Media education in the UK

Media education in the UK

Media education in the mainstream curriculum is measured for its capacity to develop media literacy against a pragmatic working model derived from publications from the EC, COST/ANR, UNESCO and the UK regulator, Ofcom. Information education is currently a distinct category from media education in the UK, with a mandate for entitlement (in the case of e-safety) but without formal qualifications or assessment.

The composite model of media literacy is too broad in scope and ambition for mainstream education to ‘deliver’. The model derived for this analysis, from EC, COST and Ofcom documents and reports, covers public sphere engagement and empowerment outcomes, a broad range of stakeholders, an equally broad range of media/information content/contexts and a pedagogic intention to combine cultural, critical and creative learning.

The history of media education in relation to policy in the UK can be divided into three phases:

• Pre-Ofcom and EU intervention: the establishment of Media Studies, Film Studies and other related areas in the curriculum.

• 1997–2011 New Labour government and Ofcom media literacy intervention (in the EU context) with some correspondence to Media Studies.

• Post-Ofcom Coalition government, discontinuation of media literacy strategies but continuation of the EU context.

The UK is currently very well placed to provide media literacy through media education, given the status of Media Studies as an established curriculum subject. However, to coherently match Media Studies to the policy objectives for media literacy expressed in EC, COST and Ofcom statements, funding (for teacher training), and government support and endorsement for Media Studies is essential. Given the uncertainty over the continuation of Media Studies in the formal curriculum in secondary and further education, this is unlikely to be supported within the UK.

This is a position paper on the capacity for media and information education in the UK in 2014 to facilitate media, digital and information literacy as defined by the European Commission (EC) and on the relationship between UK media/information education, regulation and law. Educational provision relevant to this report exists in four categories in the UK:

• Mainstream (formal) education – the study of media in the secondary, further and higher education curriculum, with specifications, qualifications and measurable assessment outcomes – Media Studies (and vocational equivalents), Film Studies and Media/non-literary textual analysis in English.

• Broader, but more variable and less measurable examples of media literacy across the curriculum and extra-curricular activity facilitated by educational institutions – for example, within literacy education in the primary curriculum, Citizenship, History, Art, and Sociology.

• E-safety policy in the school system.

• Computer and information literacy/education outside of the formal educational system. This report covers the range of these areas, but does not separate the categories as they are often combined.

The EDEMUS Project (slide 8) divides media literacy levels into individual competences and environmental factors, as follows:

Individual competences: the capacity to interpret critically the flow, substance, value and consequences of media in all its many forms, so as to enable citizens to use the media and to communicate effectively through it.

Environmental factors: which affect the development of media literacy (including media education, media literacy policies and the roles of media and civil society organizations).

The focus of this report on environmental factors and some provisional working metrics will be applied to Media Studies in the UK as an environmental factor influencing individual competences.

In short, the UK is comparatively successful, then, in providing media education at a quantitative level, although national policy frameworks for media and information education/literacy are not currently in place.

Along with the four dominant discourses, four key sources combined for the purpose of developing a working model for practice are:

1. Livingstone’s (2011) statement accounting for the objectives of media literacy for the public sphere as articulated in the plethora of EU/EC literature, conference proceedings and task force developments:

Theoretical and pedagogic ambitions for media literacy among audiences are often huge, with the promotion of media literacy heralding the promise of empowerment, critical literacy, democratic engagement and participatory culture in a thoroughly mediated world.

2. McGonagle’s use of a Media literacy card (slide 9) to represent the ‘multiplicity and interconnectedness of themes, target groups and stakeholders (emphasis added) for media literacy.

3. The scope of coverage defined by the ANR/Translit/COST template for analysis, defining media education broadly as including broadcast and broadband media and a range of bundled literacies, with literacy defined as ‘encompassing info-competence and other text and image based skills to interpret media messages and communication services.

4. The UK regulator Ofcom, during the previous Labour government’s administration, developed a media literacy policy agenda that was discontinued by the current coalition. A discussion of Ofcom’s work, informed by the recent analysis provided by Wallis and Buckingham (2013), follows in a later section. This was the only published policy for in the UK that has sought to set out an entitlement for media literacy, defined as the ability to access, understand and create communications in a variety of contexts.

So the UK is very well placed to ‘deliver’ media literacy on a broad scale, through Media Studies as an established curriculum subject in schools and colleges, but that this potential is continually undermined by a refusal by power-holding groups to legitimize Media Studies as an academic pursuit or as a civic entitlement. The relatively high levels of public interest in media practices and consumer use of technology (as demonstrated by the interest in the Leveson Inquiry in public discourse, and the continuing debates in the popular domain around children’s use of media and technology), the comparatively high levels of ‘early adoption’ of technology and devices, and the existence of Media Studies in mainstream education should place the UK in an ideal position to achieve high levels of media literacy. However, the continuing refusal of governments to sanction and fund teacher training in media education or to grant Media Studies credibility as either an academic discipline or a vocational route into employment prevents this.

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 34