Author: Olli Vesterinen

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Media Education

In my earlier entry, I described the ways of promoting media education (in Finnish). Now I would like to express a few thoughts around the pedagogical content knowledge (or subject didactics). If we are comfortable with the idea of different ways of promoting the media education as presented in my earlier article, I would now like to make a few notions about the theoretical background for this.

The school subjects are usually based on different disciplines, e.g. the math. Media education is rarely a subject of its own and hence it is more to do with the question, how teaching, studying and learning of different content (subjects) is carried out. However, if we were to name one discipline which the media education as a school subject would be based on, it would be the communication (or the media) sciences or the mass communication.

The subject teacher’s profession is usually theorized through knowledge on the respective subject (content) and the pedagogical aspects to it (methods). E.g. in math, a teacher has to know the math but also how to teach it.

In the primary teacher education the emphasis is in the pedagogy and, from that perspective, also in the pedagogical content knowledge on different subjects/domains. In this respect, more important than pupil’s knowledge e.g. in math, are the pupil’s mathematical thinking abilities. Same applies with the media and the media literacy for example. It is no use of knowing about media unless you are able to become literate in receiving information from the media.

If we now define the media education through the dimension between the content knowledge and the general pedagogical knowledge from the teacher’s perspective, we have sensibly four areas.

1. Content

  • the media (mass media and any mediated communication)

2. Teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge I

  • how and what to teach about the media

3. Teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge II

  • how and why to teach with the media / through some medium

4. General pedagogical knowledge

  • the general knowledge about teaching, studying and learning

The difference between second and third is that the second area is depending on the content knowledge whereas the third area deals more with the basic educational tasks. The different school subjects just offer a variation of that.

In this dimension (1–4), all four parts hold ways and reasons for promoting the media education. Here is also the theoretical background for the different ways of promoting the media education as presented in my earlier article.

ECER 2005 presentation

My presentation in ECER 2005 conference in Dublin.
Network 16: ICT in Education and Training.
Chair Discussant: Ed Smeets, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Class Teachers’ Evaluation – Media Education Perspective

Good afternoon! My name is Olli Vesterinen and I come from the Media Education Centre at the University of Helsinki, Finland.

Is media education a school subject in your country?

If it exists in your curriculum, it is then integrated to other school subjects, right?

My approach relates to the following question: if media education is not so much about ‘what’, it must be more to do with ‘how’, when it comes to integrating media – especially information and communication technologies – into teaching, studying and learning. My presentation will deal with this theoretical problem � the ‘what’ and ‘how’ in the media education framework.

I will deal with the media education perspective and network-based education. After that I will come to the values followed by the focuses of teachers’ evaluation. Finally we will see how I�m planning to proceed from here.

In my case study the special area of media education is network-based education. It would be something that combines face-to-face communication and mediated communication in teaching, studying and learning. The context in my first study was primary schools in the city area of Helsinki. The term class teacher refers to a teacher who teaches all school subjects.

The term evaluation does not mean ‘online assessment’ but rather teacher’s self-evaluation in this field of his/her profession. It refers to the teacher’s evaluation of his/her own work at school and the teaching-studying-learning process he/she conducts.

As I’m now working on my doctoral thesis, I will present some results and conclusions at this point of the research process. If you have any questions for example on research methods, please don’t hesitate to ask.

In Finland, teachers do a master’s degree. They have also had quite a lot of independence and freedom to think and evaluate their teaching and pupils studying and learning process as they like. This extends their pedagogical thinking, which I’m interested in. In beginning of this decade, the curriculum (or curricular guidelines) either didn’t follow the development in the amount of computers and internet connections in schools.

When reporting the straight answers of teachers, especially three areas were covered: 1) Independency and communal aspects, 2) Pupils equality in technical skills and social participation, 3) Teaching, studying and learning in accordance with teacher�s perception on a good learning.

After a deeper analysis of all the data, the findings of this case study suggest that there are two different types of values or two perspectives on those values. First set of values could be defined as methodological and result-oriented values of teaching�studying�learning. The second set instead is connected to what is in the interest of a person growing up in the society. The latter is also closer to values in the culture of the institution (e.g. school) concerned. These two sets can be simplified to method perspective and content perspective.

The two focuses of evaluation are then goal-oriented/purposive focus and technology focus. In class teacher’s evaluation of the teaching-studying-learning process s/he conducts, the goal-oriented/purposive focus leans on the general goals set for teaching, studying and learning with or without media/ICTs integration. Correspondingly, the technology focus is dominated by the concern for the pupil. Either the class teacher feels that every pupil should learn the basic skills in ICT or s/he sees that pupils should be protected from the media, computers and digital games.

Media education and ICT form three aspects in schools or curriculum.
Media education perspective covers ICT from (1) the �tools of learning� (2) to a �content of learning� and (3) to a �content to protect from�.

Different competences, skills and literacies, like media literacy, are analysed more and more. I have used the concept of media proficiency, which in addition covers proactive and also ethical perspectives, especially in teacher’s profession (Tella 2001). Media proficiency is very much related to modern definitions of media literacy, which nowadays include more active and participatory role than literacy as such would imply. Compared to media competence for example, media proficiency has unlimited potential. Tella (2000) sees that “competence is more and more often used to refer to some kind of basic or minimum level of expertise, while proficiency, for instance, implies a more dynamic, active and higher level of performance”.

To simplify, we have a model as in the slide 18. As far as teachers are concerned, media proficiency combines professional expertise of a teacher and his/her personal skills and ethical actions in a society and life in general.

Conclusions. In the class teacher’s pedagogical thinking, there is an interesting area between ‘what’ and ‘how’ when it comes to media education in primary school context. This could be called ‘the teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge’ which has been highlighted by Shulman (1987) for example.

This relates to the original question of how teacher reasons the use of ICT in his/her classroom practices and this is the direction where I’m planning to move on.

Thank you!

Koulutuksen uudistaminen Suomessa

Jälleen on yliopistojen pääsykoe-rumba käynnissä. Tähän prosessiin työni puolesta osallistuessani tulin miettineeksi, miksi meillä on tällainen kallis, byrokraattinen ja hakijoita stressaava prosessi? Maailmalla monen yliopiston rekrytointi tapahtuu taloudellisten määrittäjien kautta eikä hakijan soveltuvuutta tarvitse niin paljon miettiä. Yksinkertaista, vai onko?

No, vastaus miksi-kysymykseeni löytyi helposti. Suomessa yliopisto-opinnot ovat pääsääntöisesti ilmaiset, ja näin ollen voidaan tarkastella muita kuin rahoituksellisia kysymyksiä opiskelijoiden rekrytoinnissa. Olemmeko kuitenkin tiellä amerikkalaiseen malliin?

Yliopisto-opintojen muuttaminen maksulliseksi ja kasvatusalan yleiset leikkaukset (esim. perusopetuksen osalta koulujen lakkautukset) sotivat yleistä järkeä vastaan. Washington Post -lehden toimittaja “retkeili” Suomessa kuvaajan kanssa, ja analyysit saivat huomiota myös Suomessa. Suomen ainutlaatuisen tietoyhteiskuntakehityksen peruspilareiksi todettiin maksuton korkeakoulutus ja perusopetuksen korkea taso (PISA-tulokset).
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/finlanddiary/

Kysynkin siis, minkälaiset voivat olla ne perusteet, joilla nämä järjestelmät pitäisi nyt purkaa? Mielestäni perusteet niiden säilyttämiselle ovat selvät. Ne ovat tuoneet Suomelle kehityksen, josta moni muu valtio voi vain unelmoida.

Yliopiston yhteiskunnallista tehtävää toteuttaen toivoisin todella löytäväni ne tutkimustulokset kasvatustieteen alalta, jotka riittäisivät vakuuttamaan myös esitysten valmistelijat ja itse päättäjät. Niin kauan kuin tulee leikkauksia perusopetukseen ja uusia ehdotuksia opintoseteleistä ym. koulutuksen maksullisista muodoista, on haaste edessämme.

Information Society Agendas and Media Education

I have made a distiction between informal media education and institutional media education. Further, my master’s thesis suggested two types of values in the institutional media education, educational and pedagogical values.

To find out more about educational values in media education I’m planning to select a few Finnish/EU documents relating to information society and projects within it. I’m hoping to find agendas which drives certain values to the parents and teachers particularly the media education concerned.

Let’s see how this will pan out!


e-Europa

Fields of Media Education

Figure 1. Bird’s eye view for the main components of the 3D-model.

Since education has been many times divided to formal and informal, it is relevant in media education as well (see Figure 1). To define this, it is fertile to see that the formal media education is delimited to institutional processes (e.g. in schools). The third branch is a certain kind of technology-oriented approach mostly pushed by the market forces and economy. However, the educational policy-making is related to this too through their information society campaigns etc. Technology-oriented approach has often been seen as a counterforce for two first ones (e.g. Pulkkinen 2003).

Figure 2. Perspective 1 (click picture to see it bigger).

From another view, the technology-oriented is farthermost of the three branches in this three-dimensional figure (see Figure 2). The subject or context of the research on informal media education, as far as I can see, has two trends or fields of research. The other one leans to psychology, especially media psychology (e.g. Anu Mustonen), and the other one has its roots in mass media and communication (e.g. Kotilainen 2004). Media literacy or media proficiency can be seen as an ultimate goal for all media education. I will return to these concepts later.

Figure 3. Perspective 2 (120º left from Perspective 1).

In Figure 3 the informal media education is at the back. The institutional media education (now shifted to left) has two branches as well. Pedagogy refers to the quality of the teaching-studying-learning process organised by the teacher, tutor, etc. Education instead, concentrates on well-being of the children and youth. At a same time, the technology-orientation has its own influence to the whole media education field.

Figure 4. Simplified version as a two-dimensional figure to highlight the relation to my dissertation.

In my dissertation the values and evaluation of the class teacher are focal (see Figure 4). Pedagogical values could be defined as methodological and result-oriented values of teaching–studying–learning. Educational values instead are connected to what is in the interest of a person growing up in the society. The latter are also closer to values in the culture of the institution (e.g. school) concerned.

In class teacher’s evaluation of the teaching-studying-learning process s/he conducts, the goal-oriented/purposive focus leans on the general goals set for teaching, studying and learning with or without media/ICTs integration. Correspondingly, the technology focus is dominated by the concern for the pupil. Either the class teacher feels that every pupil should learn the basic skills in ICT or s/he sees that pupils should be protected from the media, computers and digital games.

Media proficiency is very much related to modern definitions of media literacy (see e.g. Varis 2003), which nowadays include more active and participatory role than literacy as such would imply. Compared to media competence for example, media proficiency has unlimited potential. Tella (MEP 9, 2000) sees that “competence is more and more often used to refer to some kind of basic or minimum level of expertise, while proficiency, for instance, implies a more dynamic, active and higher level of performance”.

As far as teachers are concerned, media proficiency combines professional expertise of a teacher and his/her personal skills in a society and life in general.

The Title

It is common to entitle a research with some name and to decide the final title for a dissertation for instance later. In my case I find it important to translate the title first since I’m not changing the content of my licentiate’s thesis anymore. Few thoughts around this.

  • The Finnish title is Verkko-opetuksen arvot ja arviointi helsinkiläisten luokanopettajien näkökulmasta.
  • A simple translation would make ‘Values and Evaluation of Network-Based Education from the point of view of Class Teachers in Helsinki’.
  • Further on I will be interested on a wider Finnish perspective and so I will leave Helsinki out.
  • In Finnish arvot would be ‘values’ in English. Arviointi instead can be seen either as an ‘assessment’ or ‘evaluation’. In my study ‘evaluation’ would be the term to use. If ‘evaluation’ is used, the connection to ‘values’ is more natural and hence term ‘values’ doesn’t need to be included to the title.
  • In Finnish verkko-opetus could be translated into ‘Network-Based Education’ (NBE; see e.g. Tella et al. 2001. Verkko-opetuksessa – opettaja verkossa). In my study the class teachers I studied were using some ICTs in the teaching-studying-learning process (TSL). However, I was interested in the whole process, not just the network-based part of it. I would say that I did a study from the media education perspective about class teachers’ evaluation when some ICTs were integrated to the TSL process.

Hence the title for my dissertation would turn out ‘Class Teachers’ Evaluation – The Media Education Perspective’. It will bring out the school didactics perspective, the values and evaluation as well as the wholistic media education perspective towards the “e” emphasis of my subject.