Erica Scharrer

As stated by the author, a communication scholar, this month's column is "an attempt to reap the benefits of and diminish the obstacles associated with interdisciplinary efforts." Scharrer's words are hauntingly similar to the assessment and evaluation rhetoric that permeates our conversations, whether they occur in faculty meetings, in boardrooms, or in legislative committees. I hope this column enables educators to consider a different theoretical framework, an alternative body of knowledge, and a new perspective, which can contribute to our ongoing conversations about media literacy, curriculum development, and assessment. Lori Norton-Meier

There is surprisingly little discussion of the goals or "outcomes" ideally associated with participation in a media-literacy program. However, the literature on media literacy is growing. How should we expect people who have participated in a media-literacy program to be different from people who have not? What outcomes can be anticipated? In this column I attempt to lay some groundwork for the identification and potential assessment of outcomes associated with media literacy—a crucial step in the argument for the widespread adoption of media-literacy curricula in schools, after-school programs, and programs for adults run by community-based organizations.

The results of participation in media-literacy curricula are not often explicitly defined and measured, but there is a generalized notion about what these outcomes are. Media literacy often incorporates the goal of "discriminating responsiveness" or the fostering of critical analysis in its participants (Brown, 1998). Media literacy involves "asking questions about what you watch, see and read" (Hobbs, 2001, p. 5), thus encouraging the outcome of ongoing critical inquiry. Indeed, among the most commonly stated goals of media literacy is the development of "critical viewers" (Singer & Singer, 1998). Elizabeth Thoman (1999), director of the Center for Media Literacy, defined critical viewing as "learning to analyze and question what is on the screen, how it is constructed and what may have been left out" (p. 133). Another crucial component of media literacy, as discussed by Silverblatt (1995), is awareness of the multitude of messages received daily from the media and the effects they can have on attitudes and behavior. Thus, media literacy can help foster critical thinking and discussion of media-related issues, including how media messages are created, marketed, and distributed as well as their potential influence (or how they are received).

Guidelines for Media Literacy

In order to move toward increased adoption and acceptance of media literacy in the K–12 curriculum and elsewhere, however, it is necessary to move beyond implicit assumptions about the benefits such efforts can achieve and toward their explicit definition and measurement. Christ and Potter (1998) pointed out that there are no national standards in the United States regarding media-literacy assessment and whether outcomes generated from it should consist of knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, or values. Christ and Potter called the guidelines being advanced by the Speech Communication Association (now known as the National Communication Association) "the closest attempt at a 'certified' national standard" (p. 11). These guidelines suggested individuals should be able to "demonstrate the effects of the various types of electronic audio and visual media" and "identify and use skills necessary for competent participation in communication across various types of audio and visual media" (Speech Communication Association in Christ & Potter, 1998, pp. 11–12). The former suggestion is a cognitive, critical thinking type of outcome, whereas the latter is a behavioral outcome that entails learning the technical skills (e.g., for computers, video, and audio equipment) and creative expression needed to produce one's own media messages. Beyond these somewhat general standards, however, there is little else that serves as an official guide for media-literacy practice.

Little research exists that has defined and tested these or other anticipated outcomes from a social science research perspective (Hobbs & Frost, 2001; Singer & Singer, 1998). Though there are noteworthy exceptions (e.g., Dorr, Graves, & Phelps, 1980; Hobbs & Frost, 2001; Quin & McMahon, 1993; Singer, Zuckerman, & Singer, 1980), research evidence supporting the effectiveness of media-literacy curricula is generally rare. More effort is needed to discover (a) whether critical thinking has increased and whether critical viewing has been encouraged, (b) whether students are asking questions about the media, and (c) what other outcomes are appropriate in determining the effects of participation in media literacy.

Media-Literacy Perspectives

There are two philosophical perspectives on media literacy, and any discussion of potential outcomes is conceived differently based on alignment with one or the other. One perspective, a cultural studies approach, places great emphasis on students' own, often pleasurable, experiences with media. Members of this camp might take issue with the facilitator of a media-literacy program who has a predetermined set of "learning outcomes" on the grounds of paternalism and protectionism (Buckingham, 1998; Collins, 1992; Halloran & Jones, 1992; Hart, 1997; Masterman, 1985). In other words, those taking this philosophical perspective might object to the views the instructor imposes upon the students, especially if delivered in a top-down approach.

Masterman (1985) reported on curriculum statements published by the British Film Institute. Instead of identifying skills or competencies individuals should acquire, these statements outlined areas that can be explored in media literacy, including media agencies, categories, technologies, languages, audiences, and representations (Bazalgette, 1989; Bowker, 1991). Thus, the outcomes emphasized in this school of thought pertain to the ways in which media literacy is conceived and the topics addressed as well as to the analysis and discussion that ensues.

The other philosophical perspective, called impact mediation (Anderson, 1983), inoculation (Kubey, 1998), or interventionism, often focuses on negative issues pertaining to the media (e.g., violence, sex-role stereotyping, or manipulation in advertising) and interprets media literacy as a strategy to help protect young people from harmful effects (Hobbs, 1998). The outcome this perspective appears to advance is for the media to have less of an influence on individuals who participate in a media-literacy program. A program on television violence, for example, would be viewed as most effective if it led to children responding less aggressively to or being less desensitized by violent programs. Doolittle (1975) and Huesmann and colleagues (Huesmann, Eron, Klein, Brice, & Fischer, 1983) took this approach in their studies of intervention programs (early media-literacy curricula) that emphasized the fictional nature of production techniques used to create violent television scenes. Their results show that intervention programs had only modest success in reducing children's subsequent aggressive responses to television violence. If interventionist media literacy doesn't make people less susceptible to negative media effects, can it accomplish different outcomes that are potentially important and useful?

Can Media Literacy Help?

Why might media literacy be unsuccessful in helping individuals resist media's effects? Perhaps holding such a goal for media literacy is an unfair and inappropriate test. The media-literacy curriculum may be insufficient to change such a complex phenomenon as an individual's unique and various responses to media messages. Just as exposure to media is but one (important but not individually operating) factor shaping our ideas, views, and actions, participation in a media-literacy curriculum is only one factor to weigh against a multitude of others in determining a person's susceptibility to media effects at any given point in time. It may be a grave oversimplification to expect that participation in a potentially short and topically limited curriculum will make an immediate, profound difference in how we respond to the media we encounter every day.

Indeed, the theoretical link between increased awareness about, or sensitivity to, media-related issues via media literacy (e.g., violence, gender stereotypes) and the influence of media exposure is not as obvious as it may seem on the surface. Does a critical view of the media lead to diminished media influence? It's possible that such a connection may not always occur. We may criticize a movie for being too violent or graphic but still be interested in an exciting action sequence or suspenseful plot. We may be well aware that media characters have body sizes that bear little resemblance to that of the general public, but we may still have a lapse in self-esteem as we watch them. We may know that the news media doesn't allot much airtime to third-party political candidates, but we still get the impression from news viewing that such candidates don't stand a chance of election. In short, I argue that critical thinking cannot always lead neatly to resistance to the media's effects.

Furthermore, if media criticism can make us resistant to media effects, it may not occur immediately after our first ventures into media literacy, and it may not endure powerfully enough beyond the confines of the media-literacy setting. Even if participation in media-literacy curricula were successful in inspiring resistance to the effects of the media, how long would that resistant state last? Would one media-literacy unit in the curriculum create a permanent resistant view? If not, would resistance still occur one week after participation? One month? One year? It's possible that any resistance achieved would decay over time.

Resistance to media effects may also be viewed as an inappropriate outcome because it may not be retained due to the onslaught of potentially competing information from the media themselves. Effects of participation in a media-literacy curriculum in which critical thinking is encouraged are inevitably limited in duration due to the competing media messages that bombard us every day. Young people in the United States watch an average of three-and-a-half hours of television per day (Comstock & Scharrer, 1999) and spend an average of six-and-a-half hours per day with all media, including computers, video games, radio, and CD players (Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, & Brodie, 1999). On the day or days in which media literacy is included in the curriculum, presumably students will be exposed to a massive number of messages from the media as well. To expect that participation in some part of a media-literacy curriculum would lower the potential influence of these ubiquitous media seems like a tall order.

Finally, research on media effects suggests that differences among audience members (e.g., personality traits as well as variable emotional states) and external factors in one's environment (e.g., influence of family and friends) help to determine whether, and to what degree, individuals are affected by media. Similarly, differences in individual personality in a media-literacy setting would also have to be taken into account to determine the effects of a media-literacy program. Just as the media are not presumed to affect all audience members in a universal way, participation in media literacy should also not be presumed to operate similarly for all those involved. The differences that individuals bring to the experience (e.g., prior critical media discussions with parents or others) and situational differences (e.g., how the curriculum was administered or the students' current mood) should also be taken into account in determining and measuring outcomes.

Positive Outcomes

Is media literacy ineffective or uninstructive if the outcome of resistance to media effects only occurs for some participants some of the time, under some circumstances, and probably only in the long term after sustained participation in multiple media-literacy lessons and curricula? I believe that, even if it might not decrease negative media influences, media literacy can contribute to important outcomes having to do with thoughts, opinions, and attitudes. It is possible that these outcomes, when accumulated and considered in the long term through sustained and prolonged engagement in media literacy, can perhaps mitigate the negative behavioral effects of media. Thus, as knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and opinions take shape and become stronger, more fleshed out, and more reinforced over time, they may shape future behaviors. Perhaps then we can expect repeated media-literacy efforts to contribute to a diminished likelihood of negative effects from the media. But in the short term, and in response to participation in as few as only one media-literacy unit in the curriculum, outcomes in the realm of cognition and affect are more feasible and likely to occur, and they are immensely important in their own right.

Indeed, such outcomes should not be underestimated. If participation in media-literacy curricula allows individuals to learn something new or something more about media messages, practices, processes, institutions, or influence, then that shows important cognitive development. These outcomes entail increased knowledge of key concepts or terms used in the study of media and increased awareness of central issues. Some examples might include knowledge of strategies used in advertising to encourage favorable responses; awareness of the ways that violence is shown in the media that make it look cool; or attention to roles that women, people of color, and other "minorities" are given in the media. Similarly, if such participation contributes to a student's approval of some media messages, practices, processes, institutions, or influence and the disapproval of others, this, too, is a laudable accomplishment of media literacy.

Overall, if a student develops the ability to "deconstruct"—break down the components of and closely analyze—media messages, practices, processes, institutions, or influence, then media literacy has been effective and that student is becoming a "critical thinker" about the media. Outcomes such as these are better measures of the effectiveness of media-literacy curricula (from a cultural studies or from an interventionist point of view) than expecting to find increased resistance to media effects. The process of questioning key media-related issues—Who owns the media? What kinds of themes are present in media content? How are media produced? What role do the media play in our lives? What influences can media have on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors?—and the thoughts and beliefs that result are significant achievements. Not only, I believe, is it critical to identify the outcomes to be gained from media literacy, but it is also crucial to assess whether those outcomes have been achieved. A number of techniques can measure student learning. They include having students write essays; answer open or closed questions; critique a television show, a song's lyrics, or a commercial; and create their own media content (e.g., constructing a miniature billboard, writing a newspaper opinion piece, scripting a scene from a sitcom). Such measures document the effectiveness of media-literacy and are a necessary step in making the case for a central role for media literacy in the K–12 curriculum.

References

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.
Back

Bazalgette, C. (Ed.). (1989). Primary media education: A curriculum statement. London: British Film Institute.
Back

Bowker, J. (Ed.). (1991). Secondary media education: A curriculum statement. London: British Film Institute.
Back

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

Buckingham, D. (1998). Media education in the UK: Moving beyond protectionism. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 33–43.
Back

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

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.
Back

Comstock, G., & Scharrer, E. (1999). Television: What's on, who's watching, and what it means. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Back

Doolittle, J.C. (1975). Immunizing children against the possible antisocial effects of viewing television: A curricular intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Back

Dorr, A., Graves, S., & Phelps, E. (1980). Television literacy for young children. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 71–83.
Back

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

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.
Back

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

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

Hobbs, R., & Frost, R. (2001, May). Measuring the acquisition of media literacy skills: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.
Back

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.
Back

Kubey, R. (1998). Obstacles to the development of media education in the United States. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 58–69.
Back

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

Quin, R., & McMahon, B. (1993). Monitoring standards in media studies: Problems and strategies. Australian Journal of Education, 37(2), 182–197.
Back

Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.J., & Brodie, M. (1999, November). Kids and media at the new millenium. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation Report.
Back

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

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.
Back

Singer, D.G., Zuckerman, D.M., & Singer, J.L. (1980). Helping elementary school children learn about TV. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 84–93.
Back

Thoman, E. (1999). Media literacy education can address the problem of media violence. In B. Leone (Ed.), Media violence: Opposing viewpoints (pp. 131–136). San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Back


About the Author

Scharrer teaches at the University of Massachusetts Amherst (Department of Communication, Amherst, MA 01003, USA).


The editor welcomes reader comments on this column. E-mail Lmeier@ksu.edu. Mail Lori Norton-Meier, Kansas State University, 206 Bluemont Hall, 1100 Mid Campus Drive, Manhattan, KS 66506-5301, USA.



Back to top

To print this column, point and click anywhere on the main text; then use your browser's print command.

Citation: 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). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/newliteracies/jaal/12-02_column/index.html