Media and Information Literacy

An Integrated Approach for the 21st Century

Marcus Leaning

• Publisher: Chandos Publishing
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9780081002353
• Topic: Langues et linguistique
• Subtopic: Études sur la communication

Media and Information Literacy: An Integrated Approach for the 21st Century provides a novel rationale for the integration of media and information literacy and gives direction to contemporary media and information literacy education. The book takes a synthetic approach to these two areas, presenting critical histories of both.

The book explores the influence of political forces and educational practice on media literacy and the contemporary media environment, focusing on computing and mobile technology as a platform for existing and non-computational media. The final section considers a new rationale for the adjustment of content and activities into a combined project, building on a range of skills from contemporary media, reconsidering the mission of media literacy, and advocating that media and information literacy be expanded out of the classroom and positioned as a 'public pedagogy'.

• Proposes a new route direction for media and information literacy
• Combines critical histories of media literacy and information literacy
• Integrates an account of technological development as a key driver to educational activities while retaining core progressive intents
• International in scope with recognition of international agencies, such as UNESCO and the UN

Part I

How We Arrived At Where We Are

Outline

Chapter One Integrating Media and Information Literacy

Chapter Two A History of Media Education and Literacy

Chapter Three The History of Information Literacy

Chapter One

Integrating Media and Information Literacy

Abstract

This chapter introduces the topic of media and information literacy and the approach developed in the book. Two key tenets of the book are introduced. First is the commitment to the sociologically inspired cosmopolitanism of a number of social theorists and philosophers. Second is the recognition that integrating media and information literacy is a response to significant changes in the contemporary and future media ecology and in particular the rise of networked information and the steep rise in Internet connections. The remainder of the chapter concerns a summary of the various chapters in the rest of the book.

Keywords

Media literacy; information literacy; cosmopolitanism; Media Studies 2.0

Contents

1.1 Introduction 3

1.2 Approach and Perspective 4

1.3 Structure of the Book 10

References 13

1.1 Introduction

This book is intended for media and information educators as a proposal for the future direction of their subject areas. It is aimed at those researching and studying media and information education (particularly at higher undergraduate and post graduate levels), those involved in planning media and information education and of course media and information educators themselves. It is intended to trigger debate and thought and offer a particular position on the future orientation of the field. Accordingly, it is not a text book for students learning media or information literacy, a ‘how to’ book for teachers or a compendium of techniques and activities for classroom practice; it is sadly lacking in all these areas and many excellent texts exist already.

Instead this text presents a rationale for a change in media and information education; for media education to recognise and respond to the changing environment and technologies and for information education to incorporate a greater degree of criticality. Of course much media education is highly flexible and adaptive; it explicitly covers new technology and has a history of engaging with new technologies as they arise. Similarly, information literacy education has evolved and incorporates a critical dimension. Both are vibrant, dynamic and evolving fields with substantial and critically reflective constituencies of researchers, teachers and practitioners. Through a range of academic flora including journals, websites, magazines, periodicals and conferences these communities debate and advance their fields and it is to this audience that this text is targeted.

Perhaps one cause for the vibrancy of the research culture is that the fields are constantly in ‘shift’; new facets are revealed and new angles that require attention are uncovered. Education and in particular media and information education is undergoing what Hargreaves, Lieberman and Fuller (2010) term a ‘great turn’; a period of rapid transition and change in educational practices. The emergence of digital technologies, the economic downturn with its resultant impact upon employment (and the reactions from governments to these changes) and large political changes which, at the time of writing, have yet to fully play out have meant that curricula are changed and teaching practices adjusted. During such times the requirements upon teachers to incorporate additional areas and aspects into teaching are great.

However, educators must always be mindful of non-strategic ‘mission creep’; the seemingly continuous yet unstructured expansion of what is supposed to be taught in restricted time tables in environments of finite resources. Accordingly, this text is not a description of a set of additional things that those either in media education or information education should do; we cannot simply keep expanding what we do in limited spaces within curricula.

Instead it is argued here that rather than making small adaptations and continually adding new components to both fields, there is a strong case for a reconsideration of the disciplines; to combine them, reorient them and set a ‘strategic direction’ for where media and information literacy education should go in the next few years. This assertion takes place in the light of arguments made by a number of previous authors (Cheung, Wilson, Grizzle, Tuazon, & Akyempong, 2011; Moeller, Joseph, Lau, & Carbo, 2011) and in statements from various organisations (UNESCO, 2014).

1.2 Approach and Perspective

In Chapter Two, A History of Media Education and Literacy and Chapter Three, The History of Information Literacy, it will be noted that there are numerous different flavours of media and information literacy education. As Buckingham notes programmes of media and information literacy are developed for a variety of different reasons and often as a response to a perception of threat (2003). Indeed, it is possible to see a programme of media education as a barometer of the fears and preoccupations of a society at a given time (Leaning, 2009b). In addition to this ‘cultural materialist’ reading of education – that we can read political imperatives in actions and texts – we should note that the underlying rationale for media literacy straddles disciplinary boundaries and political and historical divides (Penman & Turnbull, 2007). Media literacy is initiated, planned and delivered for a variety of reasons by a large array of agencies and organisations with vastly different political, religious and ethical agenda (as we will see in chapter: the history of information literacy, the same is not quite true for information literacy education). The manner of delivery is also diverse with a vast range of approaches and techniques used; indeed, there is a veritable cottage industry in texts, guides, teaching resources and lesson plans for media and information education teachers.

It may be useful therefore to identify some of the basic tenets and assertions and the political standpoint that informs this text. It is possible to group these into two broad areas. The first area is a commitment to the sociological approach founded in the theories of reflexive modernity, reflexivity and cosmopolitanism of Giddens (1990, 1991, 2007), Beck (Beck, 1992, 2005, 2006; Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002; Beck & Grande, 2007; Beck & Ritter, 1997) and Bauman (2005, 2008, 2012), the critical cosmopolitan sociology of Delanty (2006, 2009), the cosmopolitan philosophy of Appiah (2010) and the manifestation of this in the ‘utopian realist’ educational theories of Halpin (2002). Giddens, Beck and Bauman were leading figures in a (broadly European) sociological approach to understanding the experience of living within late modern societies. They sought to establish a sociological framework for understanding the complexity of the contemporary world while drawing upon and advancing the work of key European sociological thinkers. Of the three key traditions in classical European sociological theory – the Functionalist theories of Durkheim, the critical class theories of Marx and the interpretivist theories of Weber who saw multiple dimensions to social stratification, it is the latter which is advanced the most in the work of Giddens and others. The approach developed by Giddens, Beck and Bauman is decidedly anti-post-modern – at least in the sense that the post-modern is a sensibility of a specific epoch following the period of modernity rather than a flavour or ‘dark-side’ of modernist culture (Waugh, 1992). Instead, Giddens argues that late modernity is best understood as a period of intense reflexivity in which the core foundations of identity come under intense scrutiny (1990, 1991, 2007). Furthermore, this process of scrutiny has facilitated an individualised and reflexive approach to self-identity – we come to regard ourselves as projects to ‘work upon’ or improve. Late modernity becomes a period of fluidity, an age in which the self is individualised to a far greater degree than previously (Bauman, 2008, 2012) and it is in that space of choice that decisions about the future of society can be addressed and where we can deploy the cosmopolitan imagination (Delanty, 2006). For Beck (2006), the overarching problems to be addressed in this opportunity are those opposing the ‘cosmopolitan vision’ – a non-Marxist, equality orientated, progressive vision for society in the 21st century. Cosmopolitanism is a philosophy or ideology that centres upon the assertion that humanity constitutes a single community. Its origins lie in the work of the Cynic School of Greek philosophy and in particular the assertion of Diogenes that he was a ‘citizen of the world’ rather than of a specific place – Diogenese claimed affinity with all humanity rather than just those a particular city state. A cosmopolitan was a citizen of the universe or cosmos. It was elaborated and developed through the Roman Stoics and certain Christian writings of St Paul.¹ In later times, it informed a number of key Enlightenment texts.²

A number of authors argue that cosmopolitanism contains two strands. On the one hand is an obligation to others above and beyond our obligations to our families and friends. This obligation should be extended beyond our families, beyond our close group of friends and beyond our nation to all humanity. The second strand is the assertion that we should recognise that difference exists between people, afford such differences equal value and respect and seek to learn from the differences in human lives (though of course there may be clashes (Appiah, 2010) between the universal concern and recognition of difference). Opposed to the cosmopolitan vision are the twin forces of the ‘national outlook’ on the one side (the assertion of a homogenised territorial perspective (Beck, 2005, 2006; Beck & Grande, 2007)) and ‘fundamentalism’ on the other (which Beck regards as anti-modern and an unfortunate consequence of liberational post-colonialism which when subverted by the refutation of grand narratives within postmodernism results in a contra-essentialist fundamentalism (2010)). Delanty (2006, 2009) argues that critical cosmopolitanism centres upon a rejection of eurocentrism – that we need to adopt a post-universalistic understanding and that critical cosmopolitanism with its inherent recognition of difference offers this. Thus, in the form I use here cosmopolitanism is a social scientifically orientated re-visioning of the idea of a political entity founded upon a recognition and tolerance of difference as a starting point for social action. Halpin (2002) seeks to identify a direction for progressive education from cosmopolitanism and the work of Giddens and Beck and articulates what he terms a ‘utopian realist’ approach for this. He identifies utopian approaches as those, which incorporate a ‘vocabulary of hope’ (Halpin, 2002). Accordingly, utopias help us to ‘relativise the present and progressively to anticipate a better future’ (2002). A utopia is a device through which we can think about our actions and which we can use to plan future action. However, the utopian imagination or ‘daydream’ is moderated by the restraints and practicalities of reality. Accordingly, utopian realism is that which ‘identifies the forces and resources within the present social order that are capable of transforming it for the better’ (Halpin, 2002). Utopian realism provides a broad, sociologically informed perspective through which to think and develop the future of educational activity and for our purposes media and information education in particular. Accordingly, progressive, critical Cosmopolitanism serves as an underlying, though sometimes unvoiced, critical stance within this book and there is a general sympathy to the sociology of Bauman, Beck, Giddens, Delanty and others and the progressive approach to education advocated by Halpin.

The second underpinning assertion is that integrating media and information literacy is an appropriate and necessary response to changes in the way media technology function and the way in which they are used. Simply put, we need to update media and information literacy to deal with the current and future form and usage of technology. The idea of revising educational practice in the light of changing technologies and patterns of use is, of course, not new and media studies has recently seen significant controversy in what it should study and the methods by which it should study it. In 2010, the noted British media educator David Buckingham wrote a...