134 488 .THS_ I'lllllll‘llllllllll" (2000 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled MEDIA LITERACY IMPLEMENTATION MODELS IN U.S. SCHOOLS presented by Jane L. Hilbrands has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M-A- degree inWtions mam” 0-7639 MS U is an Aflfrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11/00 chlRODIan.pG$—p.t4 MEDIA LITERACY IMPLEMENTATION MODELS IN U.S. SCHOOLS BY Jane L. Hilbrands A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Telecommunication 1999 ABSTRACT MEDIA LITERACY IMPLEMENTATION MODELS IN U.S. SCHOOLS BY Jane L. Hilbrands This thesis surveys the media literacy movement in U.S. schools, including a current definition of the movement and three implementation models being used, a historical review and discussion of shortcomings, descriptions of the current leading examples of the three implementation models, and results of a mail survey conducted to explore the efficiency of the individual teacher training model. The mail survey utilized the teaching alumni (1995) of the course Media and Learning from Appalachian State University. The survey focused on the percentage of course content used in teaching and shared with other teachers, and the hindrances in doing so. With difficulties discovered in each implementation model, the progress of the movement is then reviewed in Canada, Australia and England. The study reveals a fourth implementation model, and suggests areas for further research. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................. iv INTRODUCTION Media Literacy Definition .................... 1 Implementation Models Description ............ 3 CHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL REVIEW Curricula Examples ........................... 6 Discussion ................................... 13 CHAPTER 2 CURRENT USE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION MODELS Curricula Creation ........................... 16 Individual Teacher Training .................. 20 Mail Survey Methods ........................ 23 Mail Survey Results ........................ 25 School District or Government Mandates ......... 30 CHAPTER 3 OUTSIDE THE US .................................. 34 Canada ....................................... 35 Australia .................................... 38 England ...................................... 40 CONCLUSIONS ..................................... 43 APPENDICES A: Literacy Technology and Instruction Course Syllabus ........................... 51 B: Mail Survey ............................... 54 C: 1995 State Mandates List .................. 64 D: Media Literacy Resources List ............. 67 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... 69 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 : Percentages of use ...................... 26 TABLE 2 : Commonly chosen hindrances of use ....... 27 TABLE 3 : Percentages of sharing .................. 29 iv INTRODUCTION Media Literacy Definition One result of the decades of research studying the social effects of mass media is the movement named broadly as media literacy. The National Telemedia Council(NTC), which began in 1953 and is the oldest national media literacy organization in the United States, defines media literacy as the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and communicate information in a variety of media formats including print and non-print. It is mindful viewing, reflective judgment. It is a new expanded View of traditional literacy. Not only does media literacy include the traditional literacy skills of reading (accessing, comprehending) and writing (producing, communicating), but also, the higher order critical thinking skills of analyzing and evaluating. In a special supplement to the Fall 1995 edition of Telemedium, NTC’s quarterly journal, a set of principles, on which “England, Australia, Canada, and US media educators have a fairly common agreement” (Considine, 1995c, p.iv) elaborates on these critical thinking skills. The goal of the first principle, Media are Constructions, is to demonstrate how all media messages are carefully selected, designed, assembled and edited to communicate a message to a specifically targeted audience. The second principle, Media Represent and Construct Reality, “involves the realization that there is a relationship between the way the world is presented by the media and the way we as media consumers perceive the world” (Considine, 1995c, p.iv). In other words, viewers’ perceptions of the reality of places, people, and situations that they have never experienced first-hand are actually a compilation of ideas received from the media and other sources. It is important to remember the third principle, Audience Members Negotiate Their Own Meanings, however. Each viewer filters media content “through a complex nexus of (his/her) own nature and needs including existing beliefs and value systems” (p.iv). No viewers will select, reject, recall, comprehend or interpret media messages in the same manner, nor will they perceive reality similarly. The next principle, Media Have Commercial Purposes, focuses attention on the economic structure of the industry, from corporate ownership to the sale of advertisement time and individual ad agendas and techniques. The final two principles, Media.Messages Contain values and Ideologies and Media Messages Have Social and Political Consequences, both explore “the way media show and shape, reflect and reinforce reality” (p.iv); and involve “understanding who is portrayed by whom, how, why, and with what effect(p.vi).” Media messages can and do impact the way viewers think of themselves, others, and their society and culture. As the nature of information and power changes media formats in our society, it is imperative that educational institutions also are willing to adjust their definitions of competencies to include new literacy skills. Students will no longer be truly literate in our media dominated society if they are not media literate as just described by the principles. Media literacy allows students to become enlightened consumers and effective citizens, to understand connections between classroom curriculum and popular culture, and to express opinions and stories in the “language” of our culture. It empowers and prepares students to contribute and compete in a media and information based world. Implementation Models Description Even though the importance of media literacy in education is clear, the manner of implementing these educational programs is not. In the U.S. three main implementation strategies or models are being used: curricula creation, individual teacher training, and school district or government mandates. The curricula creation model is simply the development, availability, and use of media literacy curricular materials. Full textbooks, individual lesson units, supporting background materials, or just current media examples and statistics are all of essential importance to educators preparing to teach media literacy concepts. Although this model should exist within the other implementation models (any educational movement must have adequate curricular resources), it does exist alone. Much media literacy information is presented to students through curricula acquired by a single teacher with no media literacy training or organized school or government support. In the individual teacher training model, (also called the catalyst approach), a media organization or educational institution offers training in media literacy concepts and teaching ideas to interested educators, who then return as media literacy “lone rangers” to their schools and attempt to infuse their classes and gradually others’ with media literacy education. The training itself varies greatly from program to program in emphases and duration, with some focusing mostly on production and technology, to others noticing just social impacts of media. Some programs are semester—long classes, others just an “intensive” weekend, and the participants can be either undergraduate education students or experienced teachers. The third model, school district or government mandates, occurs when an entire school district, state/province, or nation decides to teach media literacy principles within a structured and mandatory curriculum, integrated into many grades and some subjects (language arts, social studies, etc.). Teachers of these grades or subjects are responsible for presenting certain media literacy skills and concepts. Although this model needs sufficient curricular resources and training of teachers, it often exists with minimal support in these areas. It differs from the previous models in the structured, extensive and mandatory nature of the implementation. A number of countries currently mandate media literacy education: Australia, Canada, Finland, Great Britain, Spain and Sweden (Tufte, 1995, p.25-28). A handful of states in the US are in the process of creating or expanding government mandates, and a number of school districts are beginning to experiment with implementing a variety of mandated media literacy curricula. How has the US implemented media literacy in the past? What problems exist within each model? What models are other countries using? Is there a preferred model for the US to use to implement media literacy education in schools? This thesis will address these questions and also recommend future research to be done in these areas. Historical Review Curricula Examples Historically, the US has relied on the curricula creation model. Starting earlier but taking hold in the late 19703 in the US, the media literacy movement was supported by a handful of researchers, organizations, and educators who piloted a variety of curricula designed to intervene between the effects of the mass media and their audience. Often including the home but focusing more on the school setting with television as the medium, these teaching units give data, show examples, encourage discussion, and generate awareness of media issues such as family, age, gender, or race stereotypes; human sexuality; advertising; violence; etc. Although many of these curricula were painstakingly created, few were ever assessed for measured effects on participants. Furthermore, few of the curricula are receiving widespread implementation in U.S. schools. In 1978 the US Office of Education funded four major television education projects: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (Kindergarten - 5th grade), WNET/Thirteen New York City (grades 6 - 8), FarWest Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (grades 9 - 12), and Boston University (adult - which will not be focused on). Southwest’s curriculum for K-5 included 56 “Teacher Cue Cards” with activities involving TV, each color coded for different school subjects, and a training manual for teachers; a series of small pamphlets, and a board game was created for students (Colder-Bolz, 1979). Topics covered included use of viewing time, advertising, fact vs. fantasy, program elements, production techniques, and so on. The materials were evaluated only for usabiliby by 100 teachers and 70 families (Brown, 1991) and were slightly modified. WNET/Thirteen in NYC was working with educators previous to 1978, but with government funding could now develop a formal curriculum and training sessions. Throughout ten chapters, Critical Television Viewing: A Language Skills Work-a-Text (Kane, 1980), for grades 6-8, skillfully combines cognitive learning skills with television issues and data such as use of viewing time, advertising, persuasion, and TV content. This text/workbook also underwent an extensive revision process but was not assessed with pre and posttests or comparisons to control groups in order to measure effects. A third grant was given to FarWest Laboratory for Educational Research and Development who teamed up with WGBH-TV in Boston to write a curriculum for high school students. Inside TV: a Guide to Critical Viewing (White, 1980a) is the resulting text whose seven units cover TV’s persuasiveness, structure, programming and production, commercials, news, government control, and social issues. The topics are cross referenced to school subjects on grids located in the Trainer’s Manual. Although Brown (1991) concludes “This is one of the most carefully orchestrated and instantly usable sets of material for critical viewing skills training found...”(p.112) again, no compilation of research results was reported in Brown's 1985 survey (p.116). A long list of other teaching units without researched measured effects could be created. In fact, Brown (1991) reviewed 27 television education projects and evaluated them on a 5+ to 0 scale. Of the 30 objectives evaluated, “tested results” received the lowest overall score, a 52 of a possible 135, with only two projects, Idaho Falls by Anderson and Ploghoft (1980) and the Singers(1980), receiving 5+: “directly evident.” Anderson (1983) states that “The entire field of research on...the effect of television literacy instruction on critical viewing has less than a dozen entries” (p.314). He then summarized research findings by citing only three projects which substantially explored measured effects and three others which compared the effectiveness of a variety of teaching methods. Of the first group, again Idaho Falls and the Singers were mentioned with the addition of Dorr, Graves, and Phelps (1980). The Idaho Falls Project is a vertically integrated curriculum for grades 3-6 covering four areas: commercials, entertainment, news, and personal use. The materials include a teachers guide, The Way We See It, that provides background information, activities, worksheets, overhead transparencies, videos, and many series of “Socratic” questions (Ashton, Moll, & Rinaldi, 1981). The purpose of the curriculum includes developing critical viewers who are able to identify value-laden statements and images in media, and who understand that they need not change their value system to that shown on television. The content is intended to be integrated into existing Language Arts and Social Studies curriculums. Parents are included through participation in evening discussion meetings, training materials sent home correlating to the curriculum, and six discussion guides to be used after viewing predetermined programs with their children (Ashton, Moll & Rinaldi, 1981). Effects were measured through a test, “The TV Information Game” developed by Ploghoff and Anderson, which tests cognitive skills including identification, analysis of syntax, and perceiving implications and consequences. Three of six schools in Idaho Falls District 91 participated in the curriculum and all were pretested. At the posttest, students in the third grade showed substantial increases in cognitive skills over the control group, while gains in grades 4-6 were better explained by maturation. In subsequent testing, grades 5-6 also showed substantial improvement over control groups, while grade four’s findings “remained equivocal” (Anderson, 1983, p.315). Anderson concluded that even though information was mastered and cognitive skills were gained, critical viewing skills were not necessarily promoted (in Brown, 1991, p.129). 10 In 1978 Dorothy and Jerome Singer with Diana Zuckerman taught an eight lesson curriculum over four weeks to third, fourth and fifth graders. Two elementary schools participated, one as experimental and one as control, with students (matched for IQ, reading level, ethnicity, and socio-economic status) given pretests at each school. Lesson topics were Introduction to TV, Reality vs. Fantasy, Camera and Special Effects, Commercials and TV Business, Identification with TV Characters, Stereotypes, Violence and Aggression, and How Viewers can Influence TV (Singer, 1980). Teaching methods included video clips from current TV shows, questions, vocabulary, and activities for school and home; and an illustrated booklet was given to each student. Teachers found the materials easy to use and were enthusiastic, even though most were not knowledgeable about the information before the brief training they were given (Singer, 1981, p.77—78). Posttests were given two weeks and three months after teaching. Impressive differences were found in the measure of knowledge especially in effects and commercials, and also in vocabulary words (Singer, 1981, p.76). February testing revealed retention of the information gained. However viewing habits and preferred programs and characters were not significantly influenced (Singer, Singer & Zuckerman, 1980). The authors 11 concluded that the units were successful for teaching specialized learning, but it was not possible “to assess our ultimate goal of creating more discriminating TV consumers” (Singer, 1981, p.79). Working with younger students in Kindergarten, second, and third grades, Dorr, Graves, and Phelps (1980) created a small six lesson curriculum. The experimental groups learned facts about TV production and economics/advertising, and also procedures for evaluating TV reality and fantasy. The control group was taught lessons about social reasoning using role playing and other interactions to help them with the social dilemmas common to their age (Brown, 1991, p.153) Pre and posttesting through written forms and interviews, Dorr stated that “Analyses indicated that children learned the curricula and used them in discussing TV’s reality, but failed to use them in mediating attitudinal effects” (Dorr, 1980, p.75). During the interviews, the children did not use the curriculum content as a factor in discussing TV’s influence on attitude change. Dorr used a modified version of the Preschool Racial Attitude Measure (Williams and Robertson, 1967) as the measure of attitude change and an episode of The Jeffersons as the basis for the discussion (Dorr, 1980, p.74). Also the study did not demonstrate clearly whether 12 knowledge gained would actually lead to more selective viewing (Brown,1991, p.154). The failure, Dorr hypothesized, was most likely due to the brevity of the measures (p.82). Discussion From these summaries of programs and research projects, it is clear that the field of media literacy is just in the earliest stages of development and research. Many things are untried and most consequences of the curricula are unstudied. Of the three which did conduct formal research, all found that students did learn new information about TV; however, only elementary grades were used, and none were able to state that significant attitudinal or behavioral changes were a result. The studies included general attitude towards TV, viewing habits, and program and character preference as measures of attitude and behavior. The failure to find significant change in these areas could well be, as Dorr mentioned, a matter of the length of time involved. “A media training program is more significant to the extent that it is organized and sustained,...is based on known research that is valid and relevant, is tested and evaluated for its results with subjects through time....” (Brown, 1991, p.42) 13 As Brown states, time is an important but difficult factor to use well in these studies. The Singers and Dorr mentioned a lack of continual follow-ups or a shortness of the interventions as potential problems to the validity of their studies. Initiating an unfamiliar and brief curriculum simply may not be enough exposure to successfully affect student attitude and behavior. For the curricula creation model to demonstrate success, the curricula must be implemented throughout the school grades with assessment occurring over the years as well. Due to the lack of established and lengthy media literacy programs, and the longitudinal nature of research necessary to study the effects of established programs, in a later section this thesis will instead explore, as a preliminary study, the effectiveness of the individual teacher training model: Was the training implemented into class curriculum or shared with other teachers? What hindered trained teachers in doing so? Along with limiting research opportunities, the long duration needed for media literacy education has created implementation problems for media literacy advocates as well. Many parents resist taking any length of time to study TV issues, worrying that their children are missing more important topics or believing that quality and 14 quantity of TV viewing is not a problem for their children. The Singers noted that parents were reluctant to participate in the workshops and lacked interest in the results, believing “that TV was a problem for other children, especially children less privileged than their II own (Singer, 1980, p.92). Most school districts also strongly hesitate to allocate priceless curriculum time to media literacy. After the increase of interest in the seventies, the education field experienced a back-to-basics movement in the eighties which narrowly focused time and funding on teaching only the “core courses” of English, math, science and history. Funding and attention shifted away from music and art programs, and, of course, off the newly developed concept \ of media literacy education. ‘...The conservative ‘back- to-basics’ movement in US schooling choked off official sanction for the fragile media education movement before it could take root. A dwindling economy nearly killed it off” (Leveranz and Tyner, 1993, p.22). Without parent or administrator support, the future of media literacy looked bleak. However, the nineties have seen a resurgence of activity due to the influx of technology, funding for schools, and general public interest in media effects. Across the 15 nation programs are sprouting up, but mostly just a patchwork of individual educators independently creating single units or classes (Hobbs, 1996, p.1). A few top programs, however, are blazing the trail for more complete media literacy implementation, striving for a longer time range through the curriculum and greater community awareness of media issues. Current Use of the Implementation Models Curricula Creation Similar to the nature of activity in media literacy in the 19705, the curricula creation model is still being used in the 19905. As the largest publisher and distributor of media literacy teaching materials in North America with a service base of over ten thousand customers (CML, 1996, memo), the Center for Media Literacy is one of the leading organizations in the media literacy movement in the US, and one of the main examples in the curricula creation model currently. The Center was established in 1977, operates out of Los Angeles and is funded by private donations, product sales, and membership fees (CML, Nov 16,1999, phone interview). The Center's 24 page catalog offers over 100 16 items, including texts on media literacy theory, and also their own specialty - Media Literacy Workshop Kits which are ready—to-use teaching units that include background reading, lesson plans, worksheets, handout masters, and often video supplements. These curriculum units cover many media issues including violence, advertising, news, sexism, global politics, tobacco and alcohol, beauty, and others. The units are designed to be used as stand-alone lessons taught within an already existing class curriculum, and to be taught without any prior training. One particularly extensive Workshop Kit is Catholic Connections to Media Literacy (CML, 1992) for Catholic schools and parishes. This Workshop Kit contains seven teaching units for ages ranging from junior high to adults about the media literacy issues of advertising, news, beauty, citzenship, and stereotypes. The curriculum revolves around the Center for Media Literacy’s principles: Media construct reality Media use identifiable techniques Media are businesses with commercial interests Media present ideologies and value messages ALONE-4 Like all of the Workshop Kits, this kit contains backgound information, lesson plans, hand-outs, and additionally, a resource page. The lesson plans include 17 sections titled awareness, analysis, reflection, and action. This Workshop Kit is notable because it was created for direct use in a specific school/church system. Locally in Grand Rapids, two Catholic schools briefly introduced the curriculum during an in—service session three years ago. However, neither school formally adopted or initiated a structured and mandatory implementation sequence for the curriculum, and left the decision of whether to or what to incorporate into classroom teaching up to individual teachers. Both directors of religious education contacted felt that current use of the materials in class was minimal, but some use had occurred in church activities (Frisk, Dufendang, 1997, interview). As is often found in the curricula creation model, implementation is limited by the interest of teachers, schools, and communities. Along with the traditional books and units of curricula creation model, the Center for Media Literacy also provides networking through its 2000 plus members, publishes a quarterly journal, Connect (formerly Media and Values), hosts an Internet site, recently sponsored the second National Media Literacy Conference, and just opened the CML Resource Center and Curriculum Library. The library is available for members and holds print or electronic 18 resources for media literacy education at all grade levels, after school programs, or community adult education. Seminars, discussion forums, and curriculum demonstrations are also scheduled with sessions revolving around the Center’s Workshop Kits. Although CML is the best example in the US of the curricula creation model, the Center expanded its services in August 1997, to include the second implementation model, Individual Teacher Training. Volunteer participants attend six Saturday sessions plus a three-day weekend of media literacy training and will receive a collection of print and video teaching materials to use in conducting their own future in-service seminars and demonstrations in schools (CML, Dec.1997, p.2,3) Overall, The Center for Media Literacy serves as an essential curricular resource for all educators interested in media literacy and as a leading example of the curricular creation model being utilized in the US. Additionally, as the Center launches its training capabilities and moves into the individual teacher training model, it hopes to increase the extent of implementation of its materials. 19 Individual Teacher Training Model A handful of organizations or educational institutions currently practice the individual teacher training model, sponsoring a variety of training opportunities for interested teachers. The New Mexico Media Literacy Project (NMMLP) was founded in 1993 by Deidre and Hugh Downs and is directed by Bob McCannon (McDonald, Aug/Sept 1993, p.34). It is based in Albuquerque, New Mexico and is funded by state grants from the New Mexico Board of Education and Department of Health, and by private foundation gifts (NMMLP, fall/winter 1998, p.1). The NMMLP describes its project as the country’s most successful grassroots media literacy organization and has received recognition as being “at the forefront of this movement" by LA Times writer Claudia Puig, along with local filming for a November 4, 1995 story with NBC National News and a January 9, 1996 story for American Agenda (NMMLP, Winter 1995, p.3). The three and a half day long Catalyst Institutes have approximately 300 graduates (NMMLP, fall/winter 1998, p.2) and utilize past catalysts sharing how they currently apply media literacy principles. In 1996, 150 applications were received for the 50 catalyst openings. “A main factor in choosing participants was their indicated desire to be future resources for others” (NMMLP, Summer 1996, p.6). 20 Along with past catalyst success stories and ideas, nationally known media critics and media makers present seminars. Topics vary in each institute depending on the speakers available, according to director McCannon, but always revolve around the major content areas of analytical tools, issue discussions, production techniques, and activism ideas (1997, phone interview). Appalachian State University also trains individual teachers, actually teachers-to-be instead of experienced teachers, through a mandatory media literacy curriculum for all its undergraduate education students. According to a report of The National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy at the Aspen Institute, “Perhaps the most sustained institutional effort at pre-service training within formal schooling has been at Appalachian State I University,’ North Carolina’s largest teacher training institution (Aufderheide, 1992, p.4). B. Osborn in The Independent considers A.S.U.’s program to be a milestone, as it is “the first teaching institution to embrace media literacy” (1993, p.42). The university’s curriculum requires one course “Literacy, Technology and Instruction” of all undergraduate education students and an additional course, “Media and Learning” of all students training to be K-6 or middle school teachers. The first course’s 20 21 objectives (see Appendix A) include the general areas of media history, theory, formats, and issues, as well as hands-on use of and teaching strategies involving new technology (Considine, 1996, course syllabus). On completing the second course, “Media and Learning,” students should be able to define and relate media literacy to the North Carolina curriculum, use technology to design and make educational media in a variety of formats, value the role of media/technology in the teaching/learning process, and identify appropriate strategies for the successful application of media and technology (Considine, 1995a, course syllabus). The culmination of the course, the Media Literacy Unit, requires the student to design and produce media materials to create a series of lessons that address an issue of media literacy (e.g. stereotypes, materialism, etc.). With this training, the education students graduate from A.S.U. and hopefully bring these media literacy skills and information to their new schools’ curricula. Even with excellent training, Considine admits, however, “that young teachers with innovative ideas sometimes run into principals and superintendents who have had no courses in media or technology and have never heard of media literacy,” (Thompson, 1996, p.20) who quite possibly, even 22 if unintentionally, put a lid on the growth of media literacy in the school’s curriculum. Dr. Renee Hobbs, a media literacy specialist and associate professor of Communications at Babson College also attests to the trials of the individual media literacy teacher: “One teacher in a school can’t make media literacy work. When that teacher’s energy flags, the program disappears” (in Osborn, Aug/Sept 1993, p.44). When asked in a phone conversation if A.S.U. had any method of tracing education graduates experiences and successes with teaching media literacy, Considine replied that they had not attempted to acquire such information. This gap of knowledge between training and results in the individual teacher training model will be addressed in the following section. Mail Survey: Methods To study the degree of implementation of media literacy training into current classroom teaching, a mail survey (Appendix B) was sent to the 181 alumni from the 1995 graduating class of the Reich College of Education at Appalachian State University. A mail survey was chosen because the sample is geographically distant and dispersed, the even greater difficulty in obtaining alumni phone 23 numbers, and lower cost. To encourage a higher response rate, the following suggestions of Fox, Crask, and Kim (1989) were used: university sponsorship, stamped return postage, postcard follow-up, first-class stamped outgoing postage, colored questionnaires, and notification of cut- off date (p. 124). The cover letter and survey was sent to all 181 alumni of Media and Learning, with a numbered return envelope corresponding to the numbered mailing list. Non-respondents were sent reminder postcards two weeks later, after which the numbered mailing list was discarded to insure confidentiality. The content of the mail survey was based on the ten units reflected in the course syllabus: Analyzing Advertising, Analyzing News, Media Characteristics, Media Lab #1, Media Lab #2, Learning Styles, Visual Learning, Evaluating Instructional Software, Critical Listening Skills, and the Instructional Unit; and on suggestions from the course professor and a handful of course alumni. The sample was asked to answer the following for each of the ten units: To what extent have you been able to use the o\° content of the unit in your teaching (0% 25% 50% 75 100%), Check the two choices which most hindered you in using the unit (see Table 2 for choices), To what extent have you been able to share the content of the unit with other 24 teachers (0% 25% 75% 100%), Check the two choices which most hindered you in sharing the unit with other teachers (see Table 2 for choices). Mail Survey: Results Seven of the original 181 addresses were unusable, leaving the survey with 174 possible respondents. The mail survey was returned by 58 respondents, a 33.3% return rate. According to Wimmer and Dominick (1994) a 20%—40% return rate is typically expected with a mail survey (p.124). Of the respondents, 11 were eliminated because they had either not taught since graduation or had not taken Media and Learning at A.S.U. The 47 usable responses showed the following results. The respondents were very homogenous with 43 having taught two or more years, 42 were female, 43 were ages 25- 27, and 40 taught in elementary grades (K-5). The mean of each of the percentages of use for the ten course units appear in Table l. 25 TABLE 1 : Percentages of use course unit mean Analyzing Advertising 16% Analyzing News 21% Media Characteristics... 20% Media Lab #1 47% Media Lab #2 38% Learning Styles... 44% ...Visual Learning 47% ...Instructional Software 45% Critical Listening Skills 44% Instructional Unit 23% Worth noting in this first section of the survey are the four lowest means, all found for the units which focused more on mass media (Advertising, News, Media Characteristics, and the Instructional Unit); while the general skills (Learning Styles, Visual Learning, and Listening Skills) had higher means. Also worth noting are the three deviations from the traditional curve: Media Lab#1, #2, and Evaluating Instructional Software. These three hands—on, technology based units all had higher means and two—peaked curves (with the second most chosen response as 75% for each of the three units, compared to their modes of 25%, 0%, 25% respectively). The atypical curves most likely reflect the difference in schools between the technology “haves” and “have nots”. This was also reflected in the choices of hindrances for these three units. The focus of this study was to explore how well the 26 individual teacher training model implements the teaching of media literacy information in schools. To this end, a pedagogical look at which topics may be most appropriate for teachers of which grade levels will not be pursued. However this is a research topic that should be pursued in future studies. Overall, the mean percentages of use are extrememly low for units focusing on mass media topics, and improved for units on general skills and technology use. The hindrances most commonly chosen in applying the units are found in Table 2. TABLE 2 Commonly chosen hindrances in use % of course units hindrance number hindrance was chosen 1.1ack of time 100% 2.lack of curricular freedom 70% 3.1ack of support from other teachers 0% 4.1ack of support from administration 0% 5.1ack of support from parents 0% 6.1ack of student interest 10% 7.1ack of own interest 30% 8.other (written in - not appropriate for age group) 30% 9.other (written in - not enough equipment/money) 30% course unit hindrances chosen Analyzing Advertising 1,2,7,8 Analyzing News 1,2,8 Media Characteristics... 1,2,6,7,8 Media Lab # 1 1,9 Media Lab # 2 1,9 Learning Styles... 1,2 ...Visual Learning 1,2 ...Instructional Software 1,9 Critical Listening Skills 1,2 Instructional Unit 1,2,7 27 The hindrances in using the units reveal a few interesting patterns. In this first half of the survey, teachers rarely chose other teachers, administration, or parents as a source of hindrance (although lack of time, curricular freedom, and equipment could be viewed indirectly as lack of support from administration); the inability to apply the media literacy units, according to the teachers, seems to stem from individual and classroom schedules and curricula; and lack of teacher interest, student receptivity, and equipment. For units with the lowest mean percentages of use (Table 1 - those with mass media topics), the teachers were more likely to view the unit as inappropriate for the grade level, and often felt a lack of personal or student interest. For the units which focus on technology use, teachers felt hindered from lack of equipment and time only. Similarly, for the units focusing on general skills, the teachers did not feel hindered by lack of student or personal interest or inappropriateness of the material, but only lack of curricular freedom and time. The mean for percentages of sharing each of the ten units are found in Table 3. 28 TABLE 3 : Percentages of sharing course unit mean Analyzing Advertising 7% Analyzing News 7% Media Characteristics... 5% Media Lab # 1 27% Media Lab # 2 24% Learning Styles... 20% ...Visual Learning 19% ...Instructional Software 18% Critical Listening Skills 16% Instructional Unit % The extremely low means of percentage of sharing each unit is most troubling for the individual teacher training model. Although some of the information is being used by the trained teacher, much less is being shared, ending the growth of the implementation. The hindrances most commonly chosen in sharing these units were lack of support from other teachers (#3), lack of time (#1), and lack of own interest (#7) for all ten units. The hindrances chosen reveal that teachers feel too busy and disinterested in sharing, possibly due to a perceived lack of interest of other teachers. In short, based on this survey, the individual teacher training model suffers from low implementation levels, particularly beyond the trained teachers themselves. Perhaps the NMMLP, with experienced teachers as participants who have already expressed a desire to learn 29 and a commitment to apply and share the media literacy training would place the model on more solid ground. School District or Government Mandates Model Whether at the school district, state, or national level, the success of mandating media literacy curricula depends on the scope, detail and enforcement of the mandatory curricula, and on the extent of mandatory teacher training. At the school district level, mandatory curricula vary from small two week units inserted into high school courses to complete K - 12 integrated programs. Training of teachers to complete these mandated curricula also varies from informal sharing of articles and ideas among collegues, to masters degree programs. Most school district programs are known only locally and remain undocumented; however, the Billerica School District in Massachusetts presents one of the better examples in the US in scope, teacher training, and documentation. The Billerica district mandates began in 1992 when Whittle Communication’s Channel One was voted by teachers into the district’s middle schools. (The high school had shown Channel One since 1989.) Before the vote was approved, however, the administration mandated a program 30 led by Dr. Renee Hobbs to train teachers through in- services to deconstruct the ten minutes of news and two minutes of ads and to introduce it into the classroom without students accepting it uncritically (Osborn, 1993, p.44). The program since has grown to include all grade levels and subject areas. The Billerica Initiative, as the program was named, is an ongoing effort by the Billerica, Massachusetts Public Schools to introduce the skills of media literacy to 340 teachers and 7000 students, and to integrate media literacy concepts into grades K-12 through staff development, community outreach, curriculum development, and performance assessment (Hobbs, 1996, p.3). As Hobbs sees it, “the most important component of the initiative was a long term staff development program consisting of a graduate-level program of courses which led to a Masters Degree in Media Literacy, sponsored by Fitchburg State College and the Merrimack Education Center” (Hobbs, 1996, p.3). Thirty teachers, equally from elementary, middle, and high school, enrolled in the master’s degree program. The program combined traditional graduate level courses in media studies, media education and pedagogy, in addition to staff development to help teachers apply theory to classroom. In May 1995, 26 Billerica teachers graduated with master’s degrees in media 31 literacy and by January 1996 began developing their own courses to teach media literacy skills to their collegues and community members. The graduate program still exists as a Master’s Degree in Education with Specialization in Instructional Technology (Merrimack Education Center 1999). Hobbs found three lessons in using the school district mandates model: Teachers in Billerica benefitted greatly from regular access to each other. Teachers got increased power when they collaborated in staff teams (Hobbs, 1996, p.24—25). Teachers who chose to continue their professional development in media literacy perceived that the process or skills involved in media analysis and production as directly relevant to the subjects and skills that they already teach (p.26). Since media literacy acknowledges the importance of visual and auditory modes of expression and communication, teachers (and students) with these skill sets find particular satisfaction and personal growth (p.28). One strength to Billerica’s approach at the school district level of the Mandates Model is also its drawback: the extent of teacher training. Responsibility for training in and sharing media literacy was “put into the laps of the leading teachers in the school district, without freeing them up from any of their existing duties and responsibilities, creating an (at times) impossible situation for teachers...” (Hobbs, 1996, p.29). 32 At the state level in the US, curriculum mandates concerning elements of media literacy education exist within English Language Arts/Communication, Social Studies and Information Skills, and Health/Wellness. Compilations of media literacy mandates in US state curricula were given by Considine (1995b) and conducted by Kubey and Baker (1999). The changes in specificity and number of mandates between the studies is great. In 1995 Considine stretched the idea of what constitutes a media literacy mandate to include generally worded mandates, such as students will be “ prepared to make well- reasoned, thoughtful, and healthy life decisions” (Appendix C). Still only 10 states were counted with mandates, even though some mandates made no direct reference to mass or nonprint media. In his article, Considine did not include any criteria for inclusion as a media literacy mandate. In 1999 Kubey and Baker counted 48 states with media literacy mandates in their curricula. Kubey and Baker’s study used 3 raters all in agreement with these criteria to reach their total: “only where use, analysis, evaluation, or production of electronic media other than print was included or where the word ‘viewing' was specifically used.” A chart of each actual state mandate counted in Kubey and Baker’s study was currently unavailable online. 33 Although state mandates are multiplying, Professor Considine cautions that “recommending something in Washington and actually making something happen in the rest of America are two different things. Even in North Carolina...change is very slow" (Thompson, 1996, p.20). Considine(1995b) also confides that whether or not any of these mandates are actually addressed or if teachers have sufficient training to do so is unknown (p.38). Kubey and Baker (1999) agree, mentioning that “guidelines and mandates do not always translate into implementation, quality, or systematic evaluation.” OUTSIDE THE US With difficulties inherent in all three implementation models, the US can look to the history of the media literacy movement in other countries. Three countries lead the way: Canada leads in North America (Leveranz & Tyner, Aug/Sept 1993, p.23), England in Europe (Tufte, 1995, p.27), and Australia is widely acknowledged as having the most experience in developing theory and practice in media studies world-wide (Leveranz & Tyner, 1993, p.23). 34 Canada Canada, like the US, experienced an upswing of interest in media education in schools during the late 605 and early 705; but again, the back-to-basics movement and budget cuts ended the earliest secondary school courses involving media education. However, Canada rebounded again in the 805 and now hosts a plethora of media education programs and resources, which will be described. (Pugente, 1997, p.1) Each province in Canada is responsible for its own educational mandates. The past few years have seen the province of Ontario become a leader in media literacy not only in Canada, but also around the world (Pugente, 1997, p.14), and Ontario was the first in 1995 to mandate media literacy education in grades 1-9 (Pugente, 1997, p.5), and as of 1997 has mandates in grades 1—12 (DeBoer, 1999, email). This decision came about from years of lobbying in Ontario by teaching federations, the Association for Media Literacy, or AML (with over 1,000 teachers, librarians, parents, and media professionals as members) (Pugente, 1997, p.6), and other home and school groups who were concerned about the proliferation of violence and pornography and the increase in television viewing, and who 35 demanded that the school system respond (Pugente, 1997, p.5). The consequences of the decision include a Viewing and Representation strand in the Language Arts curriculum in Ontario for Grades 1-9, over 100 in-service days and workshops for teachers (Pugente, 1997, p.6), three summer courses at the University of Toronto for media teachers (p.8), the 232 page Media Literacy Resource Guide including teaching strategies, models, rationale, and classroom activities in TV, film, radio, popular music and rock video, photography, print, and cross-media studies (advertising, sexuality, violence, Canada identity, and news) (p.6); and The AML Anthology, a collection of curriculum units from Ontario teachers. Ontario supports media education through teaching resources, training for both experienced teachers and incoming teachers, and mandated media education curriculum, which includes both integration and stand-alone courses (DeBoer, 1999, email). John Pungente is the author of “The Second Spring: Media Literacy in Canada's Schools”, co-author of.Media Literacy: The Ontario Ministry of Education Resource Guide for Teachers, member of and guest speaker for the AML (AML, online, p.1), and executive director of the Jesuit Communication Project in Toronto, founded in 1984 to 36 promote media literacy and serve as a Canadian resource center with over 4,000 books and periodicals, as well as a bi-annual newsletter distributed to 41 countries(Pugente, 1997, p.11). Pugente sums up Canada’s lessons learned with these nine crucial factors for the successful development of media literacy education in schools: 1. “Media literacy, like other innovative programs, must be a grass roots movement and teachers need to take a major initiative in lobbying for this. 2. Educational authorities must give clear support to such programs by mandating the teaching of Media Studies within the curriculum, establishing guidelines and resource books, and by making certain that curricula are developed and that materials are available. 3. Faculties of Education must hire staff capable of training future teachers in this area. there should also be academic support from tertiary institutions in the writing of curricula and in sustained onsultation. 4. In-service training at the school district level must be an integral part of program implementation. 5. School districts need consultants who have expertise in media literacy and who will establish communication networks. 6. Suitable textbooks and audio-visual material which are relevant to the country/area must be available. 7. A support organization must be established for the purposes of workshops, conferences, dissemination of newsletters and the development of curriculum units. Such a professional organization must cut across school boards and districts to involve a cross section of people interested in media literacy. 37 8. There must be appropriate evaluation instruments which are suitable for the unique quality of Media Studies. 9. Because media literacy involves such a diversity of skills and expertise, there must be a collaboration between teachers, parents, researchers, and media professionals” (Pugente, 1997, p.11-12). Australia The beginning of media literacy education in Australia began in Western Australia with the forming in 1971 of the Screen Education Society, a network of teachers who shared an interest in film production and in film and TV criticism in the classroom (Quin & Quin, 1995, p.113). One society member, Barry McMahon, applied for and received a Western Australian Department of Education fellowship to study film and TV at the Hornsey College of Art because, as he stated, “Film and television is potentially, if not already, the most important means of communication, entertainment and art form in our society” (in Quin & Quin, 1995, p.115). After his studies, McMahon then submitted a rationale, content, and implementation proposal for a Media Studies course for Years 9-10 to the Western Australia Department of Education. A pilot program was started at North Lake Senior High, and a Media Studies syllabus was developed and approved by the Board of Secondary Education in 1974 (Quin 38 & Quin, 1995, p.116). With the existence of an approved syllabus, other schools could now choose to adopt the course. McMahon established a mobile media resource laboratory to spread the content ideas of the syllabus to other schools. The laboratory contained video, film, and darkroom equipment and McMahon traveled, conducting in- services for teachers. “The mobile teacher development program created a pool of committed, interested teachers who were keen to introduce the subject into their own schools” (Quin & Quin, 1995, p.118). In 1976 McMahon’s Media Studies syllabus for Years 11 and 12 was approved and by the end of the 805, Media Studies was “firmly established in Western Australia secondary schools and media education had become a normal part of the curriculum for all students” (Quin & Quin, 1995, p.118). Currently all art forms, including media, are now a compulsory part of the Australian curriculum. The national document includes media from pre-school to year 12 (Burton, 1996, p.12). Incoming media teachers in Australia usually complete an undergraduate degree in media studies, followed by a one year graduate diploma in education, and then serve as their school’s media specialist (Quinn, 3/27/97, email). 39 England In England, media education grew rapidly in the 703 and 805 with new secondary level courses in film and media studies (Hart, 1997, p.201). The purpose of media education, however, was often seen as a form of civil defense against media fallout (p.200). In 1989 the National Curriculum for English teaching gave media education prominence for its positive educational value: Media education is an important part of “the exploration of contemporary culture" (DES, Paragraph 9) and can develop basic concepts and questions which can be “fruitfully applied to literature” study as well (Paragraph 7). These basic concepts include “selection (of information, viewpoint, etc.), editing, author, audience, medium, genre, stereotype, etc.” (Paragraph 9) Although media education was being accepted as a valuable educational tool, “there has not been a corresponding expansion of training opportunities for teachers” (Hart, 1997, p.201). The most successful form of training was the intensive one-year post-graduate course for secondary school subject specialists which produced many English teachers with specialist training in media education. However in 1992 the government mandated that a minimum of two-thirds of this time be spent in the school 40 setting. Since the supervising school teachers rarely have had media education training, this effectively abolished any hopes for formally training media teachers (Hart, 1997, p.205). This lack of training resulted in media (typically English) teachers working untrained, in isolation, easily overwhelmed by the scope of the subject and materials available (p.201). Also, because of lack of formal training, there is a wide variation in classroom application (Hart, 1997, p.201). When the National Curriculum for English was revised in 1993, support for media education, instead of improving, was actually diminished. Media education was limited to “supporting the fundamental objectives... rather than as distinctive areas of study” (Hart, 1997, p.206). Most references to media in the new proposals are only in the form of examples for other concepts, and according to Hart can easily be ignored, making it possible to completely omit media education for the English curriculum (p.206). Hart continues on, describing the new proposals as “rigid”, “narrow”, “didactic”, “authoritarian” and “expository” rather than “interactive” and “exploratory”, and warns that the new curriculum “risks creating a pedagogical ‘black hole’ into which the universe of real learning may collapse” (p.207). 41 Hart does find something positive in the National Curriculum of 1993 in the Spiritual and Moral Development discussion papers which describe spiritual development as a “Search for meaning and purpose in relation to challenging life experiences and involving the growth of self-awareness and responsibility for one’s own experience and identity” (Hart, 1997, p.205). Moral Development is “based on a conscious will to behave in a morally principled way in context of agreed social codes and conventions” (p.205). Hart argues that media education could effectively reach these goals since information is always value ladden and must be decoded in an active and interrogative way, thus allowing schools to provide, as the National Curriculum suggests (1993): “reflective and aesthetic experience and the discussion of questions about meaning and purpose (Paragraph 9). Hart concludes that successfully applying media education in the Spiritual and Moral Development areas of curriculum depends upon providing more and better training for teachers, and on the role of schools, who must seriously and systematically approach the media in order to open up every text to questioning and reflection. 42 CONCLUSIONS Upon reviewing each of the implementation strategies being used in the US, noting weaknesses in each, and exploring the experiences of other countries in media education, it is clear that there is much to be learned and many pitfalls that can be avoided. The three implementation models currently found in the US (curricula creation, individual teacher training, and school district or government mandates) are not sufficient by themselves. Creating and dispersing curricula as seen historically and at the Center for Media Literacy, is not enough to create widespread implementation among teachers. As demonstrated in the two Grand Rapids Catholic schools, teachers also need the local support and even mandates of their administration and school system, along with adequate training to motivate implementation. The Center for Media Literacy is starting to offer training opportunities to a limited number of educators and hopefully will continue to expand in this area. The individual teacher training model fills one need, but without local support or mandates, the single media teacher is often ineffective. The mail survey demonstrated the struggles of the individual teacher to apply media literacy training to his/her own teaching, with close to 43 failure in sharing the training with other teachers thus stopping implementation growth. As Hobbs noted earlier, when an individual teacher’s energy flags, the program disappears. Although mandates are often viewed in the US as the most important sign of progress, mandates alone are not sufficient. If media education advocates bypass local support and push instead for government mandates, attempting to force interest and involvement by schools, the mandates will be avoided whenever possible and poorly implemented due to apathy and lack of information. As mentioned earlier by Considine (1995a) and Kubey and Baker (1999), mandates don’t insure local success. However, even with local support, mandates can not be successfully followed without appropriate training for all teachers involved. Kubey and Baker (1999), worried that even with the rush of state mandates, training opportunities lag behind, state that “we find the education establishment still often mystified about how to retool and retrain” teachers and students. Inservice workshops or university courses can be used as long as they are widely utilized, which would most likely occur with additional training mandates and financial assistance or incentives. 44 The successful experiences in Canada and Australia, and even the frustration in England, reveal a new implementation model, The Progression Model, which is successful when all steps are present, in order: Step One: Local Support of Media Education by teachers, admimistrators, parents, media literacy advocacy groups, and media profesionals, and often the networking of these into successful lobbying groups Step Two: District/Government Acceptance or Mandating of Media Education into school curriculum, both as its own content area and as an educational tool with applications to other content areas. Step Three: Media Education Training for current and incoming teachers with eventual development of formally training media education specialists. Canada demonstrates Step One, local support of media education in Ontario with the formation of the AML and its banding together with teaching federations and other groups to successfully lobby the government to mandate media literacy in Grades 1-12 (Step Two). In Ontario, media literacy is taught both as a separate subject and is integrated throughout the Language Arts curriculum. As noted previously, the Ontario government followed its mandate with training opportunities (inservice workshops and university classes) and curriculum support, thus completing Step Three. 45 Australia also began with a base of local support among teachers and the forming of an information network, the Screen Education Society. With the government approval of the Media Studies syllabus, McMahon provided informal workshop training for current teachers. The media education movement then expanded beyond an isolated course to an integrated curriculum in preschool to year 12, with incoming teachers formally trained as media specialists. In England, although the National Curriculum for English in 1989 grants approval for media studies, local support seemed to be lacking. In a small study of secondary English teachers involved in media teaching, Hart (Hart & Benson 1992, 1993a) noted that some of the teachers “expressed anxiety about attitudes of colleagues in their own departments and feared some disapproval” (P.204) of teaching media. In addition, none of their schools had developed any policies for media education, none of the teachers had any extended training or professional experience in the media, and all saw the need for further training in the subject (p.204). Hart notes that the “official neglect" of media education in England may have happened because of “great hositility” from some \\ politicians toward the media, which is still seen as sources of moral and spiritual degeneration and blamed for 46 social and cultural disintegration” (Hart, 1997, p.205). This lack of support on the local and political levels, and lack of training opportunities for teachers rendered the 1989 curriculum suggestions ineffective and retractable in 1993. In conclusion, school districts and even states need to assess their current position in the Progression Model and procede through the steps. The Billerica Initiative is probably the most successful example of media literacy implementation in the US as it combined the support and mandates of its local school system with an extensive teacher training opportunity. Also New Mexico with its local advocacy group (NMMLP), training opportunities, and state mandates displays all steps in the progression model and is looking forward to successful media literacy implementation. Kubey and Baker (1999) agree, stating that “New Mexico and Massachusetts probably have the greatest proportion of students actually receiving media education.” In Michigan, however, where local attention to media literacy is just beginning, emphasis should be placed on generating interest among educators and parents and on forming advocacy groups. With lobbying pressure from these groups, mandates can then be created at the school district 47 or state level, positioning media literacy education as an important, even essential, part of school curriculum. Mandates then must be followed by widespread teacher training opportunities and curricular support, enabling educators to successfully apply media literacy education into their curricula. As media literacy education becomes more commonly implemented in schools, research opportunities abound. The current use of the three implementation models warrants more research. For example, in the curricula creation model, purchasers of curricula could be contacted to explore the extent the curricula has been put to use. In the individual teacher training model, experienced educators (or additional undergraduate education students) who have received media literacy training could be contacted about the application of their training to their classroom teaching. In the school district or government mandates model, Billerica school district provides opportunity for researching the extent the mandates are still being followed and applied to teaching. As states begin to add media literacy principles to their curriculum mandates, the question remains whether or not teachers are actually following the mandates and what hinders them in doing so. Media literacy programs in the US could also be 48 evaluated with respect to their adherence to the progression model of local support, then mandates and training opportunities. As media literacy interventions become more widespread and extended, it will be possible to more successfully study the effects of the interventions on the students, hopefully moving beyond cognitive gains and determining any behavioral and attitudinal effects, such as those used in the earlier studies: general attitudes toward TV, viewing habits, program and character preference, perceptions of TV’s reality, and diminishing TV’s influence on stereotypcial or racial attitudes; among others. Although the social effects of mass media have been researched for years, interventions such as media literacy education in schools have experienced few documented research studies. It is time for this area of research to begin. 49 APPENDICES 50 APPENDIX A Literacy, Technology, and Instruction Course Objectives 51 Students will: 1. Learn to engage in dialogue as a primary means of increasing professional knowledge. 2. Develop a historical perspective on literacy, technology and media. 3. Search various professional and popular data bases. 4. Critically evaluate social constructivist theory. 5. Develop computer, multimedia and telecommunications skills. 6. Understand the role of ethnicity and gender in literacy, technology and instruction. 7. Critically analyze and evaluate mass media formats, including news and advertising. 8. Utilize media and technology as part of a design/production process to communicate effectively. 9. Recognize the impact of media/technology on school and society. 10. Demonstrate technical proficiency in working with existing and emerging technologies. 11. Students will be able to demonstrate the use of computers and technology as tools for teaching and learning. 12. Students will be able to demonstrate use of computers and technology to enhance teaching and learning. 13. Students will be able to provide a reasoned and thoughtful approach to why computers and technology should be used in the teaching and learning process. 14. Students will be able to identify software that will match and support the design of their instructional materials. 52 15. Students will be able to provide examples of the effective use of computers and technology in content area learning. 16. Students will be able to explain the advantages of hyper media and multimedia and differentiate between the two. 17. Students will be able demonstrate examples of interactivity with computers and technology. 18. Students will be able to suggest customized solutions to learning problems using computers and technologies. (This objective should address a broad range of issues including adaptive apparati.) 19. Students will be able to demonstrate a basic understanding of the rudiments of dual coding theory as it relates to multimedia. 20. Students will be able to demonstrate the use of computers and technology to address real world situations and simulations of complex learning situations. (Considine, 1996, course syllabus) 53 Appendix B Mail Survey 54 Check the appropriate blanks: 1. yes, I took Media and Learning, C1 3750 no, I did not take Media and Learning (if you check “no", finish #1 & 2 only and please return survey in stamped envelope) 2a.I have taught 3+ years since graduation 2 - 2 1/2 years 1 — 1 1/2 years 1/2 year no years (if you check “no years” please finish this page only and return survey in stamped envelope) 2b. Grade level(s) taught 3. male or female 4. age (next page please) 55 For each Media and Learning concept/unit, please: A. circle the extent to which you have been able to use the content of the concept/unit in your teaching CONCEPT/UNIT: Framework for Analyzing Advertising 25% 50% 75% 100% o\0 A. 0 CONCEPT/UNIT: Framework for Analyzing News A. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Characteristics and Attributes A. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 1 (copystand & 35mm camera, slide projector/caramate, thermal transparencies, computer generated transparencies) 25% 50% 75% 100% o\° A. O CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 2 (simple video camera operation and editing) 25% 50% 75% 100% o\° A. 0 CONCEPT/UNIT: Learning Styles and Brain Hemispheres A. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Activities to Facilitate Visual Learning 25% 50% 75% 100% o\° A. O CONCEPT/UNIT: Evaluating Instructional Software A. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Critical Listening Skills A. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNITzMedia Literacy Assignment — Instructional Unit A. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 56 For each Media and Learning Concept/Unit please: B. CONCEPT/UNIT: UJ CONCEPT/UNIT: ED check the two choices which most hindered you in using the concept/unit lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: Framework for Analyzing Advertising time curricular freedom support from other teachers support from administration support from parents student interest own interest Framework for Analyzing News own interest student interest support from parents support from administration support from other teachers curricular freedom time CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Characteristics and Attributes CD lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: time curricular freedom support from other teachers support from administration support from parents student interest own interest 57 CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 1 (copystand & 35mm camera, slide projector/caramate, thermal transparencies, computer generated transparencies) lack of own interest lack of student interest lack of support from parents lack of support from administration lack of support from other teachers lack of curricular freedom lack of time other: ED CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 2 (simple video camera operation and editing) lack of time lack of curricular freedom lack of support from other teachers lack of support from administration lack of support from parents lack of student interest lack of own interest other: [11 CONCEPT/UNIT: Learning Styles and Brain Hemispheres lack of own interest lack of student interest lack of support from parents lack of support from administration lack of support from other teachers lack of curricular freedom lack of time other: [I3 CONCEPT/UNIT: Activities to Facilitate Visual Learning lack of time lack of curricular freedom lack of support from other teachers lack of support from administration lack of support from parents lack of student interest lack of own interest other: U3 llllllll 58 CONCEPT/UNIT: UJ CONCEPT/UNIT: [IJ CONCEPT/UNIT: B. lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: Evaluating Instructional Software own interest student interest support from parents support from administration support from other teachers curricular freedom time Critical Listening Skills time curricular freedom support from other teachers support from administration support from parents student interest own interest Media Literacy Assignment — Instructional Unit own interest student interest support from parents support from administration support from other teachers curricular freedom time 59 For each Media and Learning Concept/Unit please: C. Circle the extent to which you have been able to share the content of the concept/unit with other teachers CONCEPT/UNIT: Framework for Analyzing Advertising C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Framework for Analyzing News C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Characteristics and Attributes 75% 100% o\° [\J U7 do U" Q o\° C. 0 CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 1 (copystand & 35mm camera, slide projector/caramate, thermal transparencies, computer generated transparencies) C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 2 (simple video camera operation and editing) C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Learning Styles and Brain Hemispheres C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Activities to Facilitate Visual Learning C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Evaluating Instructional Software C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNIT: Critical Listening Skills C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% CONCEPT/UNITzMedia Literacy Assignment - Instructional Unit C. 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 60 For each Media and Learning Concept/Unit please: D. check the two choices which have most hindered you in sharing the concpet/unit CONCEPT/UNIT: CONCEPT/UNIT: U CONCEPT/UNIT: U lllllll llllllll lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: Framework for Analyzing Advertising time curricular freedom support from other teachers support from administration support from parents student interest own interest Framework for Analyzing News own interest student interest support from parents support from administration support from other teachers curricular freedom time Media Characteristics and Attributes time curricular freedom support from other teachers support from administration support from parents student interest own interest 61 CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 1 (copystand & 35mm camera, slide projector/caramate, thermal transparencies, computer generated transparencies) lack of own interest lack of student interest lack of support from parents lack of support from administration lack of support from other teachers lack of curricular freedom lack of time other: C llllllll CONCEPT/UNIT: Media Lab # 2 (simple video camera operation and editing) lack of time lack of curricular freedom lack of support from other teachers lack of support from administration lack of support from parents lack of student interest lack of own interest other: C CONCEPT/UNIT: Learning Styles and Brain Hemispheres lack of own interest lack of student interest lack of support from parents lack of support from administration lack of support from other teachers lack of curricular freedom lack of time other: C lllllll CONCEPT/UNIT: Activities to Facilitate Visual Learning U lack of time lack of curricular freedom lack of support from other teachers lack of support from administration lack of support from parents lack of student interest lack of own interest other: 62 CONCEPT/UNIT: Evaluating Instructional Software lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: C llllllll own interest student interest support from parents support from administration support from other teachers curricular freedom time CONCEPT/UNIT: Critical Listening Skills lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: C time curricular freedom support from other teachers support from administration support from parents student interest own interest CONCEPT/UNIT:Media Literacy Assignment — Instructional Unit lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of lack of other: C own interest student interest support from parents support from administration support from other teachers curricular freedom time ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: (use back if needed) THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION ! 63 Appendix C 1995 State Mandates List 64 English Language Arts “distinguishes between fact and opinion recognizes bias and stereotypes” GA “sees relationships between form and content, uses appropriate criteria to evaluate the messages and effects of mass communication” GA “identify the influences of mass media on the individual and society with emphasis on becoming an informed receiver” VA “will develop listening and viewing skills which enable them to enhance auditory and visual perception” TN “explore diverse print, nonprint and technological forms of communication and the means by which these influence people” NJ “recognize, analyze, and respond to propaganda” NM “listen to and views media for a variety of purposes” ND “make critical judgments as listeners and viewers and provide constructive criticism" IL Social Studies “analyze mass media interpret factsmdistinguish relationships, cause and effect” VA “evaluate the impact of mass media on public opinion” GA “analyze interpretations of the same event from different news sources” GA “recognize bias and stereotyping in media” FL “understand the impact of social institutions and the media on individuals and groups" MD “keep informed about issues that affect society” NJ “evaluate perceptions, prejudices, and stereotypes” ND 65 Health/wellness “identify effects advertising has on health product choices” MI “recognize stereotypical roles the advertising media use to influence the adolescent consumer” IL “analyze how the media influences sexual attitudes and behavior” MD “prepare to make well-reasoned, thoughtful and healthy life decisions” FL “identifies and analyzes alcohol and cigarette advertisements” GA “critique the way the media depict drug use” VA “determine the validity of media marketing claims promoting fitness products” TN “analyze advertising found in the media” ND (Considine, 1995b, p. 38) 66 Appendix D Media Literacy Resources Directory 67 AML Association for Media Literacy Loon@maple.net 40 McArthur St Weston, ON M9P 3M7 CML Center for Media Literacy le@earth1ink.net 4727 Wilshire #403 Los Angeles, CA 90010 1-800—226-9494 Considine, David Medmal@acs.appstate.edu Reich College of Education Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 Hart, Andrew Aphl@soton.ac.uk Hobbs, Renee Reneehobbs@aol.com NMMLP New Mexico Media Literacy Project Jaecks@aa.edu Albuquerque Academy 6400 Wyoming NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 NTC National Telemedia Council NTELEMEDIA@AOL.COM 120 E.Wilson St Madison, WI 53703 Merrimack Education Center www.mec.edu Pugente, John Pugente@epas.utoronto.ca Quin, Robyn r.quin@cowan.edu.au 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, J. A. (1983). TV literacy and the critical viewer. In Bryant and Anderson (Eds.), Children’s understanding of television (p. 297-327). New York: Academic Press. Ashton, C., Moll, E., & Rinaldi, F.(198l). The way we see it in Idaho Falls. In Ploghoft and Anderson (conference directors), Education for the television age, (p.55-63). Athens, Ohio: The Cooperative Center for Social Science Education. Association for Media Literacy. [online] http://www.interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/FA/MLAML, Feruary 25,1997. Aufderheide, P. (1992). Media literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Queenstown, Maryland: The Aspen Institue. Brown, J. A. (1991). Television critical viewing skills. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Burton, L. (1996). The Australian National Media Education Conference. Telemedium, p.12- Center for Media Literacy. (1992). Catholic connections to media literacy. Los Angeles: CML. Center for Media Literacy. (February 1996). Memo Center for Media Literacy. (December 1997). Scholars Program launches CML training initiative. Center for Media Literacy 1997 wrap-up report, p.2-3. CML. (November 16, 1999). {phone interview}. Colder-Bolz, C. (1979). Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Austin, Texas: SEDL. Considine, D. (1995a). Media and learning. Course Syllabus. 70 Considine, D. (1995b). Are we there yet? An update on the Media Literacy Movement. Educational Technology, p.32-37. Considine, D. (1995c). What is media literacy and why do you need it? Telemedium, special supplement, p.i-vi. Considine, D. (1996). Literacy, technology and instruction. Course Syllabus. DeBoer, R. {online} email, rondebo@enoreo.on.ca June 8, 1999. DES. (1989). (The Cox Report) English for ages 5-16. London: HMSO. DES. (1993). English for ages 5-16. London: HMSO. Dorr, Graves and Phelps. (1980) Television literacy for young children. Journal of Communication 30(3) p.71- 83. Fox, R.J., Crask, M.R., & Kim, J. (1989). Survey Research. In R. Wimmer & J. Dominick (Eds.), Mass media research, fourth edition (p. 124). Belmont,CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Frisk,P. & Dufendang,J. (1997). [phone interviews]. Hart, A. & Benson, T. (1992;1993a). Models of media education: A study of English teachers teaching media: Part 1: Overview; Part 2: Profiles and lessons. South Hampton: Center for Language in Education. Hart, A. (1997). Textual pleasures and moral dilemmas: Teaching media literacy in England. In R. Kubey, (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age. (p.199—211). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hobbs, R. (1998). Media literacy as a school district Initiative. In A. Hart (Ed.), Teaching the media Worldwide. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kane. (1980). Critical television viewing: A language Skills work-a-text. Educational Broadcasting Corporation, Inc. 71 Kubey, R. & Baker, F. [online] http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=09ubey2.h19 October 27,1999. Leveranz, D. & Tyner, K. (1993). Inquiring minds Want to know: What is media literacy? The Independent. p. 21-25. McCannon, B. (1997). [personal interview]. McDonald, K. (Aug/Sept 1993). The National Media Literacy Project: New Mexico breaks ground with statewide pilot program. The Independent, p.34-36. Merrimack Education Center. [online] www.mec.edu National Curriculum Council. (April 1993). Spiritual and moral development: A discussion paper. York: NCC. New Mexico Media Literacy Project. (winter 1995). National recognition. The State of Media Education, p.3. New Mexico Media Literacy Project. (summer 1996). The State of Media Education, p.6. New Mexico Media Literacy Project. (fall/winter 1998). From the director. The State of Media Education, p.2. NMMLP. [online] http://www.aa.edu/NMMLP/itr, September 23, 1996. Osborn, B. (1993). Critiquing Channel One: Billerica Middle Schools. The Independent, p.42. Pugente, J. Second spring: Media literacy in Canada’s schools. [Online] Available http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/FA/MLArticleFolder/ secondspring, February 25, 1997. Quin, Robin & Quin,Rod. (1995). The development of media education in Western Australian schools. Media Education, p.110-118. Quin, R. Media literacy in Australia. [online]email r.quin@eagle.ac.cowan.edu.au, March 27,1997. 72 Singer, D.G., Zuckerman,D.M., & Singer, J.L. (1980). Helping elementary children learn about television. Journal of Communication (30)3 p.84-93. Singer, D. (1981). Critical viewing skills for young children. In Ploghoft & Anderson, (conference directors) Education for the Television Age (p. 71-81). Athens, Ohio: The Cooperative Center for Social Science Education. Singer, J. & Singer, D. (1983). Implications of childhood television viewing for cognition, imagination and emotion. In Bryant and Anderson, (Eds.) Children's Understaning of Television (p. 265-291). New York: Academic Press. Thompson, J. (November 28, 1996). Appalachian State is national leader in media literacy. The Mountain Times, p.20. Tufte, B. (1995). An integrated approach to media education in Europe. Media Development, p.25-28. White, Ned. (1980a). Inside television: A guide to critical viewing. FarWest Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. Wimmer, R.D., & Dominick, J.R. (1994). Mass media research,fourth edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 73 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES lllllHilllmllllWI“lllllllllllllHHIWIHIIWI 31293020742064