Mouood Mouood English Edition
Of course media education absorbed the orientation to civic responsibility, humanism and democracy a long time ago (see, for example: UNESCO, 2001, p.152; Buckingham, 2000; Ferguson, 1997; Gonnet, 2001, p.24; Korochensky, 2003; Fedorov, 2003; Fedorov, 2001; 2007, p.370, etc.). However if to highlight the “civic approach” out of the broad spectrum of tasks of media education, then it’s better not to deal with media education, but with citizenship or social studies (including them as the academic disciplines). Besides we shouldn’t forget that the concept of “media competence” seamlessly incorporates the component of “media activity” as well…
Putting forward the new interactive (journalists) model of modern media education I.V. Zhilavskaya wrote (though without giving any particular examples), that “the overwhelming majority of research papers and theses which deal with the matters of media education one way or another, and related to the field of pedadogics, virtually doesn’t explore the productive function of media education in relation to the phenomenon of media, which in this context is equivalent to the educational component of the subject” (Zhilavskaya, 2009, pp.104-105). “This conception is realized in the new interactive (journalists) model of media education, which should be differentiated from the pedagogical model. The basis for distinguishing between these models is the spatial and role arrangement of the participants of media education activity in the existing system of coordinates” (Zhilavskaya, 2009, p.106).
Supporting her proposed model I.V. Zhilavskaya refers to the “conception of Russian media education module”, “worked out by Y.N. Zasursky and E.L. Vartanova” (Zhilavskaya, 2009, p.177). Further in her monograph I.V. Zhilavskaya cites a table from the article “Russian media education module: conceptions, principles, models” (Vartanova, Zasursky, 2003, pp.5-10), containing a list of the following key “aspects of media education”: media agencies, media categories, media technologies, language of media, media audience, representation of reality in media.
In fact, this table is just a Russian translation of the original table worked out by British teachers of media – C. Bazalgette and A. Hart in the early 1990s (Bazalgette, 1991, p.8; Bazalgette, 1995; Hart, 1991, p.13; 1997, p.202). Moreover, the foundations of pedagogical media education model based on the above mentioned six key aspects/concepts of media education, had been stated by C. Bazalgette herself during the Russian-British seminar on media education in Moscow in 1995 and were translated and published in Russian the same year (Bazalgette, 1995).
Thus, to put it mildly, the basis of the so-called “Russian module of media education” published by E.L. Vartanova and Y.N. can hardly be attributed to innovations… Moreover, not well-informed readers of the article “Russian module of media education: conceptions, principles, models” (Vartanova, Zasursky, 2003, pp.5-10) might get the false impression that the development of mass media education in Russia began almost in the XXI century, and not 80 years earlier, as it was in fact (see, for example, the works of 1920s: A.M. Gelmont, S.N. Lunacharskaya, B.N. Kandyrin; 19601990s: L.M. Bazhenova, O.A. Baranov, E.A. Bondarenko, I.V. Vaisfeld, L.S. Zaznobina, L.A. Ivanova, I.S. Levshina, V.A. Monastyrsky, S.N. Penzin, G.A. Polichko, L.P. Pressman, Y.M. Rabinovich, V.S> Sobkin, Y.N. Usov, A.V. Fedorov, A.V. Sharikov, A.Y. Shkolnik, N.F. Khilko and others).
The Attempt of New Jouralistic Media Education Model
Anyway, let’s get back to I.V. Zhilavskaya’s monograph. In tabular form (Table 1) she tried to describe the benefits of the interactive (journalists) model of media education in comparison with pedagogical models.
Let’s try to analyze this table reasoning from the characteristics of the components which are given in it.
I think we can agree with the formulation of aims and subjects of pedagogical and interactive models, they are defined rather laconically and correctly, at that journalistic specificity was manifested in the second case. But in my opinion the formulation of the recipients/audiences is evidently incomplete. Of course, the audience of the journalists model represents most different sections of the population. But why does I.V. Zhilavskaya deny this in the pedagogical model? After all, in pedagogical models as well the students (including the process of self-education) can also be (and they are) people of different ages and professions.
The division of communicative strategies into “influence” (pedagogical model) and “interaction” (journalists model) is even more objectionable. The contemporary pedadogics (and media education) rejected the methods of one-sided “top-down” influence (“omniscient” teachers – «tabula rasa» students) long time ago. Pedagogics of interaction, collaboration, and designing methods are being implemented in “pedagogical” media education since several decades.
The category “means” also arouses similar objections. Current pedagogical models of media education include the aspects of modeling as well (E.A. Bondarenko, L.S. Zaznobina, E.S. Polat and many others), and not only the reproductive approaches. The same can be said about the forms of media education: almost everything listed by I.V. Zhilavskaya in the column relating to the interactive/journalists model of media education has long been practiced in pedagogical models as well (eg., media educational seminars and contests, the meetings of media cultural workers with the audience organized by Prof. O.A. Baranov and Associate Professor S.N. Penzin; annual media education festivals of Russian Association for Film and Media Education under the leadership of Prof. G.A. Polichko, etc.).
The line of Table 1 which compares the levels of motivation of pedagogical and journalists models of media education also deserves attention. We can agree that media educational motivation of ordinary teachers in Russia is low at present (see Fedorov, 2005, pp.259-277). But why does I.V. Zhilavskaya think that the level of media educational motivation of the subjects of the journalists model (journalists, directors, cameramen, media managers, other representatives of media society) is high?
Yes, Russia’s leading media agencies are working on a professional basis and pursuing commercial objectives, but do these goals really match with the true aims of media education? For example, the phenomenon of social (and based on the principles of humanistic orientation – also media educational) irresponsibility was brilliantly researched by A.V. Sharikov (Sharikov, 2005, pp.100-105, 137-140).
Table 1. Models of media education activity (Zhilavskaya, 2009, p.107)
Models of media education activity
Pedagogical Interactive (journalists)
Aim Upbringing of media competent personality Attracting the audience to mass media.
Attracting the audience to the creation of media texts.
Forming of its own mass media by the media competent audience. Forming of a positive image of mass media.
Subjects Teachers of media, educators, librarians, other teaching staff. Journalists, directors, cameramen, media managers, other representatives of media society.
Recipients Students The audience representing different social groups: young people, pensioners,
representatives from business, government,
НКО
Communicative
strategies Influence Interaction
Means Teaching, suggestion, demonstration, description Modeling
Forms Integration into the basic education, lessons, courses, educational programs with the use of media technology, study groups, production of student newspapers, magazines, radio and TV programs. Creation of informational products in the form of newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programs, publications in mass media, products of online journalism, master classes, seminars, trainings, media festivals, competitions, meetings with readers / viewers / listeners, etc.
Level of motivation Low in general. Individual enthusiasts are working based on personal interests. High. Commercial. Professional structures are working.
Result The society of media competent citizens Forming of the communicative environment based on mutually beneficial cooperation with the audience. Forming of a positive image of mass media.
Attracting audiences, the increase of circulation, ratings and income.
Effectiveness Less high Higher
Of course, in the ideal the real (i.e. aimed at the development of media competence of personality in the spirit of humanism and democracy) media educational motivation of media agencies and their staff could be really high. But alas, it is still a long way off. After all, in terms of the requirements of the journalistic model put forward by I.V. Zhilavskaya even the Russian TV channel “Culture” which is the most free from the commercialization is not very interactive.
Our objections are also related to the effectiveness and efficiency of pedagogical and journalistic models. For instance, we don’t think the high “media educational effectiveness” of the TV channels TNT (“Dom-2”) or NTV (speculation in the topics of crime and violence).
Recall that according to I.V. Zhilavskaya the effectiveness of journalistic model of media edication is manifested in “forming of the communicative environment based on mutually beneficial cooperation with the audience; forming of a positive image of mass media; attracting audiences, the increase of circulation, ratings and income” (Zhilavskaya, 2009, p.107). And that’s supposedly better than the result of the traditional pedagogical model of media education aimed at the creation of “the society of media competent citizens”…
There’s no doubt that modern media agencies (both Russian and foreign) are successfully “forming the communicative environment” and “the positive image of mass media” (everybody wants to be the public’s favorite), and are seeking any way to attract the audience, to increase circulation, ratings and income… But what does this have to do with the true humanistic aims and tasks of media education? And why is it better than the “pedagogical” efforts to create “the society of media competent citizens”?
By the way, I.V. Zhilavskaya realizes the vulnerability and the idealistic character of her journalists model of media education. “However it must be understood that today not all the leaders of the media are ready to put the task of raising the level of media competence of the audience and to conduct a purposeful media educational activity. Moreover, many of the mass media pursue other aims: to get quick and maximum profit at lower costs. This is possible in case of exploitation of human weaknesses and primitive needs. Media education doesn’t contribute to the solution of this task, it also impedes it. Media educated audience sensitively reacts to changes in the content and quickly changes its preferences” (Zhilavskaya, 2009, p.108).
And here we can’t but agree that “poorly educated audience brings to naught all the efforts to improve the quality of the functioning of mass media and vocational training institutions. The reason for this is the phenomenon of “communicative aberration”, misunderstanding of messages by the recipients which makes the professionals to lower their aesthetic, moral and intellectual level. This tendency is most clearly manifested in the conditions of the present commercialization of Russian mass media” (Fateeva, 2007, p.35).
Psychological Conception of Media Education
Another contemporary researcher, M.V. Zhizhina (Zhizhina, 2009), unlike I.M. Dzyaloshinsky, I.V. Zhilavskaya and I.A. Fateeva with their journalists model puts forward the psychological conception of media education. She is convinced that “the conditions of globalization and technization of the contemporary society makes it important to study a wide range of psychological problems of media culture. Among them are:
– psychological safety of personality in the informational society;
– the study of the influence of specific types of media culture on the human psyche;
– the study of psychological mechanisms and consequences of the influence of media on the development of the personality of young people and their spiritual culture;
– psychological analysis of personality’s well-being in the media environment;
– personal identity in the conditions of the global spread of mass media (the problem of crisis and the conflict of identity);
– the influence of media environment on the socialization of the individuals;
– the analysis of social and psychological functions of the computers and the Internet;
– virtual communication: specifics and effects;
– the study of social and psychological impact of the Internet on personality, including the analysis of age and gender characteristics of the users;
– gender characteristics of Internet users;
– psychology of dependence on virtual reality and cyberspace;
– movements of personality in multicultural media space (social and cultural adaptation and transitions of cultural boundaries);
– social and psychological effects of mass media in the life of individuals and in mass, group consciousness;
– the influence of social and cultural factors of the media environment on leisure practices;
– media education as a phenomenon of the development of personality in the media environment” (Zhizhina, 2009, p.60).
Hence she comes to a logical conclusion that media education is a “trend in pedagogics and psychology which advocates the study of the mechanisms of social and personal influences of means of mass communication and on the basis of this, the forming of media literacy of personality” (Zhizhina, 2009, p.70).
In my opinion this definition doesn’t contradict with the already known ones (including the definitions of UNESCO). Psychological component of M.V. Zhizhina’s conception is manifested in the way how the following is represented “in the concept of media competence as the result of personal media education: mental reflection and forming of (adequate) social ideas of media world; the behavior and the development of the new forms of behavior; attribution of behavioral patterns including group behavior through the mechanisms of conformity, imitation, infection, the expression of “oneself through action” and identification; relation of the subject in the forms socialization and individualization, the protection from personal identity, the manifestation of tolerance and immunity (to negative or manipulative influence of media world)” (Zhizhina, 2009, p.90).
V.A. Vozchikov also decided to make a ponderable contribution to the development of modern media education. He put forward a “media cultural model of the development of dialogical personality” (Vozchikov, 2007, p.231). Unfortunately, this model hasn’t been clearly represented yet, but its general outlines can be traced by such key theses as “journalists work as a creative expression of personality; dialogical parties of text-formation and perception; mass communicative interaction; the place of media culture in the system of social priorities and values; contemporary newspapers, TV and radio programs: characteristics, orientation, peculiarities; anthropological and socionomical aspects of media culture (“man-man”, “man-society” relationships); informational and communicative function as one of the main functions in the activity of media; verbal and nonverbal ways of handing over information by an anchorman; mass communication process – the dialogue between the creators of media culture and their audience” (Vozchikov, 2007, p.233).
Attempts for Pedagogical Media Education of Media Education
“Classical pedagogues” don’t stand aside from media educational innovations as well. Thus not so long ago G.P. Maksimova put forward the justification of “media upbringing” as a direction in pedagogical theory and practice oriented to “overcome the contradiction between human values and personal meanings expressed by a set of media means. … The very media process is media upbringing. … Media upbringing is upbringing based on the use of media means creating a space filled with artistic values and images, which awakens the state of creation and semantic experiences in the process of upbringing. … Creative personality in media upbringing is a man of culture, a free, spiritual, moral, humane and practical person capable of value and semantic communication in space, time and in the media, who creates a creative space in the activity and creative self-expression with the social and professional relevance” (Maksimova, 2006, p.22, 27).
Despite some stylistic imperfection (the word “media” implies the means of communication, so the phrase “media means” seems far-fetched to me), the introduction of the term “media upbringing” along with “media education” is quite justified, because in classical pedagogics the terms “education” and “upbringing” have long been existing…
Moreover, pedagogues wrote about media upbringing (as well as film upbringing) in earlier years as well. Another thing is that unlike G.P. Maksimova none of them have ever tried to so thoroughly separate the sphere of “media education” and “media upbringing”.
Examining the aims of media upbringing within the framework of personally oriented theory, G.P. Maksimova brings out the following:
– “disclosure and support of spiritual and moral abilities of the creative ascent of personality in media spaces (internal and external).
– forming the need for creative value and semantic and emotional self-expression through media;
– providing scientific and educational support in the formation of the project of the subjective value of the objectives, support and purposefulness in media processes;
– active development of media spaces in the aspect of upbringing opportunities;
– involvement into the process of vital and creative work, value meaning, emotional balance, social professionalism, tolerant communication and the development of personality through media;
– organization and use of creative systems of mutually enriching media spaces” (Maksimova, 2006, p.29).
