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

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.

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.