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 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 
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.
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
2. Teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge I
3. Teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge II
4. General pedagogical knowledge
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.
My presentation in ECER 2005 conference in Dublin.
Network 16: ICT in Education and Training.
Chair Discussant: Ed Smeets, Radboud University, Nijmegen.
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!
These words form the concept of media education. What type of activities does media education cover? Another article in Finnish. –> Article
Is media education about protecting children and citizens? What kind of media education it is then? Should we call it media awareness education in that case.
I wrote a few paragraphs around this in Finnish.
–> Article.
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.
I’m starting my doctoral studies now and the thesis will be in English. Hence here is the abstract of my master’s thesis in English.
“The aim of this study is to outline the values and evaluation of Network-Based Education (NBE) from the point of view of the class teacher. Media education and school didactics were the theoretical framework for this thesis. The central conceptual frameworks were Teacher�s pedagogical thinking (Kansanen et al 2000), Relation between theory of didactics and pedagogical reality (Lahdes 1997) and Teaching�studying�learning process (Uljens 1997). The idea was to approach teaching, studying and learning integrated with information and communication technologies (ICTs) in schools through evaluation. This qualitative case study addressed the following research problems: 1) How does the class teacher find the implementation of Network-Based Education? 2) How does the class teacher evaluate Network-Based Education? The first research problem was also approached from the point of view of values and evaluation.”
“Personal interviews and emergent themes were planned on Gallini�s (2001) Framework for the Design of Research in Technology-Mediated Learning Environments (A Sociocultural Perspective) and Tella�s & Mononen-Aaltonen�s (2001) Multidimensional Model for Principles of Planning and Evaluation of Network-Based Education. Eight class teachers were interviewed and they completed a questionnaire. The data was thematized but also some analysis on the data was made without any theoretical presumptions. The findings of this case study suggest that there are two different types of values in the class teacher�s evaluation: (A) methodological and result-oriented values of teaching�studying�learning and (B) educational values and the values in the culture of the school concerned. The former can be simplified as pedagogical values and the latter educational values.”
“Based on these two types of values different levels of evaluation were outlined when information and communication technologies are integrated. The two main levels were defined as the focuses of evaluation in Network-Based Education: (1) Technology focus and (2) Goal-oriented/Purposive focus. In Technology focus (1) the evaluation 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 computers and digital games. Correspondingly, Goal-oriented/Purposive focus (2) leans on the general goals set for teaching, studying and learning with or without ICT integration. In the media education framework the design and evaluation of Network-Based Education are initiated by educational and pedagogical values instead of technology. However, the focuses should be seen as complementary. Thus, the variation of focuses by the class teacher means true media proficiency, which combines professional expertise and personal skills in life.”
Tämän tutkimuksen päätarkoitus oli hahmottaa verkko-opetuksen arvoja ja arviointia luokanopettajan näkökulmasta. Teoreettisena viitekehyksenä oli mediakasvatus ja didaktiikan käsitys opetus�opiskelu�oppimisprosessista. Didaktisena perustana käytettiin Kansasen ym. (2000) opettajan pedagogista ajattelua, Lahdeksen (1997) didaktiikan kehämallia sekä Uljensin (1997) opetus�opiskelu�oppimisprosessia. Lähtökohtana oli luokanopettajan arvioinnin kautta pohtia opetuksen, opiskelun ja oppimisen sekä tieto- ja viestintätekniikan yhtymistä koulukontekstissa. Tutkimuksen pääongelmat olivat: 1) Minkälainen oli luokanopettajan käsitys verkko-opetuksen toteuttamisesta? 2) Miten luokanopettaja arvioi verkko-opetusta? Myös ensimmäistä pääongelmaa lähestyttiin arvojen ja arvioinnin näkökulmasta.
Menetelmänä käytettiin teemahaastattelua. Teemahaastattelun teemoja jäsennettiin Gallinin (2001) sosiokulttuurisen verkko-opetuksen arviointimallin sekä Tellan ja Mononen-Aaltosen (2001) mediakasvatuksen monitasomallin avulla. Aineistonkeruussa kahdeksan helsinkiläistä luokanopettajaa vastasivat lyhyeen kyselyyn, jonka jälkeen heitä haastateltiin välittömästi. Laadullisen aineiston analyysissä teemoiteltiin aineisto, ja tämän rinnalla rakennettiin aineistolähtöistä analyysiä. Näiden vuorovaikutuksesta syntyivät tutkimuksen johtopäätökset. Keskeisinä tuloksina tutkimuksessa nähtiin luokanopettajan verkko-opetukseen liittyvien arvojen kaksi eri näkökulmaa: (A) opetus�opiskelu�oppimismenetelmien ja -tulosten arvonäkökulma sekä (B) ns. kasvatuksellinen ja koulukulttuurin arvonäkökulma.
Arvonäkökulmien pohjalta hahmotettiin johtopäätöksissä erilaisia tasoja luokanopettajan opetuksen, opiskelun ja oppimisen arvioinnista, kun tieto- ja viestintätekniikka on mukana prosessissa. Kaksi tasoa tarkennettiin verkko-opetuksen arvioinnin fokuksiksi, jotka olivat (1) teknologinen ja (2) tavoitteinen fokus. Teknologisessa arvioinnin fokuksessa (1) arviointia hallitsee huoli oppilaasta ihmisenä. Arviointi liittyy joko siihen, että oppilaan on opittava perustaidot tieto- ja viestintätekniikassa ja ymmärrettävä Internetin mahdollisuudet, tai siihen, että opettaja pyrkii suojelemaan lapsia Internetin uhkilta ja liialliselta altistumiselta esimerkiksi digitaalisille peleille. Verkko-opetuksen tavoitteinen arvioinnin fokus (2) nojaa siihen, minkälaisia tavoitteita luokanopettaja yleisesti asettaa opetukselleen, vaikka tieto- ja viestintätekniikka ei liittyisikään prosessiin. Fokuksen taustalla on myös mediakasvatuksen näkökulma tieto- ja viestintätekniikan opetuskäyttöön, jolloin keskeistä on, että opetuksen suunnittelu ja arviointi ei lähde teknologiasta käsin vaan didaktiikasta ja pedagogisista arvoista.
Verkko-opetuksen arvioinnin fokusten voidaan nähdä täydentävän toisiaan. Fokusten varioinnissa voidaan puhua luokanopettajan kohdalla todellisesta mediataidosta, joka ulottuu yli ammatillisen pätevyyden aina opettajan henkilökohtaiseen kehittymisen kaareen.