Category: Research

Research posts in English

EDEN 2007 conference

eden-online

In Naples 13th – 16th of June

–> My presentation about the cycle of media education and volitional literacy
(see our abstract too; the paper is together with Heikki Kynäslahti and Seppo Tella)

–> Some notes in a concept map

–> A few photos (sorry about the poor quality)

The town wasn’t as nice as in postcards but the conference seemed to focus on important questions (which I probably couldn’t get too well into my Notes cmap; please see keynote speakers’ entries: Erik Duval, Teemu Arina). Hopefully I get a chance to participate next the European Distance and E-Learning Network’s Annual Conference too.

eden-online.org

Relationships of Teaching and ICT

This might be a question, which is already answered in several research results, but for myself, an interesting triangle develops in a school context, when three pedagogical areas interact.

  • Classroom Pedagogy
  • The Pedagogy for Teaching about ICT
  • The Pedagogy for Teaching with/through ICT

>> see the figure

I open some point of views regarding these relationships. First, the idea of general pedagogy for teaching any school subject needs to be adjusted for teaching about ICT (e.g. with a help of the pedagogical content knowledge). I feel that learning ICT needs more ‘trial and error’ type of activities and more valuing students own ways of using tools.

Second, the approach from classroom pedagogy towards teaching with/through ICT is discussed a lot. Diffusion of Innovation and Social Shaping of Technology are often mentioned. Generally I feel that ICT hasn’t changed the classroom pedagogy as much as it was hoped for. The teachers use ICT in their teaching depending on how well the tools fit the existing ideas of how the process should be carried out in the classroom.

Third, the pedagogy for teaching about ICT in relation to teaching with/through ICT is interesting. Besides the hopes for ICT enhancing teaching, many schools reason the use of ICT in different school subjects by saying that at the same time as students learn the content of teaching they learn important ICT skills. When these two goals meet in the process, it will affect both, the pedagogy for teaching about ICT and the pedagogy for teaching with/through ICT.

We’ll see if this leads me to gather data some day about the topic.

Circle of Problems

The media education has several approaches. These approaches complete each other. One way to see the different approaches connected is to present those as a solution for the problems which can arise from other approaches.

See figure. The circle of problems in media education

Instrumental Media Education

  • To see positively the use of media, it can enhance the learning and creative work e.g. in schools. This emphasises the instrumental perspective of media.
  • The children are seen as active operators.
  • The problem is that it is hard to control e.g. the misuse of internet.

Restrictive Media Education

  • To avoid the misuse, we can increase control over children’s media comsumption.
  • However, this will passivate children.
  • The protection from the media might be impossible nowadays and the present atmosphere in education does not find strict control sensible.

Predictive Media Education

  • When educator thinks s/he knows how to tutor a child to access, analyse, evaluate and use media sensibly, the media education is predictive.
  • The children should have a critical attitude towards media presentations.
  • The problem is to define how to be critical which usually requires the skills and understanding of media (instrumental media education).

Media education and subject didactics

The research focused on each school subject and its teaching is called subject didactics. Media education is not a subject of its own in Finnish primary schools, but you can however analyse the subject didactics of media education. This relates to my earlier entry about teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge.

Here’s a summary of an article accepted to ‘Ainedidaktinen symposiumi’ publication 2006, which is due to be out in January 2007. >> summary in Finnish

Article in FERA’s Journal 37 (2)

logo

Kasvatus-lehti, the journal of the Finnish Educational Research Association (FERA), published our article about media education in Finland. Co-authors were Sanna Vahtivuori-Hänninen, Ulla Oksanen, Annukka Uusitalo and Heikki Kynäslahti from the Media Education Centre.

Hope you will hunt down the issue!

Media Education X Y Z

Media education can be seen moving in three different dimensions. This entry is trying to give a quick introduction to this thinking.

First dimension (X axis) relates to discussion about media seen either as something to analyse or something to use. In the other end of the dimension we can find the analysing of media presentations and in the other end the use of media i.e. information and communication technologies (ICTs). Suoranta and Ylä-Kotola (2000) has divided media education into two different orientations. First one is object theoretical orientation and another one is instrumental-practical orientation. The former is related to the analysis of the media presentations and the latter to the use of ICT.

Second dimension (Y axis) is about differencies between modern and postmodern education (Bagnall 1994; Poikela 1999; Tella 2003). In one end of this dimension is competency-based education where education is seen as an ideology. In the other end we will find continuing education which would be the opposite to the competency-based education.

Third dimension (Z axis) makes the figure three-dimensional. This holds the very common ideas of media education as a protectionism or as an emancipation of an individual. The first end of this dimension is influenced by the conservative political views, whereas the other end would be influenced by the liberal political views.

This presentation is part of the theorising of the hard core media education. The earlier visual argumentations have had the same idea of dualism. All of these are in fact trying to reach the theory of media education needed for my own reseach. I simply believe that somewhere between the “media” and the “education” we are able to find this theory :-)

References

Bagnall, R. 1994. Pluralising continuing education and training in a postmodern world: Whither competence? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research 2 (2), 18-39.

Poikela, E. 1999. Kontekstuaalinen oppiminen: oppimisen organisoituminen ja vaikuttava koulutus. Tampereen yliopisto, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 675. Tampere. [http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5954-7.pdf]

Suoranta, J. & Ylä-Kotola, M. 2000. Mediakasvatus simulaatiokulttuurissa. Porvoo: WSOY.

Tella, S. 2003. M-learning-Cybertextual Traveling or a Herald of Post-Modern Education? in Mobile Learning, H. Kynäslahti, & P. Seppälä, (Eds.), Helsinki: IT Press, 7–21.

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!