J.Z.爱门森(陈国明 译) :美国的媒介素养教育

选择字号:   本文共阅读 4088 次 更新时间:2008-10-12 00:18

进入专题: 媒介教育   媒介素养   文化研究方法   预防方式   媒介教育的发展历史   媒介教育理论   数字化   在线教育  

陈国明   J.Z.爱门森  

引子

在全球媒介日益趋同的二十一世纪,媒介教育新范式对民主发展的重要性已得到了广泛的认同。而美国媒介教育停滞不前的状况却令人感到意外(Gregorian,2006;Thoman和Jolls,2004)。这有些讽刺意味,因为美国是世界上媒介产品的主要出口国,却在正规媒介教育的各个方面远远落后于其他英语国家——如澳大利亚、加拿大、英国(Kubey,2004)。Galician(2004)甚至遗憾地感叹道,美国在媒介教育“这一重要领域里属于第三世界国家”(p.8)。

Kubey(1998,2003)从文化、经济、历史和政治等角度对美国媒介教育落后的原因进行了探讨。他指出美国媒介教育发展的四大障碍:地域广阔、文化多样、缺乏推动力和理论范式不同。

首先,美国地域广阔,包括50个州、360万平方英里。而且每个州都有各自的教育主管部门,这就使得媒介教育不可避免地处于一种很分割孤立的境地。不同的州之间,从事媒介教育的教师缺乏接触与沟通;这催生了一些非营利性的媒介教育促进机构,比如媒介素养中心(Center for Media Literacy[1])和媒介教育中心(Center for Media Education)等,它们都建立在教育体系之外(Considine,1990)。

第二,美国社会是一个多元文化的社会。因此,相对于其他英语国家来说,美国要在媒介教育方面达成共识更为困难。换句话说,若是社会成分单一些,父母就会比较容易授权教育主管部门制定教育政策。举例来说,与美国的情况不同,加拿大就在1966年创立了第一届电影电视研究夏季学院。这是由加拿大国家电影局(National Film Board of Canada)发起的,面向全国的媒介教师。其持续发展不仅促成了耶稣会士交流机构(Jesuit Communication Project,在加拿大媒介教育的发展过程中扮演了非常重要的角色)的建立,也使代表了全国所有媒介组织的加拿大媒介组织协会(Canada Association of Media Organizations,VAMEO)于1992年诞生(Media Awareness Network,2006a,2006b)。

第三,作为媒介作品的一大生产国与出口国,美国失去了以媒介推动媒介教育发展的机会。那些进口电影、音乐或电视作品的国家往往对其中外来元素的影响力保持高度的敏感性,担心它们会威胁到本国的文化身份认同。因此,为了保持本国的文化完整性,一些国家会针对媒介教育制定出一定的方针或政策。不幸的是,进入美国的外国媒介作品较少,没有让美国产生紧迫感、或是像其他国家那样意识到“发展媒介教育”的必要性(Kubey,1998,p. 59)。

最后,美国在媒介研究方面缺少恰当的理论范式,因而在媒介教育的教学法发展方面缺乏动力和指导方针。就Buckingham(1998)看来,Leavis和Thompson1933年的著作[2]为二十世纪初期的学校系统性地提供了媒介教育模式。而一些学者(如Buckingham,1990,1996;Hall和Whannel,1964;Halloran和Jones,1968;Masterman,1980,1985;Williams,1961)在文化研究领域的进展成为英国几十年来媒介教育的指导力量,其影响波及澳大利亚、加拿大和其他英语国家。结果,当其他国家的文化范式已经形成一种更以学生为中心的教学法(强调对媒介内容进行解构,强调媒介观众的理解和释义过程)时,美国还沉浸在自己的预防-保护性目标中。而“流行形式引入课堂中,仅仅是为了将其摒视为商业性的、操作性的与衍生性的……”(Masterman,1997,p. 20)。

这些丛聚的障碍,使得美国难以在政策、教学和研究方面发展出一套连贯的媒介教育体系。虽然非营利性的媒介教育机构(参见尾注1)与学者们(参见尾注2)继续团结地致力于媒介教育的发展,然而研究的支离破碎形成了阻碍,使我们仍然面临着巨大挑战。为了更好地理解这一问题,接下去本文将通过媒介教育发展历史的简短回顾、概念问题、应用问题和未来挑战四个层面,来进一步探讨媒介教育的本质特性,以及美国在该领域中的现状。

美国媒介教育发展历史:简短回顾

1933年,Leavis和Thompson就在英国出版了《文化和环境:培养批判意识》(Culture and Environment: The Training of Critical Awareness)一书。美国的媒介教育则起始于二十世纪六十年代末,距该书的出版几近四十年。自二十世纪六十年代开始,美国的媒介教育发展史可大致分为三个阶段:预防阶段、面对阶段和转变阶段。

预防阶段

二十世纪六十年代末,教育机构里的教师和管理者们开始意识到大众媒介不会自行消失;他们知道了必须为媒介教育做点儿什么。此前,虽然沃尔特•迪斯尼已经狂热地创造出美国式的传奇与神话,但媒介的影响力仍处于被忽视的状态。只有书籍被看作是为学生们准备的可信媒介。老师们教授古典文学与古代历史;音乐课的重点是古典音乐。

在接触到大众媒介影响力的第一阶段中,教育者们试着通过使用“预防”的策略来保护学生。“预防”模式认为受众就像一张白纸,媒介可以在上面随意地画出自己的形象。这种模式所注重的是:媒介会制造出消极影响,因此我们必须保护受众和文化价值观不受污染(Halloran和Jones,1992;Tyner,1998)。挑剔出“坏”媒介并培养起“好”媒介的审美趣味,从而区别性地看待媒介作品,这一点很重要(Thoman,1990)。就Walsh(2006a)看来,为了保护学生们不被媒介文化的消极作用所影响,老师们往往在课堂里运用大众媒介以向学生们展示媒介信息中的无趣与无价值。

面对阶段

由于对大众媒介的嘲笑和轻视没有给学生和受众带来任何帮助,所以从二十世纪七十年代末起,教育者们开始利用大众媒介来吸引学生们进入媒介研究的领域。Walsh(2006a)指出,在这一阶段中,教师们利用“吸引”法——比如使用流行歌曲或是电影短片——来集中学生们的注意力,再将他们引入经典研究中。

在这一阶段中,大众媒介被视为完成教学目的的一种工具。此外,“好媒介”的审美趣味被有关媒介的思想性问题所取代(Thoman,1990)。教育者们通过一些问题,逐渐训练学生培养起对大众媒介的批判态度。这些问题包括:大众媒介如何反映“现实”?大众媒介反映的是谁的“现实”?大众媒介代表何种利益?媒介如何制作节目?媒介节目的意义何在?这些意义是怎样表现出来的?在这一阶段还出现了针对大众媒介的社会政治分析,但是这些研究仍不在学校的教育课程之列(Brown,1991;Hobbs,1994)。“面对阶段”持续了约二十年,到二十世纪八十年代末结束——此时美国的媒介教育进入了一个关键的转变阶段。

在“面对阶段”中,美国的教师们开始将媒介引入课堂,他们向学生们提出了一些有关媒介内容的影响力及意义形成的批判性问题。与此同时,二十世纪七十年代,英国已经在向另一种媒介教育范式过渡。“屏幕理论”(screen theory)源起于学术界,以Masterman的著作为代表。这一理论的发展显示出要将“符号学、结构主义、精神分析理论、后结构主义及马克思主义理论”应用于课堂的强劲趋势(Buckingham,2003,p. 8)。

转变阶段

从二十世纪八十年代末起,美国的媒介教育开始进入一个关键的转变阶段。教师们理解到媒介和媒介的受众都是意义的制造者。从受众的角度说,媒介的信息与受众的信仰、经验、个性及背景之间的交流互动就是不断生成意义的过程。因此,让学生和受众能够批判性地处理媒介信息就变得尤为重要。

在这一阶段中,美国有越来越多的从事媒介教育的教师和学者参与到世界范围内的媒介素养教育运动中;他们参加各种国际、国内和地区性的会议,分享他们在媒介教育方面的知识、策略、研究和课程。这些活动的影响力是巨大的。其中两个较为突出的国际会议是联合国教科文组织的“媒介与数码时代的教育”(由澳大利亚政府发起)和2000年5月举办于加拿大多伦多的“2000年峰会——孩子、年轻人与媒介:跨越千禧年”,有六十多个国家的代表出席了会议。

美国的国内会议以及媒介教育的范围也在这一阶段中得到了快速的发展。除了各州的不同组织之外,阿斯本研究所(Aspen Institute)于1992年组织了第一届“全国媒介素养引导人会议”。这次会议将教育者们聚在一起,为美国发展媒介教育建立指导方针(Aufderheide,2004)。

二十世纪九十年初,各种组织也在(美国)各地建立起来,积极地推动媒介教育。比如说,建立于1953年的非营利性教育机构“国家电视媒体委员会”(National Telemedia Council)在九十年代面向各州的老师、研究人员、图书馆馆员、家长及媒介专业人士举办了各种有关媒介素养教育的研讨会。总部设在休斯顿的“西南媒介替代计划”(SWAMP)不仅在德克萨斯州组织了各种有关媒介教育的宣传活动、讨论会和在职培训计划,还把这些推广到马萨诸塞州、新墨西哥州、俄勒冈州等其他一些地区。“公民媒介素养”(Citizens for Media Literacy)是一个面向平民的教育与推介的组织,1991年建立于北卡罗莱纳州的艾西维尔市(Asheville)。西北媒介素养研究所(Northwest Media Literacy Institute)1993年建立于西雅图,是全国性会议“媒介素养的教育:回顾与掌控”决定建立的。媒介与价值中心(Center for Media and Values)1989年建立于洛杉矶,随后发展成著名的“媒介素养中心”。其他的一些组织,包括大学中传播系的课程项目(如旧金山的“媒介素养策略”,奥克兰的“国家媒介教育联盟”,“国家媒介素养计划”以及纽约的“媒介教育中心”)都出现于九十年代,并一直积极从事推动媒介教育(Pungente,1994)。

对于学校中的媒介教育课程,Kubey和Baker(1999)的调查显示:二十世纪九十年代以后进步非常明显;截至1999年,全美国50个州中至少有48个州的课程中包含了一种以上的媒介教育内容。这些包含媒介教育内容的课程分为四种:(1)英语,语言和传播技术;(2)社会研究,历史和公民学;(3)健康,营养和消费主义;(4)媒介分类。在这四种类型中,有50个州有第一种课程,34个州有第二种课程,46个州有第三种课程,而不幸的是,只有7个州有第四种课程(媒介研究中心,2000)。虽然在“转变阶段”中,媒介教育很明显地在朝着更有希望的方向发展,但是媒介教育的目标还远远未能被达到。这一领域还将在概念和应用方面面对很多问题。

附录A引自“美国媒介素养发展史——以十年为一阶段”(媒介素养中心,2002-2005)列出了美国媒介教育(素养)发展过程中的主要事件,可作为以上简要说明的一个补充。

概念问题

媒介教育的概念问题主要与以下问题相关:媒介教育是由哪些方面组成的?如何回答有关媒介教育的定义、性质、范围和方法等问题?虽然在经过了四十年的努力之后,学者们已经越来越趋向于在概念上达成统一,但有关媒介教育的概念方面的不同意见与争端仍然存在。

媒介教育的定义与性质

Hobbs(1994)说美国的媒介教育是“一个有着许多名字的小孩”(p. 453)。常见的名称有“媒介素养”、“媒介研究”、“视觉素养”、“技术教育”及“批判视角”——其中又以“媒介素养”一词用得最多——这些都可以与“媒介教育”这一概念互换。

那么,什么是“媒介素养”?从传统意义上说,“媒介素养”被定义为能够分析和欣赏文学作品并通过良好的写作能力进行有效传播的能力(Brown,1998)。在二十世纪七十年代,这一概念的外延得到扩展,将读懂电影、电视及其他视觉媒体的能力也包括了进来;这是由于媒介教育研究开始追随这些媒介的发展而发展(Ferrington,2006)。然而在最近三十年中,虽然通讯传播技术不断进步,但媒介教育的内容范围却变得越加模糊。“媒介”一词可以指艺术、广告牌、计算机、电视、移动影像、多媒体、音乐、口头语言、书面语言和电视(如Christ,1998;Gardiner,1997;Metallinos,1994;Meyrowitz,1998;Sinatra,1986;Zettl,1990)。因此,就Cope和Kalantzis(2000)、Walsh(2006b)看来,我们应该使用“媒介素养”的复数形式“media literacies”或“multiliteracies”。

以下例子可以显示出“媒介教育(素养)”概念的多样:

“因此,‘媒介教育’是与媒介的教育和学习相关的。”(Buckingham,2003,p. 4)

“媒介素养不仅包括社会中有关大众媒介体系的结构、经济和功能的知识,还包括‘读懂’大众媒介信息中的美学内容与思想内容的分析能力。”(Thoman,1990,http://www.medialit.org/reading room/ article126.html)

“媒介素养想要赋予大众一定的能力,让他们与媒体之间的被动关系转化为一种主动的、有判断性的参与——能够挑战私人化商业媒体文化的传统与结构、寻找到大众进行表达与叙说的新途径。”(Bowen,1996,http://www.Media-awareness.ca/english/teachers/media_literacy/ what_is_media_literacy.cfm)

“媒介素养是获取媒介信息、对之进行批判性分析并利用媒介工具制造信息的过程。”(Hobbs,1996,p. iii)

“媒介素养与理解以下因素有关:传播的源头与技术、所使用的编码、所制造出的信息、对这些信息进行的选择、解说及这些信息所产生的影响。”(Rubin,1998,p. 3)

“媒介素养是指在多种形式下对传播活动加以接触、分析、评价和制造的能力。” (阿斯本研究所,引自Bowen,2006: http://interact.uoregon. edu/mediaLit/mlr/readings/articles/defharvard.html)

从这些定义中我们可以看出,虽然“媒介教育”这一概念可与“媒介素养”交换使用,但是“媒介教育”可被理解为有关媒介的“教”与“学”的过程,而“媒介素养”则是媒介教育的结果。在媒介素养的定义中,最为常见的两种成分是:意识到媒介信息的数量巨大;我们要有对所见、所读、所观的东西进行分析与质疑的批判能力(Hobbs,2001;Silverblatt,1995;Singer和Singer,1998)。

基于媒介素养的定义,媒介素养中心(2005;参见Kellner和Share,2005)提出了媒介素养的五条核心概念。

1、所有的媒介信息都是“构筑成的”。

2、媒介信息是利用一定的创造性语言、按照它自己的规则构筑而成。

3、对于同样的媒介信息,不同的人会获得不同的感受。

4、媒介持有一定的价值判断与观点看法。

5、大部分媒介信息是用来获取经济利益和/或权力的。

媒介素养中心还提出了有关媒介素养的五条关键问题:

1、谁制造了这一信息?

2、他们使用了什么样的创造性技术来吸引我的注意力?

3、不同的人在理解这一信息时如何会与我的理解不同?

4、这一信息体现了什么样的价值观、生活方式及观点看法?这一信息又遗漏了什么样的价值观、生活方式及观点看法?

5、他们为什么要发出这一信息?

至于“为什么媒介教育的确立迫在眉睫”,媒介素养中心(2002-2003)提出五条原因:

1、媒介消费比例以及媒介浸濡社会的比例非常高。

2、媒介在形成大众的理解、信仰及态度方面的影响力非常大。

3、在我们的社会中,媒介产业发展非常快,信息非常重要。

4、在我们的中枢民主进程中,媒介非常重要。

5、视觉传播与视觉信息越来越重要。

这些观点得到了Duncan的回应,他在加拿大媒介素养协会提出六条原因(引自Bowen,2006):

1、媒介支配着我们的政治生命与文化生命。

2、几乎所有非直接经验的信息都是“经过媒介的”。

3、媒介为我们提供了有关价值与行为的强有力的模式。

4、媒介潜移默化地影响着我们。

5、媒介素养可以提升我们享受媒介的能力。

6、媒介素养可以让被动关系变为主动。

此外,Hobbs(引自Bowen,2006)从另一个角度出发提出了七种好处,从而说明“为什么在后现代世界中教授媒介素养非常重要”。媒介素养可以帮助人们(1)获得欣赏与容忍复杂事物的能力;(2)在媒介无所不在的环境中更好地做出选择;(3)对多种不同的观点保持敏感与尊重;(4)熟练地制作与发布信息;(5)成为受重视、受尊敬、运转正常的团队的一员;(6)充分利用家庭、社区和文化网络;(7)为个人制定有意义的未来目标。全美传播学会(1998)提出“成为一个有媒介素养的人”的五条标准;而这些标准与以上好处是统一的:(1)在个人生活与公共生活中,能够对人们使用媒介的方式所有认识和理解;(2)能够对观众与媒介内容之间的复杂关系有所认识和理解;(3)能够认识到媒介内容是在社会与文化的语境下制造出来的;(4)能够对媒介的商业性质有所认识和理解;(5)能够利用媒介对特定的观众进行传播活动(参见Christ,2002;Chou,2005)。

媒介教育的范围

有关媒介教育的范围问题,Tyner(1991)提出的分类方法仍然适用于美国今天的情况。Tyner认为美国的媒介教育就像盲人摸象,老师们教授的仅是媒介教育许多方面中的很小一块,这反映出“媒介教育”这一概念在形成过程中的一种支离破碎性。在仔细考察了媒介教育的本质与特点后,Tyner总结说,美国的媒介教育可以分为四个较为宽泛且互相间有重叠的类型:保护主义教育、技术教育、媒介艺术教育及民主教育。

如前文所述,保护主义思想源于媒介教育发展的“预防阶段”,意在培养孩子们抵御电视的不良内容所带来的消极影响,教师和家长在其中扮演了课程看门人的角色。虽然保护主义的潮流在二十世纪八十年代迅速退去,但是一些保护主义组织仍不断尝试在有关儿童的计划中保留一些规定。保护主义还存在于医疗卫生领域。比如说,(美国)全国精神健康研究所(National Institute of Mental Health)和美国儿科学会(American Academy of Pediatrics)从儿童身心健康的角度考虑,提出了有关儿童观看电视的指导意见。不仅如此,只要大众媒介中还存在消费主义或商业主义的味道,保护主义就不会退出舞台。

“技术教育”以前被称为“职业教育”。基于教育的技术——表明教育的主要目的是教会学生必要的技术从而能在毕业后找到工作——反映出美国长久以来对教育的主流观点。从教育的角度看待“对工作的准备”强调了要在实践的过程中学习,而技术课程能够很好地满足这一需要。因此,大多数大型的技术公司都通过提供各种免费的设备、软件、训练等形式的支持,与学校建立了教育合作关系。不幸的是,技术教育往往忽视机器及其相关的操作所具有的潜在意识形态影响力。

媒介艺术教育追求的是创新性和对自我的表现。在此一教育类型中,媒介作品课程尤为常见。通过媒介作品,学生们获得了进行创造性表达的渠道,这反过来又增强了他们的自信。不过,这种类型的教育未能培养起学生们批判性地看待问题的能力,让学生们只沉浸于自己感兴趣的活动中,并没有获得过硬的媒体技术从而能在毕业后回报社会。不仅如此,由于媒介作品课程往往由外来的艺术从业人员或机构来操作,他们很难切合校园文化。因此,这些课程在学校中不受欢迎。

民主教育是最后一种类型。在民主社会中,教育学生成为良好公民是美国大多数媒介教育者重要的工作目标。这种努力并不局限于学校体系内,还延伸到社区群体中。培养学生形成批判性的思考能力,使他们能够分辨大众媒介中可能存在的意义曲解现象;同时促进在大众媒介中对不同内容进行表达和展示的自由。在民主社会中,面向公民义务权利的媒介教育的难题之一是它总是和便利就业、技术教育相竞争或是相冲突。

这四种类型很好地回应了Hobbs提出的问题:为什么美国的媒介教育是“一个有着许多名字的小孩”。它们使Hobbs(1998a)提出下列有关媒介教育的论题:

1、媒介素养教育应不应该以保护儿童和青年不受媒介消极影响为目标?

2、媒介作品应不应该成为媒介素养教育的一个基本面?

3、媒介素养教育应不应该关注流行文化?

4、媒介素养教育应不应该有一个更为清晰的政治和思想计划?

5、媒介素养教育应不应该重点关注中小学教育环境?

6、媒介素养是应该作为独立的课程来教,还是放在已有的课程中来教?

7、媒介素养计划是否应该由媒介组织提供经济支持?

媒介教育的方法

指导美国媒介教育发展的是两种互不相容的理论视角:从文化研究的角度出发和从预防的角度出发(Scharrer,2002/2003)。从不同的角度出发,对媒介教育的理论、研究与讨论的思考就完全不同。

从文化研究的角度出发进行媒介教育的方法看重学生们对媒介的体验(Buckingham,1998;Collins,1992;Hart,1997;Masterman,1985)。其教学法不仅包括更以学生为中心的意义理解过程,而且尝试着提高学生们在体验媒介时的愉悦程度。此外,这种方法主要关注媒介的表达,并且意在使媒介非自然化。对此方法持反对意见者不同意教师们在媒介教育中干涉学生的学习过程。如前所述,这种方法普遍应用于其他英语国家;从二十世纪九十年代初起才开始影响美国的媒介教育。

第二种理论视角是从预防的角度出发进行媒介教育。该方法自美国媒介教育发展的早期阶段就开始居于支配地位,其影响力一直持续到今天。预防的方法(也称为“干预效应”[Anderson, 1983]或“干涉主义”)倾向于强调媒介的消极方面,比如性、暴力或广告中的人为操纵,将媒介教育视为保护年轻人或受众不受媒介侵害的工具(Hobbs,1998,2004)。持这一观点者认为,通过接受媒介素养教育,人们可以在面对媒介时少受影响(Husemann等,1983;Piette和Giroux,1997)。英国早在四十年前就舍弃了这种预防的方法,但是它在美国仍然流行——这尤其是因为这种想法更易得到政府机构与社会组织的经济支持,并且更易得到家长和管理者的赞同(Kubey,1998)。

应用问题

媒介教育的应用问题主要与以下问题相关:如何设计和实施媒介教育课程?如何评估和评价媒介教育课程?(Christ和Potter,1998)。

媒介教育的设计与实施

媒介教育如何才能适应中小学以及更高水平的教育课程?这是一个争论已久的问题(如Buckingham,2003;Hart,1997;Hobbs,2004;Quin和McMahon,1997;Sholle和Denski,1994;Tyner,1998)。美国媒介教育的设计常常苦于碰到这样的矛盾:是以帮助学生们更好地就业为目标,还是训练他们成为更具批判思维能力的公民、以适应民主社会的需要?这种压力在更高等级的教育阶段表现得尤为明显,要不要以就业为指向、教授学生一定的媒介制作能力与创作能力?由于在现代社会中,媒介已经与人类生活的方方面面都密不可分,因此,在帮助学生们成为熟练的操作人员的同时,如何教他们成为具有一定媒介素养的公民和消费者就成为一个亟待解决的问题。换句话说,对于媒介教育来说,我们不仅需要进行媒介的教学,还要教育学生去懂得媒介(Hobbs,1994)。

“媒介的教学”体现在“实践操作”这样的教学方法中,提供“可以亲自动手的各种活动,让学生们可以在设计、创作和制作媒介信息的过程中体验到这些概念是如何在具体的实践中得以表达的。”而“懂得媒介的教学”所指向的是这样的方法:“从文本的角度阅读”“媒介作品,运用‘表现’、‘观众’、‘制度’、‘风格’等关键概念,从而解构和提供针对媒介文本的商议性的和冲突性的理解”(Hobbs,1994,p. 460)。就Hobbs看来,在美国,文本阅读法通常运用于语言艺术、英语和社会研究等课程;而实践操作法则运用于新闻学和媒介制作课程。基于实践操作法的课程是为那些不准备上高校,或者说是为大多数美国中学里那些学业方面较少竞争性的学生们设计的。

Thoman(1993)指出,“文本阅读”法要求从事媒介教育的教师帮助学生提出有关媒介信息的五个问题(见http://www.medialit.org/ reading_room/ article1.html):

1、谁制造出这一信息?他为什么要发布这一信息?

2、发布信息者运用了什么样的技术来吸引我的注意力?

3、这一信息中体现了什么样的生活方式、价值取向与观点看法?

4、不同的人看到这一信息时会产生什么样的不同于我的理解?

5、这一信息中还遗漏了什么东西?

换句话说,媒介教育必须进行“质疑教学”,关注“对媒介文本进行提问的表现” (Hobbs, 1998a, p. 27)。

更具体地说,“文本阅读”教学法可进一步被置于十种课堂方法(由安大略省教育主管部门提出,1989)当中。这十种课堂方法包括:提问模式、批判思维策略、价值观教育、从学科的角度看待媒介、跨媒介研究/跨学科策略、创造性经验、符号学、对媒介环境的解读、观点的转换、以及媒介素养教育的全学分课程。附录B对这十种方法进行了简要描述。此外,Scheibe和Rogow(2004)提出了将文本阅读法放入课程设置中的12条基本原则,这12条基本原则的摘要请见附录C。

媒介教育的评价

媒介教育的评价问题还需要教育者和学者们进一步廓清概念、制定衡量的标准(Christ,2004)。现在正有越来越多的学者持续地致力于为中小学及更高的教育阶段制定媒介教育的标准(Christ,1994,1997,2006a;Christ和Hynes,1997;Hobbs和Frost,2003;Rosenbaum,1994;Scharrer,2002/2003),其中还包括了新闻与传播教育认证委员会(ACEJMC,2004)和国家传播学会(NCA,1998)等组织。

对媒介教育进行评价不是一件容易的事情。Christ(2004)认为,目前的评价需注重“学生学到了什么”,而不是教了学生什么。不过,虽然美国的媒介教育现在还没有一个全国性的评价标准,但正如前文所言,分析媒介信息时所需的批判思维能力越来越受重视,因此有关媒介教育效果的一些模糊的想法正逐渐形成清晰的概念规定与衡量标准。“批判性思维”能力可以从知识、技能、行为、态度和价值观等方面进行衡量。

比如说,国家传播学会(1998)在提出“成为一个有媒介素养的人”的五条标准的基础上,又从知识、行为和态度三个角度为每一条标准制定了不同的衡量细则。可见附录D。此外,Christ(2006b)和Grady(2006)指出,接受媒介教育的学生遵循以下核心职业价值(1-5)和能力(6-11)——这些价值与能力是由新闻与传播教育认证委员会列出的。

1、第一修正案的原则与条例[3]。

2、历史和专业人士、机构在形成传播中所起的作用。

3、与传播相关的全球社会中的多样化群体。

4、使用与展示影像和信息的理论。

5、专业的道德原则,追求真实、准确、公平与多样。

6、批判性、创造性、独立性地进行思考。

7、进行研究,评价信息。

8、以与传播的专业性相称的形式进行正确而清晰的表达。

9、以准确、公平、清晰、形式恰当、文法正确等标准对自己和别人的作品加以评价。

10、使用基本的计算与统计概念。

11、在传播的专业性工作中恰当地使用工具与技术。(pp. 11-12)。

所有这些价值与能力反映出二十一世纪的三种学习技能:信息与传播技能、思考与问题解决技能、人际与自我方向性技能(新世纪技能联盟,2003)。他们还借鉴了Thomans(1995)的观点,认为媒介素养是一个全面性的概念,将指向媒介能力的三个阶段整合在一起:(1)意识到在使用媒介时进行选择的重要性;(2)获得批判性思考的特殊能力;(3)探寻深入研究有关媒介的社会、政治和经济问题的框架。

在对学生的学习进行评价方面,Christ(2006b)列出了K. Hansen所建议的九条原则,其目的是为了获得一种更有效的结果。即,评价方案:

1、应包括所在团体的任务陈述。

2、应包括“职业价值与能力”。

3、应说明通过何种方式可使学生意识到“职业价值与能力”。

4、应反映出学生之间不同学习水平的概念,以及用以评价学生学习水平的方法;应指明教师认为学生可以处于什么样的水平上。

5、应明确指出对于评价学生的学习,哪种方法是直接的,哪种方法是间接的。

6、应将评价学生学习的方法与适当的“职业价值与能力”明确地联系起来。

7、应指明评价学生学习的“指标”。

8、应说明评价工作的人员配置与维持方法。

9、应详细说明将如何使用采取得来的数据,从而对课程与教学加以改进。

最后,要对媒介教育的成果进行评价就无法避免具体的衡量过程,分间接和直接两种比较常见的方法。间接评价法包括机构组织数据、调查、访谈、咨询委员会、职业和竞争(Grady,2006;Parson,2006)。直接评价法包括考察(Tucker,2006)、深入的“可靠”评估(Irwin)、相关材料(Donald,2006)及高峰课程(Moore,2006)。

未来的挑战

美国媒介教育在未来将要遇到的挑战可分为三个方面:媒介教育的集中与扩展、从运动变为教育干预、新技术带来的影响。

集中与扩展

从上文有关概念问题与应用问题的描述中我们可以看出,媒介教育的多种定义——无视其名目如何——都在向着同一个方向靠拢,即接受“媒介教育是以培养媒介素养为目的的一个过程”。它意在通过获得接触、分析和评价媒介作品的能力,并且同时获得离开学校后的就业能力,从而培养起批判性思维。然而,由于媒介教育的执行与评价受中央的或国家性政策指导,因此这对于美国来说仍是一个巨大的挑战。

在澳大利亚、加拿大、英国和几乎所有的欧洲国家,媒介教育都在国家层面拥有坚实的支撑力量。然而与这些国家不同,对于美国来说,制定全国性的媒介教育课程和政策似乎有些不太现实。由于美国的教育体系分由五十个独立的州来进行操作和管理,并且明显受到家长和社会团体的影响,因此要想建立起一个统一了各种利益与各州目标的中心式计划几乎是不可能的。所以,美国是否应该寻求某种替代性的方式——比如由Thoman(1990)提出的以家长或家庭为中心的方法——来解决这种地方分权的问题?这要留待媒介教育者们来回答了。

对媒介教育的内在成分和外部联系加以扩展是美国的媒介教育者们需要面对的另一个问题。一直以来,媒介教育关注于英文的书面文本;而在信息爆炸的今天,我们还需要通过广告、电影、电脑、报纸、电视等对其他一些信息形式(比如语言形式、听觉形式、视觉形式)加以关注——不仅包括书面文字,还包括药物滥用、暴力、色情、消费主义、社会不公等主题。此外,这种扩展还涉及社会研究、科学、行为艺术等学科(Allen, 1992)。换句话说,对媒介教育的内在成分加以扩展、对跨学科的媒介教育加以设计,这是另一个需要媒介教育者们集中智慧加以解决的问题。

媒介教育的外部联系是指学校内的媒介教育体系与外界团体(包括家长、社会团体、非营利性组织、商业公司等)之间的关系(Christ和Hynes,2006;Masterman,1997)。如果学校里的媒介教育要与外界团体进行协作,课堂自主性、教学法、教育目标和行政管理政策将会如何受到外部团体的影响(比如说由于不同的地区信仰、家长的过度参与、来自于商业机构的捐款及人力物力支持[Brown,1998;Hobbs,1998b;Kellner和Share,2005]),这是美国的媒介教育将在未来遇到的另一个挑战。

从社会运动到教育干预

作为一种社会运动,要求建立媒介教育计划的活动已经结束了强烈要求社会承认的第一阶段,而开始在地区/国家的层面上接受官方的正式批准(Bazalgette,1997)。媒介素养的进步成为大家所向往的教育目标,这实在鼓舞人心。但是这一社会运动是否已转变成一场有效的教育干预,仍然是一个问题。Tyner(2000)指出,社会运动中常见的喊口号式的做法仍然存在于媒介教育的发展过程中,具有不确定、紧迫和夸张等特点;这种表达方式让教育者们很难在媒介教育中制定明确而连贯的理论原则。换句话说,参与教育工作的人们很难对这种语言加以理解和接受,这就影响到了他们为媒介教育的学校改革做出贡献。因此就Tyner看来,“如何阐明媒介教育的目标(这与学校文化是协调一致的)”是一个教育者们需要继续努力的问题。

Bazalgette(1997)指明,为了制定出一套合理有效的媒介教育计划,我们需要突破媒介教育运动发展第一阶段中的五条局限:(1)媒介教育是激进人士的天下;(2)学习进步收效甚微;(3)媒介素养有多种概念;(4)媒介教师与媒介从业人员之间存在很大的差别;(5)缺乏研究和充分掌握信息情况下的辩论。如今,虽然情况已经大大改善,但是这些局限还是或多或少地存在。Aufderheide(2004)也有过类似的担心。他指出,当前的美国媒介教育需要解决四个明确而急迫的需要:(1)数据问题——研究者们需要获得更多的基础信息来支持媒介教育的发展;(2)公共性问题——需要制定连贯一致的概念和定义,从而可以建立起面向多种媒介教育计划的公共平台;(3)基础建设问题——需要建立起一个全国性的机构来制定媒介教育发展的计划与步骤,从而将各方面的努力统一协调起来;(4)有效益的、良性的关系问题——需要在政策制定者、社会团体和外界组织之间建立起互动的桥梁。对以上这些局限与急迫的需要加以了解,可以帮助教育者们更好地面对媒介教育在未来将要遇到的挑战。

新技术的影响

新技术不仅改变了我们的生活方式,还给二十一世纪的媒介教育带来巨大的挑战(CML Reflection Resource,2002-2003;Kubey,1997)。新技术的影响主要来源于媒介的数字化(Abernathy和Allen,2003;Buckingham和Sefton-Green,1997;Fischetti,2000;Mammett和Barrell,2002;Olson和Pollard,2004;Tyner,1998;Warnick,2001)。据Olson和Pollard(2004),数字化的巨大力量、尤其是将传统媒介(如报纸)和数字媒介(如计算机)加以混合与会聚的能力还没有被美国媒介教育所重视。媒介的数字化趋势要求我们以新的方式从三个方面看待媒介教育:新数字美学、认知效应、社会效应。

数字化趋势是指以二进制码对印刷与电子媒介加以整合,将传统媒介转变为数字媒介,并由此产生一整套完全不同的生产与分配模式。我们应在媒介教育的范畴内对数字化趋势在美学和在观众认知方面产生的效应加以研究,不仅仅关注于“数字环境中的计算机和网络媒介,而且要关注数字化媒介如何影响了传统媒介环境”(Olson和Pollard,2004,p. 249)。对媒介教育产生影响的数字美学特征可能包括交互性、操纵性,对所有媒介的内容进行目标的预设与再设,有意识的虚拟经验的创造,并尝试以之为产生新内容的一种方式等。

数字化趋势在认知方面产生的效应源于它的非线性特征和对数字媒体内容要求方面的期望的创建,这直接影响着学生们使用媒介的方式。最后,数字化媒介所产生的最重要的社会效应是“去大众化”(Olason和Pollard,2004)。以前那种数量很大且成分均一的观众群体将逐渐消失;数字化媒介通过让观众们根据自己的意愿选择媒介信息,从而形成具有针对性的诉求,而不是大众化的诉求。对于这种从大众化向个人化的转变,媒介教育应该思考一下它对于美国文化和美国民主生活方式的意义。

结论

本文从四个方面对美国媒介教育的发展状况进行了回顾:一、论述了美国媒介教育落后于大多数英语国家的原因。二、分三个阶段对美国的媒介教育发展历史进行了简单的描述:预防阶段、面对阶段和转变阶段。三、对有关美国媒介教育的定义与性质等概念问题进行了分析。四、对“如何设计与发布媒介教育课程”及“如何评价媒介教育计划”等应用问题进行了讨论。最后,笔者指出未来美国媒介教育将会遇到的三种挑战:“媒介教育的集中与扩展”,“从运动变为教育干预”及“新技术带来的影响”。

总之,本文力图反映描绘的是美国媒介教育的过去、现在与将来。尽管笔者不曾冀望能详尽展现其全貌,但在该领域继续进行改革的必要性已经昭显:我们需要不断地进步,从而在概念上改善模糊、极端和分裂的状况,在操作上改善课程设计和评价的矛盾与不一致现象,同时正视由新的媒介技术所带来的未来挑战。如此,美国才能建立起合理完善的媒介教育体系、与其他国家分享经验、并最终为世界的媒介教育做出自己的贡献。

Notes.

1. A sample list of active non-profit media education associations in the United States:

Action Coalition for Media Education (http://www.acmecoalition.org/)

Alliance for a Media Literate America (http://www.amlainfo.org/)

Assessment in Media Education (http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/worsnop/)

Association for Media Literacy (http://www.aml.ca/home/)

Center for Media Literacy (http://www.medialit.org/)

Center of Media Studies (http://www.mediastudies.rutgers.edu/cmsyme.html)

Citizens for Media Literacy (http://www.main.nc.us/cml/)

Commercial Alert (http://www.commercialalert.org/)

Media Education Foundation (http://www.mediaed.org/)

Media Matters: A National Media Education Campaign (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/mediamatters.htm)

Media Watch (http://www.mediawatch.com/)

National Telemedia Council (http://www.nationaltelemediacouncil.org/)

Pauline Center for Media Studies (http://www.daughtersofstpaul.com/mediastudies/)

2. For example, a special issue of Journal of Communication (1998, Vol. 48, No. 1) was devoted to a symposium on media literacy. The issue covers nine articles from communication scholars exploring different aspects of media literacy. In addition, American Behavioral Scientist as well contributed two special issues (2004, Vol. 48. No. 1-2) on media education (Theme: “High Time for ‘Dis-Illusioning’ Ourselves and Our Media: Media Literacy in the 21st Century”). Media specialists, including practitioners, scholars, and educations in diverse fields, were invited to express their views on two parts of the theme: (1) Strategies for Schools (K-12 and Higher Education), and (2) Strategies for General Public.

References

Abernaty, K., & Allen, T. (2003). Exploring the digital domain: An introduction to digital information fluency. New York: PWS.

Accrediting Council for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (2004). Accrediting standards. Retrieved March 10, 2006 from http://www.ukans.edu/ ~acejmc/BREAKING/ New_standards_9-03.pdf

Allen, D. (1992). Media, arts, and curriculum. In M. Alvarado & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media education: An introduction (pp. 426-430). London: BFI.

Aufderheide, P. (2004). Media literacy: From a report of the National Leadership Conference on Media Literacy. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives (pp. 79-86). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Anderson, J.A. (1983). Television literacy and the critical viewer. In J. Bryant & D. R. Anderson (Eds.), Children's understanding of television: Research on children's attention and comprehension (pp. 297-330). New York: Academic Press.

Bazalgette, C. (1997). An agenda for the second phase of media literacy development. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives (pp. 69-78). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Bowen, W. (1996). Citizens for media literacy. Retrieved from March 4, 2006, from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/teachers/media_literacy/ what_is_media_literacy.cfm

Bowen, W. (2006). Defining media literacy: Summary of Harvard Institute on media education. Retrieved from March 4, 2006, from http://interact.uoregon.edu/ mediaLit/ mlr/readings/articles/ defharvard.html)

Brown, J. A. (1991). Television “critical viewing skills” education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, J. A. (1998). Media literacy perspectives. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 44-57.

Buckingham, D. (1990). Children talking television: The making of television literacy. London: Falmer.

Buckingham, D. (1996). Critical pedagogy and media education: A theory in search of a practice. Journal of curriculum Studies, 28(6), 627-650.

Buckingham, D. (1998). Media education in the UK: Moving beyond protectionism. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 35-43.

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Buckingham, D., & Sefton-Green, J. (1997). Multimedia education: Media literacy in the age of digital culture. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives (pp. 285-305). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Center for Media Studies (2000). Media education now in all 50 states. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://medialit.med.sc.edu/statelit.htm.

Center for Media Studies (2002-2003). Media literacy: Education for a technological age. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/ article337.html

Center for Media Studies (2002-2005). History of Media Literacy in the USA – Decade by Decade. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/ reading_room/rr2.php

Center for Media Studies (2005). Medialit Kit. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/pdf/mlk/14A_CCKQposter.pdf

Chou, D. F. (2005). The current development of media education in the world. In D. F. Chou & G. M. Chen (Eds.), An introduction to media literacy (pp. 23-54). Taipei, Taiwan: WuNan.

Christ, W. G. (Ed.) (1994). Assessing communication education: A handbook for media, speech & theatre educators. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christ, W. G. (Ed.) (1997). Media education assessment handbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christ, W. G. (1998). Multimedia: Replacing the broadcast curriculum. Feedback, 39(1), 1-6.

Christ, W. G. (2002). Media literacy: Moving from the margins? Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 321-327.

Christ, W. G. (2004). Assessment, media literacy, standards, and higher education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 92-96.

Christ, W. G. (Ed.) (2006a). Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christ, W. G. (2006b). Introduction: Why assessment matters. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 3-16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christ, W. G., & Hynes, T. (1997). Missions and purposes of journalism and mass communication education: An ACEJMC-ASJMC joint committee report. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 52(2), 73-100.

Christ, W. G., & Hynes, T. (2006). Mission statements. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 31-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christ, W. G., & Potter, W. J. (1998). Media literacy, media education, and the academy. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 5-15.

CML Reflection Resource (2002-2003). Literacy for the 21st century. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/ article336.html

Collins, R. (1992). Media studies: Alternative or oppositional practice? In M. Alvarado & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media education: An introduction (pp. 57-62). London: British Film Institute.

Considine, D. M. (1990, December). Media literacy: Can we get there from here? Educational Technology, 19, 7-19.

Cope, B., & Lalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.

Donald, R. (2006). Direct measures: Portfolios. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 421-438). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ferrington, G. (2006). What is media literacy? Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://interact.uoregon.edu/mediaLit/mlr/readings/articles/whatisml.html

Fischetti, N. (2000). The future of digital entertainment. Scientific American, 283(5), 47-49.

Galician, M-L. (2004). Introduction: High time for “dis-illusioning” ourselves and our media. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 7-17.

Gardiner, W. L. (1997). Can computers turn teaching inside-out, transform education, and redefine literacy? In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age (pp. 359-376). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Gregorian, N. (2006). Media literacy & core curriculum: Initial results from the evaluation of a new media-literacy program funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Threshold: Exploring the Future of Education, winter, 5-7.

Grady, D. A. (2006). Indirect measures: Interships, careers, and competitions. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 349-371). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hall, S., & Whannel, P. (1964). The popular arts. Longdon: Hutchinson.

Halloran, J., & Jones, M. (1968). Learning about the media: communication and society. Paris: UNESCO.

Halloran, J., & Jones, M. (1992). The inoculation approach. In M. Alvarado & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media education: An introduction (pp. 10-13). London: BFI.

Hart, A. (1997). Textual pleasures and moral dilemmas: Teaching media literacy in England. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age (pp. 199-211). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Hobbs, R. (1994). Pedagogical issues in U.S. media education. Communication Yearbook, 17, 453-366.

Hobbs, R. (1996). Media literacy, media activism. Telemedium, The Journal of Media Literacy, 42(3).

Hobbs, R (1998a). The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 16-32.

Hobbs, R. (1998b). Literacy for the information age. In J. Floor, D. Lapp, & S. B. Heath (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 7-14). New York: Macmillan.

Hobbs, R. (2001, Spring). The great debates circa 2001: The promise and the potential of media literacy. Community Media Review, 25–27.

Hobbs, R. (2004). A review of school-based initiatives in media literacy education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 42-59.

Hobbs, R., & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 330-355.

Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Klein, R., Brice, P., & Fischer, P. (1983). Mitigating the imitation of aggressive behavior by changing children's attitudes about media violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 899–910.

Irwin, S. O. (2006). Direct measures: Embedded “authentic” assessment. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 397-420). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 369-386.

Kubey, R. (Ed.) (1997). Media literacy in the information age. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Kubey, R. (1998). Obstacles to the development of media education in the U.S.. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 58-69.

Kubey, R. (2003). Why U.S. media education lags behind the rest of the English-speaking world. Television & New Media, 4(4), 351-370.

Kubey, R. (2004). Media literacy and the teaching of civics and social studies at the dawn of the 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 69-77.

Kubey, R., & Baker, F. (1999, October 27). Has media literacy found a curricular foothold? Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://www.medialit.med.sc.edu/ edweek.htm

Leavis, F., & Thompson (1933). Culture and environment: The training of critical awareness. London: Chatto & Windus.

Mammett, R., & Barrell, B. (2002). Digital expressions: Media literacy and English language arts. Calgary, Canada: Detselig.

Masterman, L. (1980). Teaching about television. London: Macmillan.

Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the media. London: Comedia.

Masterman, L. (1997). A rationale for media education. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives (pp. 15-68). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Media Awareness Network. (2006a). Media education in Canada: An overview. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/

teachers/media_education/media_education_overview. cfm

Media Awareness Network. (2006b). Chronology of media education in Canada. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/ teachers/ media_education/ media_education_chronology.cfm

Metallinos, N. (Ed.) (1994). Verbo-visual literacy: Understanding and applying new educational communication media technologies. Montreal, Canada: 3Dmt Research & Information Center.

Meyrowitz, J. (1998). Multiple media literacy. Journal of communication, 48(1), 96-108.

Moore, R. C. (2006). Direct measures: The capstone course. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 439-459). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

National Communication Association (1998). The speaking, listening, and media literacy standards and competency statements for k-12 education. Annandale, VA: NCA. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from http://www.natcom.org/nca/files/ ccLibraryFiles/FILENAME/000000000119/K12%20Standards.pdf

Olson, S. R., & Pollard, T. (2004). The muse pixelipe: Digitalization and media literacy education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 248-255.

Ontario Ministry of Education (1989). Media literacy resource guide. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article338.html

Parsons, P. (2006). Indirect measures: Institutional data, surveys, interviews, and advisory boards. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 329-347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003). Learning for the 21st century: A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Washington D. C.: Author.

Piette, J., & Giroux, L. (1997). The theoretical foundations of media education programs. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age: Current perspectives (Vol. 6, pp. 89-134). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Pungente, J. (1997). Live long and proper: Media literacy in the USA, Clipboard, 8(2), Summer. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://interact.uoregon.edu/mediaLit/mlr /readings/articles/medialit.html

Rosenbaum, J. (1994). Assessment: An overview. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing communication education: A handbook for media, speech & theatre educators (pp. 3-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Quin, R., & McMahon, B. (1997). Living with the tiger: Media curriculum issues for the future. In R. Kubey (Ed.), Media literacy in the information age (pp. 307-321). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Rubin, A. (1998). Media literacy: Editor’s note. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 3-4.

Scharrer, E. (2002/2003, December/January). Making a case for media literacy in the curriculum: Outcomes and assessment. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(4). Retrieved March 8, 2006, from http://www.readingonline.org/ newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/jaal/12-02_column/index. html

Scheibe, C., & Rogow , F. (2004). 12 basic principles for incorporating media literacy and critical thinking into any curriculum. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College.

Sholle, D., & Denski, S. (1994). Media education and the (re)production of culture. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Silverblatt, A. (1995). Media literacy: Keys to interpreting media messages. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Sinartra, R. (1986). Visual literacy connections to thinking, reading and writing. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (1998). Developing critical viewing skills and media literacy in children. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 164–180.

Thoman, E. (1990, July). New directions in media education. Paper presented at the international Conference of the University of Toulouse, France. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org /reading_room/article126.html.

Thoman, E. (1993). Skills and strategies for media education. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article1.html

Thoman, E. (1995). The three stages of media literacy. Retrieved March 12, 2006, from

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/teachers/media_literacy/ what_is_media_literacy.cfm

Thoman, E., & Jolls, T. (2004). Media literacy – A national priority for a changing world. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 18-29.

Tucker, D. E. (2006). Direct measures: Examinations. In W. G. Christ (Ed.), Assessing media education: A resource handbook for educators and administrators (pp. 373-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tyner, K. (1991). The media education elephant. Retrieved March 6, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/ article429.html

Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in a digital world: Teaching and learning in the age of information. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tyner, K. (2000, May). Media education in the year 2000: Directions and challenges. Paper presented at the international conference on “Children, Youth and the Media”. Toronto, Ontario: Canada.

Walsh, B. (2006a). A brief history of media education. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from http://interact.uoregon.edu/mediaLit/mlr/readings/articles/briefhistml.html

Walsh, B. (2006b). Expanding the definition of media literacy. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://interact.uoregon.edu/mediaLit/mlr/readings/articles/ Expanding_Media_lit.html

Warnick, B. (2001). Critical Literacy in a Digital Era: Technology, Rhetoric, and the Public Interest. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, R. (1961). The long revolution. London: Chatto & Windus.

Zettl, H. (1990). Sight sound motion: applied media aesthetics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Appendix A. Major Events in the History of Media Literacy in the United States.

I. Pre-1960: Early visionaries prepare the way

1. Marshall Mcluhan’s revolutional work on media.

2. John Culkin first invented the term “media literacy.”

II. 1960-1970: First experiments with media in schools

1. Early experiments in school television production started in the early 1960s.

2. The first TV studio in Murray Avenue Elementary in Larchmont, New York was established in 1965.

3. Iowa educators pioneered “Media Now Curriculum” in mid-1960s. Its Southwest Iowa Learning Resources Center (LRC) became a precursor of today’s area education agencies and served as a community locus for an innovative film study program.

4. Ford Foundation funds experimental high school TV program started in the late 1960s.

5. A report announced that the “Screen Education” movement failed to survive the war in the late 1960s.

III. 1970 - 1980: Early programs paved the way

1. Church groups introduced “Television Awareness Training” (TAT) for parents and adults in 1977. The Viewer’s Guide for Family and Community was developed.

2. Media & Values magazine began to chronicle growing influence of media culture and publish early activities for media literacy classroom in 1977.

3. The School of Public communication at Boston University, under a contract with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and US Office of Education, developed the “Television Literacy: Critical Television Viewing Skills” curriculum in 1979.

IV. 1980-1990: Connection with outside media literacy movement

1. The “Grunwald Document” was unanimously declared by the representatives of 19 nations at UNESCO's 1982 International Symposium on Media Education at Grunwald, Federal Republic of Germany.

2. Ministry of Education of Ontario, Canada published the “Media Literacy Resource Guide” in 1987.

3. The 1988 Annual Report of the L.J. Skaggs and Mary C. Skaggs Foundation on what are other countries doing in media education.

4. Len Masterman published “Media education: 18 basic principles” in 1989.

5. An international conference at the University of Toulouse, France in 1990, sponsored by UNESCO, proposed the new directions in media education, including the establishment of the “four criteria for success” in implementing media education in any county.

IV. 1990-present: Collective efforts, pioneering projects, curriculum connections, and the rapid growth of media education

1. The Media Development published Thoman’s “An overview of the challenges to implementing media literacy in the USA” in 1990.

2. The Media Commission of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) met at the NCTE conference in Seattle in 1991 to explore and evaluate a number of issues central to the future of media education in the United States.

3. Aspen Institute hosted historic gathering in 1992 to set agenda of media education for the decade.

4. The Harvard University hosted the first US media literacy teaching institute in 1992.

5. The “Catholic Media Literacy Curriculum” was released in 1993.

6. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) published the “Skills and Strategies for Media Education” in 1993.

7. The “Safeguarding our Youth Conference,” sponsored by the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services, was held in 1993.

8. U.S. Senate invited testimony for media literacy as strategy for violence prevention in 1995.

9. The first national media literacy conference on “Sows the Seeds” for future growth was held in Boone, North Carolina in 1995 (The second conference was held in Los Angeles in 1996).

10. Carnegie Foundation endorsed media literacy for young adolescents in 1996 (through the report of “In Great Transitions: Preparing Adolescents for a New Century”).

11. The whole issue of Journal of Communication was devoted to a symposium on media literacy (1998, Volume 48, No. 1).

12. Partnership for Media Education was formed in 1997, and had first national media education conference in Colorado Springs in 1998, St. Paul, Minnesota in 1999, and Toronto, Canada in 2000.

13. Alliance for a Media Literate America (AMLA) was founded in 2000.

14. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) expanded its language arts matrix to define standards for both “viewing” and “media” in 2001.

15, “CMLls MediaLit Kittm,” a framework for leaning and living in media age was published in 2002.

16. The “Learning for the 21st Century” report situated media literacy as 21st century skill in 2003.

17. The American Behavioral Scientist devoted two special issues (2004, Volume 48, No. 1 & 2) to the theme of “High Time for ‘Dis-illusion’ Ourselves and Our Media: Media literacy in the 21st Century”.

Source: Center for Media Studies (2002-2005). History of Media Literacy in the USA – Decade by Decade. Retrieved March 2, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/ reading_room/rr2.php

Appendix B. A Summary of the 10 Classroom Approaches to Media Literacy

1. The Inquiry Model - A structured framework that will help students recognize basic issues and provide strategies for developing subject content. This model helps to stimulate open questioning and encourages students to be intellectually curious about the world; it also demands that they have the proper tools for meaningful research and discussion.

2. Critical-thinking Strategies– It refers to a body of intellectual skills and abilities that enable one to decide rationally what to believe or do. It also includes a set of values: the pursuit of truth, fairness or open-mindedness, empathy, autonomy, and self-criticism.

3. Values Education – Assumes that the mass media are an ideal resource for the discussion of moral dilemmas, the development of moral reasoning, and the use of techniques such as values clarification.

4. Media from the Perspective of Subject Disciplines - In relation to media-literacy analysis in a subject context, it is important to stress that teachers will need to move beyond conceiving of media simply as audio-visual aids. Ideas that teachers can use to incorporate media literacy into their classes include English, social sciences, family studies, science and technology, visual arts, music, physical and health education, mathematics, and resource center teachers.

5. Cross-media Studies and Interdisciplinary Strategies- The issues, trends, and special events of our time are simultaneously reflected in all or several of the mass media. Hence, whether the topic is the arms race, the promotion of a rock star, an advertising campaign, or sexuality and violence in the media, a cross-media analysis is required. The effective application of the key concepts of media depends on the integration of several media.

6. Creative Experiences – Assumes that we should integrate formal media analysis with media production. Those creative activities can range from something as short and simple as sequencing a series of photographs to a project as complex as the production of a rock video.

7. Semiotics - It is the science of signs and is concerned primarily with how meaning is generated in film, television, and other works of art. It is concerned with what signs are and the ways that information is encoded in them.

8. Reading the Media Environment – Assumes that each medium of communication has its own biases and ideology. When we interact with a medium of communication, we are influenced as much by the form of the medium as by its message. Thus, we should ask the following question about each communication medium: What would life be like without this medium?

9. Alternative Points of View -As a counter to the mass media, which are generally, conservative and constitute a major industry in which the profit motive is paramount, teachers, depending on the level of the class, can show films and videos that present an alternative vision or a different kind of perception and experience to that of the mainstream media. However, these should be a supplement to, and not take the place of, the study of popular models.

10. Full-credit Courses in Media Literacy - These courses, offered at the secondary school level, will probably be presented as one of the optional courses in English or the visual arts and will reflect a great diversity of approaches. Examples of areas covered by such courses including pop culture, the world of images, the information society, the study of specific media or genre within a medium, and television production,

Source: Ontario Ministry of Education (1989). Media literacy resource guide. Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article338.html

Appendix C. A Summary of the 12 Basic Principles for Incorporating Media Literacy and Critical Thinking into Any Curriculum

1. Use media to practice general observation, critical thinking, analysis, perspective-taking, and production skills by encouraging students to think critically about information presented in any media message.

2. Use media to stimulate interest in a new topic by showing an exciting or familiar video clip or reading a short book or story.

3. Identify ways in which students may be already familiar with a topic through media by giving examples from popular media content to illustrate what students might already know about a topic.

4. Use media as a standard pedagogical tool by providing information about the topic through a variety of different media sources.

5. Identify erroneous beliefs about a topic fostered by media content by analyzing media content that misrepresents a topic or presents false or misleading information about a topic.

6. Develop an awareness of issues of credibility and bias in the media by teaching how to recognize the source (speaker) of a media message and the purpose of producing the message, and how that might influence the objective nature of information.

7. Compare the ways different media present information about a topic by contrasting ways in which information about a topic might be presented in a documentary, a TV news report, a newspaper article, an advertisement, or an educational children's program about a specific topic.

8. Analyze the effect that specific media have had on a particular issue or topic historically and/or across different cultures by discussing the role that the media have played (if any) in the history of this topic.

9. Use media to build and practice specific curricular skills by using print media (books, newspapers, magazines) to practice reading and comprehension skills.

10. Use media to express students' opinions and illustrate their understanding of the world by encouraging students to analyze media messages for distortions and bias issues of particular interest to them.

11. Use media as an assessment tool by having students summarize their knowledge about a topic in a final report that employs other forms of media beyond the standard written report.

12. Use media to connect students to the community and work toward positive change by finding collaborative possibilities for projects with community institutions.

Source: Scheibe, C., & Rogow , F. (2004). 12 basic principles for incorporating media literacy and critical thinking into any curriculum. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca College.

Appendix D. NCA Media Literacy Standards and Competencies.

I. Media literate communicators demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the ways people use media in their personal and public lives.

Knowledge

Behaviors

Attitudes

1. Recognize the centrality of communication in human endeavors.

2. Recognize the importance of communication for educational practices.

3. Recognize the roles of culture and language in media practices.

4. Identity personal and public media practices.

5. Identify personal and public media content, forms, and products.

6. Analyze the historical and current ways in which media affect people’s personal and public lives.

7. Analyze media ethical issues.

8. Access information in a variety of media forms.

9. Illustrate how people use media in their personal and public lives.

10. Are motivated to evaluate media and communication practices in terms of basic social values such as freedom, responsibility, privacy and public standards of decency.

II. Media literate communicators demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the complex relationships among audiences and media content.

Knowledge

Behaviors

Attitudes

1. Identify media forms, content, and products.

2. Recognize that media are open to multiple interpretations.

3. Explain how audience members interpret meanings.

4. Describe how media practitioners determine the nature of audiences.

5. Explain how media socialize people.

6. Evaluate ideas and images in media with possible individual, social and cultural consequences.

7. Create standards to evaluate media content, forms, and products.

8. Illustrate how media content, forms, and audience interpretations are linked to viewing practices.

1. Are motivated to recognize the complex relationships among media content, forms, and audience practices.

III. Media literate communicators demonstrate knowledge and understanding that media content is produced within social and cultural contexts.

Knowledge

Behaviors

Attitudes

1. Identify the production contexts of media content and products.

2. Identify the social and cultural constraints on the production of media.

3. Identify the social and cultural agencies that regulate media content and products.

4. Evaluate the ideas and aesthetics in media content and products.

5. Demonstrate how media content and products are produced within social and cultural contexts.

6. Demonstrate how social and cultural regulations affect media content and products.

7. Are motivated to examine the relationships among media content and products and the larger social and cultural contexts of their production.

IV. Media literate communicators demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the commercial nature of media.

Knowledge

Behaviors

Attitudes

1. Explain how media organizations operate.

2. Identify the social and cultural agencies that regulate media organizations.

3. Compare media organizations to other social and cultural organizations

4. Demonstrate the relationships between media organizations and media distribution practices.

5. Are motivated to analyze the historical and current ways in which media organizations operate in relationship to democratic processes.

V. Media literate communicators demonstrate ability to use media to communicate to specific audiences.

Knowledge

Behaviors

Attitudes

1. Identify suitable media to communicate for specific purposes and outcomes.

2. Identify the roles and responsibilities of media production teams.

3. Analyze their media work for technical and aesthetic strengths and weaknesses.

4. Recognize that their media work has individual, social, and ethical consequences.

5. Reflect upon how their media literacy work relates to events outside of school learning.

6. Practice multiple approaches to developing and presenting ideas.

7. Structure media messages to be presented in various media forms.

8. Assume accountability for the individual, social, and ethical outcomes of their work.

9. Are motivated to appreciate how their media literacy work enhances self-expression, education, and career opportunities.

Source: National Communication Association (1998). The speaking, listening, and media literacy standards and competency statements for k-12 education. Annandale, VA: NCA.

    进入专题: 媒介教育   媒介素养   文化研究方法   预防方式   媒介教育的发展历史   媒介教育理论   数字化   在线教育  

本文责编:jiangxiangling
发信站:爱思想(https://www.aisixiang.com)
栏目: 学术 > 新闻学 > 实务新闻学
本文链接:https://www.aisixiang.com/data/21317.html

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2023 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统