. Often, sites designed for young children that include advertising are likely to capitalize on this developmental characteristic.

Greenfield (2004) also raises issues about sexuality and aggression. Noting that while the possibility of sexual predators lurking about these sites receives considerable media attention, what is actually more common are references to such things as ‘being a couple’. References like these are developmentally inappropriate for an age group still learning how to develop and maintain real-life friendships. And finally, Greenfield (2004) observes that though these sites technically prohibit swearing and aggression, savvy children find a way around built-in mechanisms. There is a growing concern that the anonymity afforded by these sites encourages some children to say or do things they would not say or do in a face-to-face context.

Despite awareness of these developmental concerns, children are going online at younger and younger ages, with adults largely absent from and unfamiliar with these online worlds. While we can do our collective best to shield young people from a digital world until may be developmentally unprepared for, at some point both parents and educators need to actually enter and understand this digital realm. Otherwise how can we hope to teach our children the skills they need to navigate cyberspace confidently and ethically?

Sowing the Seeds of Ethical Thinking

In addition, or perhaps as a prerequisite to, teaching the literacies identified by Jenkins et al. (2006), it is imperative that we prepare students to be wise users of the tools. What we need, as Ohler (2010) suggests, is a “whole school approach to behavior that sets the entirety of being digitally active within an overall ethical and behavioral context-— character education for the Digital Age” (145).

Character Education for the Digital Age

It seems that we are faced with a remarkable irony: that in an age of increasing artificiality, children first need to sink their hands deeply into what is real; that in an age of light-speed communication, it is crucial that children take the time to develop their own inner voice; that in an age of incredibly powerful machines we must first teach our children how to use the incredible powers that lie deep within themselves. (Monke 2004, paragraph 5)

One Approach

While researching his book about technology’s impact on education, Todd Oppenheimer (2003) visited dozens of public, private, urban, and rural schools across the country. In his book and elsewhere, he writes extensively about one pedagogy he believes provides a “smarter path” (363) towards the digital future.. Ironically, the pedagogy he writes about—,Waldorf education— resists introducing any type of technology to students until well into the middle school years, often after 8th grade. Additionally, it is customary for these schools to ask families to limit their children’s home access to technology to weekends only, as “the ubiquitous presence of electronic technology is an assault on the senses and diminishes children’s natural sense of wonder and curiosity about natural events” (Hether 2001, 143). Oppenheimer writes,

The notion that imagination is the heart of learning animates the entire arc of Waldorf teaching. When that concept is coupled with the school’s other fundamental goal, to give youngsters a sense of ethics, the result is a pedagogy that stands even further apart from today’s educational system.  (366)

Although Waldorf schools do not utilize overt methods to impose ethical or moral values upon children, strategies that might be more commonly employed in religious schools, Waldorf advocates firmly believe that it lays a solid foundation for both moral reasoning and ethical thinking. Yet scant research exists to support this assertion.

Hether (2001) addressed this paucity of research by conducting her own for her dissertation, Moral Reasoning of High School Seniors From Diverse Educational Settings in which she “call(s) attention to the un-heralded and relatively unknown Waldorf movement as an educational intervention that appears to have a notable positive affect on advanced moral reasoning”  (150). Using a quantitative survey of the development of moral reasoning, called the Defining Issues Test (DIT), Hether measures and compares scores of high school seniors from different educational settings. She uses the DIT because it is recognized as a valid and reliable measure of moral reasoning development derived from Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory and it provides the largest and most diverse body of information on moral judgment that exists today (91).

Hether’s (2001) study shows that Waldorf educated students scored significantly higher in moral reasoning than students from a religiously affiliated high school and students in public high schools. Waldorf educated students scored in a range more commonly associated with college graduates. While this data is significant, what is particularly interesting about Hether’s (2001) research is its second phase, which identifies five aspects of Waldorf education that might contribute to higher moral reasoning: an emphasis on educating the whole person; sensitivity to developmental appropriateness; the practice of storytelling; the integral place of the arts in the curriculum; and the preservation of a sense of wonder towards the natural world. Here is a brief review of each these aspects:

Educating the Whole Person. In Frames of Mind (1993), Howard Gardner identifies eight distinct forms of intelligence: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist. He asserts, “only if we expand and reformulate our view of what counts as intellect will we be able to devise more appropriate ways of assessing it and educating it” (4).

While traditional public schools teach primarily to the linguistic and logical-mathematical modalities, Waldorf education strives to engage all of them. A Waldorf lesson in math, for example, might be taught to the children visually, orally, through song, movement or by working together towards a common goal, such as building a small structure that requires the measuring of surfaces, etc. In fact, in a Waldorf setting children spend a good part of their day making things with their hands, often working together, not only because it engages several of the senses, but also because making something of use contributes to the development of a strong will. Moral development in the Waldorf doctrine is often described as the transformation of will forces into willpower (Hether 2001). Kohlberg (1975) also noted that the  “will… is an important factor in moral behavior” (672), particularly when informed by mature moral judgment.

Educating the whole child, especially in the early years, is supported by developmental research that endorses providing children with “a broad base— emotionally, intellectually, and in the five senses” (Oppenheimer 2003, 198). Additionally, a multisensory approach to learning both deeply imprints lessons in children and accommodates different learning styles (Ibid.).

A Commitment to What is Developmentally Appropriate. The benefit of matching curricular content to the child’s developmental stage, a hallmark of Waldorf education since the opening of the first school in 1919, has been supported by the work of Gesell, Piaget, Gardner and others (Dancy 2004). In many respects the Waldorf approach aligns best with Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. For example, when children are in the pre-operational stage (which can last up until age seven), heavy emphasis is placed on hands-on activities and make-believe play.  It is through such play that young children develop their imaginations and symbolic thinking, an important element of cognitive development that otherwise falls by the wayside (Crain 2004).

While time for play has been largely squeezed out of traditional public schools, its importance is being recognized outside of education.  In fact, play is one of the six essential aptitudes identified by Pink (2005) in A Whole New Mind. He notes that even the Education Ministry of Japan, a country that excels in math and science, is remaking its vaunted education system to “foster greater creativity, artistry and play” (52).

Waldorf educators also believe that pressuring children to attempt intellectual tasks before they are developmentally ready can lead to what Piaget (1969) referred to as “verbalisms” (164), using words that have no real meaning for them. For example, while children in the concrete stage of cognitive development can be taught to memorize and repeat abstract concepts, they most likely will not understand them on a deep level. This often leads to a dislike for school, or worse, contributes to the school-related stress that pediatricians find is on the rise (Wallace 2000, as cited in Crain 2005).

Storytelling. According to Hether (2001), “Waldorf schools appear to practice what voices crying for ‘character education’ desire: all elementary grade students are immersed in stories that offer moral lessons, ranging from fairy tales at earlier ages through fables, Nordic and other ethnic myths, and Biblical stories as they get older” (74). It is the Waldorf approach to storytelling, however, that is unique. First of all, both children and teachers often act out stories in order to make them come alive. Teachers are taught to create this dramatic atmosphere so that the moral principles in the stories are not only pondered, but also felt deeply, ensuring the information is processed in a deep and meaningful way. This approach is supported by research that tells us, “to ensure memory is available over time, information needs to be elaborately processed in ways so that it is meaningful to us” (Herrmann, Yoder, Gruneberg, and Payne 2006, 87). Secondly, in a marked contrast to more overt approaches to instilling moral lessons, teachers in a Waldorf setting don’t ask pointed questions about these stories or require direct analysis or judgment. Rather, they let moral lessons sink in, and help students build moral images by drawing pictures, role-playing or repeating verses related to the stories.

An Integral Place for the Arts in the Classroom. While the arts continue to disappear from traditional public education due to budget cuts and a focus on academics, they remain essential to the Waldorf curriculum. The inclusion of handwork, painting, music, dance and more “builds such thinking skills as analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical judgment. It nourishes imagination and creativity… it fosters flexible thinking and appreciation for diversity, qualities that appear to be especially relevant to moral reasoning” (Hether 2001, 139).

Poets and writers alike have linked art and morality, perhaps none more eloquently as Ingersoll (1888):

Art cultivates and kindles the imagination, and quickens the conscience. It is by imagination that we put ourselves in the place of another. When the whigs of that faculty are folded, the master does not put himself in the place of the slave; the tyrant is not locked in the dungeon, chained with his victim. The inquisitor did not feel the flames that devoured the martyr. The imaginative man, giving to the beggar, gives to himself. Those who feel indignant at the perpetration of wrong, feel for the instant that they are the victims; and when they attack the aggressor they feel that they are defending themselves. Love and pity are the children of the imagination. (paragraph 1)

Preserving a Sense of Wonder Toward the Natural World. Finally, Waldorf schools believe that nurturing relationships with other human beings and the rest of the living world is “the most essential preparation children need for grappling with the daunting social and ecological choices that technology will pose in the 21st century. Young people need to have direct experience of the natural world in all its diversity, messiness, and beauty if they are to appreciate its fragility and irreplaceable value” (Cordes and Miller 2004, 61).

What About The New Media Literacies?

It is important to note here that Hether’s research focuses solely how these five aspects of the Waldorf curriculum contribute to the development of moral reasoning and ethical thinking. Additionally her research was conducted before Jenkins et al. (2006) identified the new media literacies. Yet, many of the skills that Jenkins and his team indicate are as essential to navigating the online world proficiently are already incorporated into the offline world of a Waldorf school. For example, working together to build a small structure (one of the many hands-on, collaborative projects in the curriculum) calls on networking, negotiation, collective intelligence and distributed cognition skills. The Waldorf emphasis on art cultivates visualization, judgment, and appropriation proficiencies. Dramatic storytelling develops performance and simulation skills. Play, considered a hallmark of Waldorf education, is also the first of the new media literacy skills.  So despite not using any technology at all in the early years, these schools are continually practicing and honing the skills that are essential not only to developing the ethical thinking that will be called upon again and again in the online world, but also for developing the new media literacy skills that will help them navigate the digital world with competence and confidence… when the time is right.

The Right Time

As the digital world becomes more ubiquitous and participatory, Waldorf schools in general are realizing that, though they may be right about limiting access to technology in the early years, at some point they also should be teaching students how to extend these ethical and behavioral skills into the digital world. So in keeping with the developmental findings of both Piaget and Kohlberg, who believed that up until about 12 years of age children were still developing the cognitive capacities required for ethical thinking, it appears that middle school is the right time.

This is also the time when children’s interest in all-things-digital reaches its peak. The Kaiser Family Foundation (Rideout et al. 2010) reports, “the jump in media use that occurs when young people hit the 11-14-year old age is tremendous. Their usage increases by more than three hours (3:00) a day in time spent with media (total media use), and an increase of four hours (4:00) a day in total media exposure”  (5). Additionally,

Their emerging moral framework is being developed in an environment where there is little affective feedback, where there is a reduced risk for authoritarian-delivered punishment but the potential for being ostracized as a consequence of inappropriate behavior, where an individual is judged on the basis of what they write and not who they are, where there is a constant need to authenticate information to determine its truthfulness, where there is a high level of interaction with people from throughout the world and where there is the ability to act out different personas. The impact of interactions in this kind of an environment on the development of moral reasoning is unknown. (Willard 1997, 1)

In an effort to better understand these unknowns, Gardner and his colleagues at Harvard University School of Education’s GoodPlay Project have been conducting research to discover what ethical issues young people encounter in the digital world. They have identified five areas of interest: Identity (how youth handle and perceive self-expression and identity online); Privacy (how, where and with whom youth share personal information); Credibility (how youth establish trustworthiness of people and information); Authorship/Ownership (how youth perceive intellectual property and practices like downloading/remixing content); and, Participation (responsible conduct and citizenship in online communities) (Santo et al. 2009).

Gardener (n.d.) finds the issue of Participation particularly troublesome. It seems the characteristics that make the digital environment so appealing to young people, its communal and participatory nature, are also what make it fraught with challenge. Because these spaces are so different from anything any of us have experienced in the past, they are void of established ethical practices or boundaries. Media scholar dana boyd (2007) states that what sets these networked publics apart from any other type of public space are these properties: persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences. In short, whatever information a young person may post to a public space, say, a photo or comment on Facebook, remains in the digital stratosphere forever, can be searched for and found by anyone and everyone, can be copied and shared, and has the potential to be viewed by strangers around the world. While young people can’t be expected to understand the enormity of all this (nor can any of us for that matter) participation in networked publics by middle school students is on the rise and has the potential to be either wonderfully empowering or incredibly damaging.

Digital Citizenship

Recognizing the need to equip students with the ethical skills to become good digital citizens, Common Sense Media (2010) developed a Digital Literacy and Citizenship curriculum. Based upon the digital ethics research of Gardner and the GoodPlay Project in collaboration with New Media Literacies, the curriculum for middle school students is divided into five units that directly align with the five ethical issues above. The overall goal of this curriculum is to “empower young people to harness the power of the Internet and digital technology for learning, and for them to become safe, responsible, and respectful digital citizens” (Common Sense Media 2010).

A Case Study

Recognizing the opportunity to build upon a strong foundation of ethical thinking and new media literacy skills, one Waldorf-inspired charter school in Southern California (Journey School) is currently engaged its second year of a three-year, classroom action research project integrating digital literacy into its entire middle school curriculum. This three-year program begins in 6th grade by teaching Digital Citizenship (primarily using the Common Sense Media curriculum). In 7th grade the students are introduced to Information and Research Literacy, learning how to apply critical thinking skills to finding and using digital information.  In 8th grade they learn Media Literacy in a more encompassing way that “embraces the entire process of accessing, analyzing, evaluating, creating and participating with media” (CML 2011). Upon completion of the first year of Digital Citizenship students earn the privilege of bringing and using digital devices at school. So far the outcome of this program is adult (teacher and parent) acceptance and approval of digital usage at school. Plus there is school-wide atmosphere of respectful and positive use of technology. Upon completion of this three-year study, Journey School looks forward to sharing their results and best practices with other schools, Waldorf and non-Waldorf alike.

Conclusion

The digital world is full of both possibility and peril, with rules of engagement being hashed out as we go. While schools are still “hesitant to embrace new technologies as a backlash from the significant, and largely ineffectual, investment in classroom computers as an instructional panacea during in the mid-1990’s” (Collins and Halverson 2009, 140), young people have taken to the digital world and all its participatory wonders like ducks to water. Although they certainly don’t need our help learning to operate the devices or the software (we need theirs!), they do need us to prepare them to use these powerful technologies responsibly and ethically.

Waldorf-inspired schools may have a successful formula for the development of ethical thinking and new media literacy skills. By providing rich sensory experiences and social interactions for students from the time they are very young, these schools are sowing the seeds of new media literacy without any technology in sight. The challenge they face now is taking the next step. In doing so, Waldorf-inspired could be the model for Ohler’s (2010) vision of a “whole school approach to behavior that sets the entirety of being digitally active within an overall ethical and behavioral context” (145). Maybe some of these practices will even find their way into traditional schools, giving more students a chance to experience a developmental approach to new media literacy that will equip them to be creative, capable, and ethical users of today’s technology, or technologies that are yet seeds in their imaginations.

References

Bauman, S. and T. Tatum. 2009. “Web Sites for Young Children: Gateway to Online Social Networking?” Professional School Counseling 13(1): 1-10.

Blake, B. and T. Pope. 2008. “Developmental Psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s Theories in Classrooms.” Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education 1(1): 59 – 67.

boyd, danah. 2007.  “Why Youth (heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” In MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume, edited by David Buckingham, 119-142. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Branigan, C. 2004. “ED Gives Preview of New Ed-tech Plan.” eSchool News. http://www.eschoolnews.com/2004/08/25/ed-gives-preview-of-new-ed-tech-plan/

Brown, J.S. 2000. “Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education and the Ways People Learn.” Change, 32(2), 10-20.

Collins, A. and R. Halverson. 2009. Rethinking Education in the Age of Technology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.

Center for Media Literacy 2011. “Media Literacy: A Definition and More.” Center for Media Literacy. http://www.medialit.org/media-literacy-definition-and-more

Common Sense Media. 2009. Digital Literacy and Citizenship in the 21st Century: Educating, Empowering, and Protecting America’s Kids (A Common Sense Media White Paper). San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.

———. n.d.. “Common Sense Media Education Programs.” Common Sense Media. http://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators

———. n.d. “Expert Interview: Howard Gardner.” Common Sense Media.  http://www.commonsensemedia.org/expert-interview-howard-gardner

Cordes, C. and E. Miller . 2004. Tech Tonic: Towards a New Literacy of Technology. Alliance for Childhood.  http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/pdf_files/tech_tonic.pdf

Crain, W. 2005. Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Dancy, R. B. 2004. “The Wisdom of Waldorf: Education for the Future.” Mothering, The Natural Family Living Magazine, March/April, issue 123. Fair Oaks, CA: AWSNA.

Davis, K., S. Katz, C. James, and R. Santo R. 2010. “Fostering Cross-generational Dialogues about the Ethics of Online Life.” Journal of Media Literacy Education 2(2). http://jmle.org/blog/?p=302

Gardner, H. 1993. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (10th Ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Greenfield, P. M. 2004. “Developmental Considerations for Determining Appropriate Internet Use Guidelines for Children and Adolescents.” Applied Developmental Psychology 25: 751-762.

Greenhow, C., B. Robelia, and J. Hughes. 2009. “Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age.” Educational Researcher 38(4): 246-259.  Retrieved from ProQuest Psychology Journals. Document ID: 1746991921.

Herrmann, D. J., C.Y. Yoder, M. Gruneberg, and D.G. Payne. 2006. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hether, C. A. 2001.  “The Moral Reasoning of High School Seniors from Diverse Educational Settings.” Ph.D. dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text (Publication No. AAT 3044032).

Ingersoll, R. 1888. “Art and Morality.” North American Review, March. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/art_and_morality.html

Itō, M., S. Baumer, M.  Bittani, d. boyd, R. Cody, B. Herr-Stephenson, H.A. Horst, P.G. Lange, D. Mahendran, K.Z. Martinez, C.J. Pascoe, D. Perkel, L. Robinson, C. Sims, and L. Tripp. 2010. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

James, C., K. Davis, A. Flores, J.M. Francis, L. Pettingill, M. Rundle, and H. Gardner. 2008. “Young People, Ethics, and the New Digital Media: A Synthesis from the Good Play Project.”GoodWork® Project Report Series, Number 54.  Project Zero, Harvard School of Education.
International Society for Technology in Education (n.d.). “iste-nets: Advancing Digital Age Learning. http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx

James, C. 2009. Young People, Ethics, and the New Digital Media: A Synthesis from the GoodPlay Project. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Jenkins, H., R. Purushotma, K. Clinton, M. Weigel and A.J. Robinson. 2006. Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. http://newmedialiteracies.org/

Kohlberg, L. 1975. “The Cognitive-developmental Approach to Moral Education.” The Phi Delta Kappan 56(10): 670-677.

McLuhan, M. 1967. The Medium is the Message: An Inventory of Effects. New York, New York. Bantam Books.

Monke, L. 2004. “The Human Touch.” Education Next 4(4). http://educationnext.org/thehumantouch/

Murray, M. E. n.d.. “Moral Development and Moral Education: An Overview.” Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Chicago. http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/overviewtext.html

Ohler, J.B. 2009. “Orchestrating the Media Collage.” Educational Leadership 66(6): 8-13. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar09/vol66/num06/Orchestrating-the-Media-Collage.aspx

———. 2010. Digital Community, Digital Citizen. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Oppenheimer, T. 1997. “The Computer Delusion.” Atlantic Monthly, July, 45-62.

———. (2003). The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved. New York, NY: Random House.

Piaget, J. 1969. Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child. D. Coltman, trans. New York, NY: Viking.

Pink, D. 2005. A Whole New Mind: Moving from the Information Age to the Conceptual Age. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Prensky, M. 2001. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon 9(5). http://ow.ly/27iDT

———.  2010. Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Rideout, V.J., U.G Foehr, and D.F. Roberts. 2010. Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18- Year Olds. A Kaiser Family Foundation Study. http://www.kff.org/entmedia/8010.cfm

Santo, R., C. James, S.L.K. Davis, L. Burch, and B. Joseph. 2009. “Meeting of Minds: Cross-generational Dialogue on the Ethics of Digital Life.” Global Kids, Inc., The GoodPlay Project at Harvard University’s Project Zero, & Common Sense Media. http://www.citeulike.org/user/tnhh/article/7866879

Thoman, E., T. Jolls, and Center for Media Literacy. 2008. Literacy for the 21st Century: An Overview and Orientation Guide to Media Literacy Education. Santa Monica, CA: Center for Media Literacy.

Vandewater, E.A., V.J. Rideout, E.A. Wartella, X. Huang, J.H. Lee, and M.S. Shim. 2007. “Digital Childhood: Electronic Media and Technology Use Among Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers.” Pediatrics 119(5): 1006-1015.

Willard, N. 1997. “Moral Development in the Information Age.” Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting 222: 215-222. http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/willard.html

Jourmalism, Media Studies and Public Relations Department, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA

Civic engagement is rarely the initial intent of a social media user. According to a 2011 Pew Internet Life study, nearly two-thirds of social media users are online to keep in touch with friends and family while only a very small percentage (near 5%) utilize it for learning.[1] The results of these studies have inspired media literacy scholars and educators to empower social media users to approach the online tools with a mind toward information sharing. The potential in social media is limitless, but many users have to be made aware of the possibilities. Educators in particular should informed of the civic functions Google+ offers the user.

Unlike Facebook and Twitter, Google+ has an obvious advantage: a social network that is part of the largest search system available. Google+ integrates with the search engine, Google Maps, and utilizes mobile applications. With the access to the most amount of information on the web means that there are possibilities of using Google+ for civic engagement and media literacy as well as typical social media activity. Utilizing Google+ as a media literacy tool means understanding its use as an access point to analyze messages to engage critical thinking about everyday issue people face.[2] Google+ combines the elements of long-form posts, following others, reposting, video and images sharing in one social network. The following is a discussion of how to utilize the features available on Google+ to benefit media literacy.

Using Google+ is fairly simple to use if the user is familiar with Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr, as the site combines all three. The first step is creating a user profile. It is important to create the Google+ profile responsibly as Google will favor your profile in a search for your name.
Google+ feeds are based on a grouping system called “Circles” where the user must curate other users into subjective categories. Google+ will suggest you start creating Circles from your Gmail address book and later you can create and label as many circles as you would like. Once you add someone to a circle, that person is notified they’ve been added, but never informed the name of the circle they have been added to. An example of a good circle would be to curate a handful of users who happen to all be attending the same event, whether political, educational, or otherwise.

One of the first civic uses of Google+ is ability to curate a circle of users and share the circle with others. The intention to share the circle is to create a lasting social media connection to a set of users. Unlike a Twitter search, which just displays the feed based on the keyword and filters out non-associated tweets, the circle will remain after the event or topic and the user can see what the members of circle post after the event. Exposure to these new users may increase media literacy by the potential of viewing content outside a habitual content echo chamber.

Once you have organized your users into Circles, sharing information benefits those participating. The Google+ post is an elegant combination of the other social networks post. Google+ features the ability to add several links, write as much text as necessary, include “hashtags” (which activate a twitter-like subject search of Google+ user posts), mention users’ names (by adding a “+” and typing a name), and use text formatting. Offering this much customization to a post allows the post author to focus on the message he is writing and the author has the potential to add a certain weight to post. [For text formatting examples, go to http://blazomania.com/2011/07/10/google-plus-text-formatting-tips-and-shortkeys/]

When sharing content, just as in the other Social Media sites, a commentary should be added. Being thorough and succinct in the post in beneficial to getting re-shared in someone else’s profile. Google+ also offers the ability to choose who sees your post. You can make it public or restrict to just certain circles you’d like to share with. Keep in mind that the information that posted publicly can show up in Google searches as part of a “social feed.”

(fig. 3 – note the text formatting (“*_” means bold and italics) and the ability to choose who sees the post.)

The “hashtag” feature is nothing new; any current event or concert includes it’s name with the # (pound) symbol in front of it. It’s a metadata feature born in Twitter over four years ago [3] and is now a major feature and part of the trending algorithm of Twitter. The Google+ search engine has features that empower the user within the constraint of the social network with the seamless advantage of Google search. For example, if you were to type #MediaLiteracy, Google+ creates a hyperlink to the search results. The results page defaults to an “Everything, From Everyone, From Everywhere” page that includes (and favors) Google+ posts, websites, and news known as “social search.” By clicking on the dropdown, you can focus the search to posts or web examples, called “Sparks.” Sparks are web results from multiple sources. Many Google+ users have replaced their Google Alerts with a Google+ Sparks saved search. During a natural disaster or live event such as a protest, Sparks can be the fastest way to retrieve relevant results to display.

Another feature of Google+ that is slowly becoming popular is the “Hangout.” Hangouts are video chat with up to ten people that can be saved to YouTube. The Hangout enhances the social network feel by bringing actual voice and picture of the other users. The most useful pragmatic function of the Hangout is the ability use screen share for your desktop or to display YouTube videos to all the participants.  Some professors have actually held virtual office hours on Google+.[4] Hangouts are now available as a mobile application on Android devices as well.

As a media literacy application, Hangouts offer the ability for users to discuss content in a small group setting. As a potential project, students can be assigned to analyze and evaluate media messages. For example, a user can show a commercial from YouTube to the group and hold a discussion about the rhetoric or alternate meanings embedded in the context. Furthermore, a news piece can be analyzed to see if the information is fair and balanced and the report tells a full story – all of which can be archived to YouTube and emailed to the instructor. Hangouts can occur within select circles or activated by clicking Hangout directly beneath a post. Once the Hangout opens, anyone who clicks Hangout will attend the virtual meeting as well. South Seattle Community College has used the feature to talk to guest speakers, create global discussions, and presentation collaboration with the desktop share feature.[5]

Social media growth in the last few years has expanded immensely; Facebook reports that there are 800 million active users – that means over 1 in 10 people on Earth have a Facebook account.[6] Twitter, the second largest social network, shows 175 million accounts, but a study has shown that only about half that are active accounts and only 20,000 or so are considered “elite users” who produce the most information.[7] Google+, launched late June 2011, is the third-place social media site and boasts over 60 million users, most of which return to the site quite often.[8]

Although part of a enormous company that is often the target of anti-trust authorities, Google+ is still a fledgling social network. Many of the early adopters of the Google+ migrated over in frustration at Facebook’s constant changes as it tiptoes the line of user privacy. The most recent Facebook change is the live ticker on the far right of the screen that displays user comments and activity in real time. In comparison, privacy controls in Google+ are very easy to understand and maintain. However, Google+ is criticized as well: Google searches now result in “personal results” as well as web results.[9] The personal results are search returns based on previous searches in your Google+. Google feels that the “Search, + Social” results increase your likelihood of finding a result relevant to you because your peers may have already made the search previously and/or shared the result. As of March 1st, Google plans a further sharing upgrade that utilizes a your Google ID as a shared experience across multiple machines, something very similar to Apple’s iCloud. As mentioned previously, this is why it is important to carefully construct a Google+ post.

Concerns aside, Google+ is a global platform that has so far remained advertising free and less polarized. The commitment to user control has seemed to encourage civic engagement. The users who post the most fulfilling commentary to a post happen to get re-shared quite often. Some find it a very large compliment to become part of a sharable circle of “Opinion shapers” or “New Media Professionals.”

While I have found that students are somewhat reluctant to try a new social network even if they are unhappy with the changes in Facebook or the limits of Twitter, many have joined to participate in the new activity. I have encouraged students to join Google+ and create posts that generate buzz and a following. While I also use Facebook Groups to cultivate ideas and merge play environments with learning environment, I find that Google+ allows for a public discourse on ideas and opinions. Posting and sharing on the new platform attempts at a heavier responsibility to tune into information and consider how other users may respond. As students graduate into a workforce, they will be responsible for many ideas and projects if they want to succeed. Google + has so far excelled as a social media that allows for multiple points and a global discourse.

[1] http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Why-Americans-Use-Social-Media.aspx

[2] Hobbs, Renee. Digital and Media Literacy: A Plan of Action. Washington, D.C., The Aspen Institute, 2010, vii.

[3]  http://gigaom.com/2010/04/30/the-short-and-illustrious-history-of-twitter-hashtags/

[4] http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/professors-consider-classroom-uses-for-google-plus

[5] http://sites.southseattle.edu/gplus/hangouts-1

[6] https://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

[7] http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/29/6369162-twitters-most-frequent-squawkers-a-loud-minority

[8] http://mashable.com/2012/01/03/google-growth-2012/

[9] http://www.economist.com/node/21542677

Department of Communication Studies, Emerson College, Boston, MA, USA

Health Communication in the New Media Landscape
Editors Jerry C. Parker & Esther Thorson (2009)
Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY

In Health Communication in the New Media Landscape, Parker and Thorson (2009) posit that “digital technologies appear to present tremendous opportunities for the dissemination of health-related information” (xxxii). The marriage of digital technology, health, and media literacy offers a partnership that has indisputably positive implications for scholars across multiple disciplines.  I am a digital immigrant college professor or “someone who grew up before the vast number and types of technology were accessible” (Prensky 2001c). In other words, I am a product of the baby boomers generation who works hard in the classroom to stay abreast of the multiple facets of technology and its numerous uses. Unfortunately, I often feel like the superhero father Bob Parr in The Incredibles who, after fifteen years of retirement finds himself in a precarious situation being attacked by a robot and dealing with the reality that his sedentary lifestyle in an insurance job and weight gain has left him ill-equipped to take on the attacks of his ever changing robot contender. Like Mr. Incredible I feel like I’ve aged and gained weight and am desperately in need a personal trainer. Health Communication in the New Media Landscape is that personal trainer for any scholar who is attempting to marry the world of technology and its fast speed presence in the field of health communication research.

The book is divided into 3 sections (Health Communication: Current Status and Trends, Health Communication in the New Media Landscape, and Future Directions) with 17 sole authored and co-authored chapters from scholars like Mohan J. Dutta, Bradford, W. Hesse, Janet M. Marchibroda and Christina Zarcadoolas and Andres Pleasant. Authors offer careful guidance on ways that digital technology can be circulated to provide applied, resourceful, and timely forms of health-related information.

Because recognized scholars in the field of health communication wrote this book I, as a health communication scholar, felt immediate credibility in authors’ knowledge and found myself excited with a text in which culture, technology, media, and literacy were collectively gathered in a comprehensive body of work. A few major themes serve as the focal point of each chapter, namely 1) understanding the modes through which technology can influence health communication; 2) highlights on ways new media can be used to improve health literacy; 3) emerging concepts on ways that patients can understand and use health related issues and health care; 4) innovative ways that practitioners can communication with their patients using technology; and 5) insights on how individuals with chronic diseases use the vast sea change of information to learn about support systems, rehabilitation, and access to resources.

The first two chapters, like most in a text of this nature, provide readers with a broad overview of emerging demographic health trends in the 21st century as well as challenges to health care among disabled populations. Chapter two, for example, offers a thorough description of ways an ecological model which traces how health communication tools at various levels (societal/macro, community/meso, and interpersonal /micro) may affect individual and population health. This chapter also offers an exceptional visual ecological model that has merged health communication with the social determinant of health.

Ethnic minorities, people of color, and low-income populations are often the hardest hit by numerous chronic and infectious disease health disparities. As well, they typically face low literacy making their lives a double bind of medical chaos. For that reason, chapter three Communication Strategies for Reducing Racial and Cultural Disparities by Len-Rios is clearly a benefit for scholars, practitioners and students seeking to understand the health needs of these populations.  One noted critical observation offered by Len-Rios is that the use of mass media channels to target racial/ethnic groups serves to directly target and support these populations. For instance, Hispanic populations get a large proportion of their health information from the media and typically act on that information.  Len-Rios also challenges readers with the reality that, “ethnic identity and individual characteristics are more complex than they are often treated. For instance, a White Cuban American in Miami may have a very different cultural orientation than a recent immigrant from Mexico to Los Angeles” (49).

Chapter eleven, Health Literacy in the Digital World (Zarcadoolas and Pleasant) begins by addressing the importance of health literacy and its potential to improve both the quality of life and overall health of populations.  Authors provide a clear definition of health literacy noting that a large proportion of American adults, particularly those of ethnic minority groups and low-income populations, are below the “proficient” level of health literacy. Authors note that “health literacy is the wide range of skills and competencies that people develop to seek out, comprehend, evaluate, and use health information and concepts to make informed choices, reduce health risks, and increase quality of life” (Zarcadoolas, Pleasant and Green 2003, 2005, 2006).

Chapter fourteen, International Innovations in Health Communication (Haiden, Ratzan and Meltzer) helps readers assess global innovation and its application in the field of health communication. Authors recognize that even though “radio and television have been the predominant media” the availability of computers and digital technology has changed the shift to the need for web-based and computer-based applications (373). Hagglund, Shigaki and McCall’s chapter New Media: A Third Force in Health Care (chapter 16) makes the claim that

digital and electronic media applications will improve the nation’s health literacy because they can be used to move away from text-only information to audio and visual information and interactive services. Digital and electronic media applications also provide a means to translate and disseminate health and health care information into multiple languages. (2009, 433)

Both chapters address the international and cultural dynamics that transpire among aging and culturally unique populations specifically as it relates to health literacy and digital and electronic media.

The book addresses a number of limitations, specifically as it relates to developing countries and their lag time in availability and access to Web-based data and technology, yet it offers ways to integrate media into populations where access is not easily available.

In summary, the partnership between editors Jerry C. Parker, Associate Dean for Research and Clinical Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Esther Thornson, Professor and Dean of Graduate Studies/Research at University of Missouri offers a sensible collective work that helps readers scrutinize the numerous advances in technology and unravel their understanding of health care and communication. This text serves to strengthen practitioners, scholars, students, and professional’s knowledge base and make malleable the seemingly complex intersection of health communication and technology. Each author’s work ties a neat knot in the technological maze and affirms readers that when implemented with care and wisdom technology can transform health communication in a positive way.

References

Parker, C. and E. Thorson (Eds.). 2009. Health Communication in the New Media Landscape. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Prensky, M. 2001. Digital Game-Based Learning. McGraw-Hill.

Zarcadoolas, C., A. Pleasant, and D. Greer. 2003. “Elaborating a Definition of Health Literacy: A Commentary. Journal of Health Communication 8: 119-120.

——— . 2005. “Understanding health literacy: An expanded model.” Health Promotion International 20: 195-203.

——— . 2006. Advancing Health Literacy: A Framework for Understanding and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.