А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование




НазваниеА. В. Федоров Медиаобразование
страница6/42
Дата30.09.2012
Размер4.45 Mb.
ТипДокументы
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   42
Dr. Nikolai Hilko, Siberian Office of Russian Institute of Cultural Studies, Russia, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education(http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation). Omsk, Russia.

Dr. Katia Hristova, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Dr.Jenny Johnson, member of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (http://www.aect.org). USA.

Prof.Dr. David Klooster, Chair of Department of English, Hope College, Holland, one of the main authors of pedagogical journal ‘Thinking Classroom’ (http://www.rwct.net ). Michigan, USA.

Victoria Kolesnichenko, Taganrog Radio-technical University, Russia, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education (http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation). Taganrog, Russia.

Prof.Dr. Sergei Korkonosenko, professor of Faculty of Journalism, St-Petersburg State University, Russia, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education (http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation). St.-Petersburg, Russia.

Prof.Dr. Alexander Korochensky, Dean of Faculty of Journalism, Belgorod State University (http://www.bsu.edu.ru/Struktura/Fakultet/ZhurFak/), Russia, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education (http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation). Belgorod, Russia

Susanne Krucsay, Head of Department, Ministry of Education, Vienna, Austria

Prof.Dr.Robert Kubey, director of the Center for Media Studies at Rutgers University, USA.

Dr.Geoff Lealand, professor of Screen and Media Studies, University of Waikato, New Zealand

Dr.Elena Murukina, Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education(http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation), Russia.

Dr. Anastasia Novikova, Taganrog Management and Economics Institute, Russia, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education (http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation). Russia.

Prof.Dr. Konstantin Ognev, vice-rector of VGIK- All-Russian Institute of Cinematography, Moscow, Russia

Zurab Oshxneli, Director of the College of Media, Advertising and TV Arts, Tbilisi, Georgia.

Trygve Panhoff, former President of the Norwegian Media Education Association, editor of ‘Tilt” a mediapedagogical magazine, Oslo, Norway.

Dr. Stal Penzin, professor of film studies at Voronezh State University, Russia, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education (http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation). Voronezh, Russia.

Prof. Valery Prozorov, Dean of Faculty of Literature and Journalism, Saratov State University, Russia, member of Russian Association for Film and Media Education (http://edu.of.ru/mediaeducation), Saratov, Russia

Dr.Faith Rogow, the founding president of the Alliance for a Media Literate America (AMLA, http://www.amlainfo.org),) on whose board she still serves. USA.

Dr.Elena Yastrebtseva, executive director and head of scientific development of Intel Program ‘Education for Future’ (http://www.iteach.ru), Moscow, Russia.

The answers to the first question: What is the present condition of media education/literacy development in your country? What are the main achievements, failures, and problems?

Frank Baker:

Media literacy education in the US is still very much fragmented: there are elements of media literacy in each of the 50 state's teaching standards, but media is not tested and so teachers don't teach it.

Cary Bazalgette:

I will interpret “your country” as England: you need to contact others in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where conditions are different. In England (school population 9 million) some 70,000 young people take specialist, accredited media courses at General Certificate of Education (GCSE) at age 16, and in media or film study at Advanced Level General Certificate of Education at age 18. There are minor references to media education in the National Curriculum for 11-16 year olds, in subject English and in Citizenship. The National Literacy Strategy for 3-14 year olds makes some references to film and media, and an increasing amount of media is now taught in this context, though with variable quality. The main brake on development is Government fear that to endorse media education for everyone would be attacked by the rightwing press as lowering standards of education. It is thus difficult to get funding for research into media education, to set up initial teacher training for media teaching, and for teachers to get funding for professional development.

Elena Bondarenko:

The current state of media education in our country can be characterized in a nutshell as formation. The condition of media education is the consequence of the general condition of the information environment. By now the new information priorities and stable information communities have been formed. We can distinguish the leading areas of research-forms and types of media education, areas of development of the information culture, values and motivation in the sphere of media culture. A lot of things have changed since the mid 1990s, and it is only today that the process is becoming stabilized and foreseeable to some extent.

Richard Cornell:

Alex Fedorov, when asked to define “media education,” in a 2006 interview in the publication Thinking Classroom, “Media Education Must Become Part and Parcel of the Curriculum”1, he quotes the work of a number of educators around the world when answering the question: the UNESCO definition (1):

Media Education

• deals with all communication media and includes the printed word and graphics, the sound, the still as well as the moving image, delivered on any kind of technology;

• enables people to gain understanding of the communication media used in their society and the way they operate and to acquire skills using these media to communicate with others;

• ensures that people learn how to

• analyze, critically reflect upon and create media texts;

• identify the sources of media texts, their political, social, commercial and/or cultural interests, and their contexts;

• interpret the messages and values offered by the media;

• select appropriate media for communicating their own messages or stories and for reaching their intended audience;

• gain or demand access to media for both reception and production.

The answer to Question 1, above, must reference which of the plethora of UNESCO definitions best applies. The short answer is that all of the above elements are deemed critical by some educators at all levels of education and training in the United States. Note the operative descriptor is “some.”

Americans, like many of their counterparts around the world, are increasing subjected (bombarded?) to numerous media messages daily, with relatively few of them being directed at education. Those that are, especially those that are acted upon, increasingly are employing a variety of strategies that depend on sound instructional design so the accuracy of meaning and intent is maximized. The reality, however, is that far too few American educators are conversant with instructional design and its role in crafting accurate messages.

Instructional design principles evolved through systems theory, most likely first employed by engineers but soon picked up by teacher educators as being precisely what was needed to take teacher training out of the realm of vague goal setting and into the reality of concrete outcomes based on analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.

To assume that teacher educators warmly embraced this systems approach would be inaccurate – teacher trainers resisted adoption of such a mechanistic approach to curriculum design and subsequent implementation of teaching strategies in their classrooms. This situation, however, is changing.

The point here is that media education depends on sound instructional design if it is to prove effective. This soundness must permeate all levels of the communication process and all levels of the above items depicted as being defined outcomes of media education.

While instructional design may, at least on the surface, appear to be mechanical, impersonal, and lock-step, just the opposite marks its characteristics; good instructional design starts with focus on the students, rather than the teacher, and everything that follows builds upon that premise.

So, if we were to assess the present condition of media education in the United States, it might best be described as being in process.

The good news about achieving sound media education practices is that Americans are now very critical of what is being written, heard, viewed, and experienced in the name of education. Such criticism is also spilling over to address inequities in the public, military, and corporate sectors as well. The rampant dependence upon annual mandated performance-based testing that sweeps across America, encouraged and abated by practices mandated through the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), (always enthusiastically promoted by government education bureaucrats but mainly and seriously under-funded by same) has left teachers in the public schools shell shocked and paralyzed as they scramble to teach to the test!

The resulting criticism about the rigidity of curriculum that is force-fed via teachers to students to meet the NCLB standards is now being resisted by many state governments. This resistance has encouraged a national dialogue related to national testing based on a “one-size-fits-all” model and gradually state legislators and departments of education are adopting evaluation methods that are, at least on the surface, more humane to both teachers and students.

The failure related to media education amidst all of this national testing frenzy is that few cogent media principles are addressed, not because teachers are unwilling to include them in their classes but because teaching to the test leaves little if any room for anything other than reading, science and mathematics. Art, music, vocational education, social sciences, and media analysis have been left hanging by tenuous threads that are continually unraveling to the breaking point.

The mass media has reverted to being the media sans the masses, reflecting what those owning the major media conglomerates most want publicized and downplaying any news that might upset those in power.

With all such trends, there exist exceptions, not always held by the total news organization but increasingly by those within it who share different opinions. There is still freedom of the press but such freedom tends to feature media resources that are favored by either the economic or political elite. That America is fast becoming a divided nation of the rich and all the others is increasing apparent to growing numbers of commentators and analysts.

Harald Gapski:

Media education has been discussed in the context of education for decades (of course one can trace back reflections on the role of media (written word vs. spoken word) back to ancient philosophers). Recently, second half of last century, an important shift took place from "protection" to "empowerment". Producing, reflecting and creating different media formats can create media literate media consumers and users.

All states in Germany have developed concepts for media education in schools: http://www.bildungsserver.de/zeigen.html?seite=2884
During the last ten years the discussion on media was very much dominated by new, digital media: computer and Internet (ICT). The key word and the demand for "Medienkompetenz" marked the broad diffusion of ICT in society and in the educational sector in Germany. The problem is that whenever a new media appears in society there will be a demand for a new media education. We need a holistic approach which takes into account that every educational process always refers to media, be that books, films or computers. And we need to link media education to the concept of "life long learning" and "organizational learning".

Valery Gura:

In my opinion media education in Russia is on the upgrade. The Association for Film and Media Education is working purposefully. Thanks to the efforts of enthusiasts, and above all, Prof. Fedorov, the academic journal “Media Education” has been set up, the specialization Media Education (03.13.30) is opened in Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute. Media pedagogy is actively developing in the Urals and Siberia. However the role of media education as it had previously happened to computerization is underestimated. The problem hindering the spread of media education is to my mind the illiteracy and/or resistance of school teachers in this field, their inability to differentiate between using media as technical teaching aids and teaching about media.

Nikolai Hilko:

The current condition of media education can be assessed as less than satisfactory, even depressing. The major problem here is the misunderstanding of some part of young people, administration bodies, and some academicians of the essence of media education, the importance to establish the rational balance between the production and consumption of information.

Katia Hristova:

The term media literacy is still not widespread in Bulgaria. Only a few media scientists in their publications use it. Media literacy is not included as a subject in Bulgarian schools curriculum, nor it is recognized as an important mechanism for child prevention against the harmful influences of the TV content. According to the research “TV and the 6-10 years children” (Katia Hristova, dissertation, 2006) there are some serious gaps in the Bulgarian children media literacy.

Jenny Johnson:

Problems are financial.

David Klooster:

In my view, media education in the United States is sophisticated at the upper levels of graduate and undergraduate education in the universities, but it is not widely disseminated in primary and secondary schools.  Thus, a small number of well educated specialists have deep and important knowledge, but this knowledge and critical ability are not widely shared by the general public.  The media, especially television, film, and music, are very widely influential in American culture, but the general media education of our citizens is not especially sophisticated.

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   42

Похожие:

А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconА. В. Федоров Медиаобразование
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование: социологические опросы. Таганрог: Изд-во Кучма, 2007. 228 с
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconА. В. Федоров Медиаобразование
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование: социологические опросы. Таганрог: Изд-во Кучма, 2007. 228 с
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconА. В. Федоров Медиаобразование
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование будущих педагогов. Таганрог: Изд-во Кучма, 2005. 314 c
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconФедоров А. В. Медиаобразование: вчера и сегодня
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование: вчера и сегодня. М.: Изд-во моо впп юнеско «Информация для всех», 2009. 234 c
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconМедиаобразование в россии* Александр федоров, доктор педагогических наук, профессор, президент Ассоциации кинообразования и медиапедагогики России, эксперт моо впп юнеско «Информация для всех»
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование в России // Исследователь (Казахстан). 2007. № С. 112-129
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconА. В. Федоров Таганрогский государственный педагогический институт
Федоров А. В. Современное медиаобразование в Германии и России (2000—2010): сравнительный анализ // Alma Mater. Вестник высшей школы....
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconУчебное пособие для вузов Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование и медиаграмотность. Таганрог: Изд-во Кучма, 2004. 340 c
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование и медиаграмотность. Таганрог: Изд-во Кучма, 2004. 340 c
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconМедиаобразование: социологические опросы Alexander Fedorov Media Education: Sociology Surveys
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование: социологические опросы. Таганрог: Изд-во Кучма, 2007. 228 с
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconОпубликовано в журнале «Инновации в образовании» (Москва): Федоров А. В
Федоров А. В. Современное массовое медиаобразование в России: поиски новых теоретических концепций и моделей // Инновации в образовании....
А. В. Федоров Медиаобразование iconМедиаобразование в России и Украине: сравнительный анализ современного этапа развития (1992-2008)*
Федоров А. В. Медиаобразование в России и Украине: сравнительный анализ современного этапа развития (1992-2008) // Дистанционное...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница