Below is an article review/synopsis written for my communication education course.
Teaching media literacy
For this post, I selected an article by Covington (2004) discussing approaches to teaching media literacy because my contribution to the group book proposal project requires me to contribute a section on this topic. The article notes the increasing importance of media literacy courses in today’s information age, due to “the need to determine the value of content” (Covington, 2004, p. 119) generated by the media.
Covington (2004) traces the origin of media literacy as a teaching discipline to Bianculli’s (1992) call for “teliliteracy” (p. 7). Expanding on this, media literacy may now be defined as “the ability to critically examine, understand, question, and evaluate how various media produce meaning, the structure of media organizations, how such organizations construct reality, and how consumer’s lives are impacted as a result (Abdullah, 2000)” (Covington, 2004, p. 121).
The author suggests that the ultimate goal of a media literacy course is to create change in the attitudes and behavior of students by providing them with “a framework for judgments to be made about the information one receives” (Covington, 2004, p.119). He describes two types of audience for the media literacy course, the captive audience (e.g. students who take the course because it is required), and the voluntary audience (such as those who take the course as an elective). These two categories can be viewed as two ends of a continuum, with most students falling somewhere in between.
According to the article, a media literacy course should include content on the possible alienating effects of media due to its competition with institutions such as the family and its potential to erode community. Instructors could also cover the influences on the media, including geographical location as well as cultural, political, and economic variables. Management of media organizations also play an important role in the direction of coverage.
In terms of teaching techniques, the article recommends that media literacy instructors provide students with the opportunity to both analyze and develop media products, thus equipping them to be critical and knowledgeable consumers and producers of media content. Canada provides a good example of how this task can be approached – the government requires media literacy to be taught in all schools and media producers visit Canadian educational institutions to explain the production process to students. This allows students to ask questions about how decisions are made, the creative process, and what influences media content.
Another important goal for media literacy instruction is to help students understand the ubiquity of media and the tendency to be oblivious of its pervasive presence. The imagery of a fish in water which nevertheless remains unaware of the environment in which it is immersed is a good way to make this point to students (Covington, 2004). Students should also be made aware of how one’s cultural assumptions impact the media production and consumption process.
The course can also include a discussion of propaganda and the fact that the most powerful influences of media tend to be the ones we are least aware of.
Finally, the author presents systems theory as a helpful framework for designing and delivering media literacy courses. Based on key tenets of systems theory, media literacy courses must be open to the constantly changing media environment and continually adapt course content and methodology to this rapidly evolving real-life media context.
References
Covington, W. G. (2004). Creativity in teaching media literacy. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(2), 119-124.
Bianculli, D. (1992). Teleliteracy: Taking television seriously. New York, NY: Touchstone.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
From course objectives to learning outcomes: A case of the emperor’s new clothes?
Below is an article review/synopsis and application written for my Teaching and Assessing Communication Arts course.
Synopsis
Although aimed at nursing educators, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) shed some good insights on the difference between educational objectives and outcomes that offers helpful guidance to communication educators. They argue that while some see the change simply as cosmetic and a nod to political correctness – an attempt to adorn pedagogic language with the emperor’s new clothes – it can lead to substantive reconceptualization of the educational enterprise.
In their article, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) unpack the historical evolution of course design language from the use of teaching objectives to a preference for learning outcomes. Historically, the authors trace the use of objectives to the work of American educator Ralph Tyler, who has been called the father of educational assessment. Tyler’s looser standards for developing teaching objectives were later refined by educators such as Benjamin Bloom.
The authors suggest that rather than being merely semantic, the move from objectives to outcomes represents a fundamental paradigm shift in education. Indeed, the language itself provides clues to this shift in emphasis – teaching objectives place the emphasis on the teacher, while learning outcomes put the spotlight on the learner. In other words, the change helps to “redirect the teaching/learning process and bring about a closer link to the learner” (p. 233).
To cast further light on the theoretical differences between objective-focussed course design and outcome-based education, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) note as follows:
An objective speaks to the process and the goal. Therefore it is teacher and student focussed. An outcome, a final product or end result, speaks to the goal, so its focus is the student, because learning is the goal for the student. (p. 233)
Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) also suggest links between economic debates about the return of investment on education expenditures and the shift to the more accountable language implied by outcomes.
Application
The authors discuss some implications for this shift from objectives to outcomes for the teacher and the student. A key implication is the need to focus more on educational products than on educational processes. As Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) put it, “the process is no longer the priority in learning…The outcome, what the student…will cognitively, skillfully, or affectively demonstrate by the end of the experience, is most important” (p. 234).
An outcome-based perspective also calls for teachers to empower their students to take ownership of their own academic development. In the words of the authors, “the paradigm shift removed the focus from the teacher and extended the responsibility of learning to the learner” (p. 234).
Furthermore, outcome-based course design demands that in determining the path that a course will take, teachers think first and foremost of the needs of students, rather than starting the planning process with their personal agendas, values, ideologies, or educational preferences.
Finally, although this revision of language is not enough without the paradigmatic changes discussed above, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) note that teachers can indicate a shift from objectives to outcomes through a small change in course planning phraseology. Instructors should include the antecedent at the end of this course before they state the intended end point of learning (the behavioral outcome), i.e. the student will be able to. This minor adjustment in language is a flag that the course is outcome-based, at least in intent.
References
Wittmann-Price, R. A., & Fasolka, B. J. (2010). Objectives and outcomes: The fundamental difference. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(4), 233-236.
Synopsis
Although aimed at nursing educators, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) shed some good insights on the difference between educational objectives and outcomes that offers helpful guidance to communication educators. They argue that while some see the change simply as cosmetic and a nod to political correctness – an attempt to adorn pedagogic language with the emperor’s new clothes – it can lead to substantive reconceptualization of the educational enterprise.
In their article, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) unpack the historical evolution of course design language from the use of teaching objectives to a preference for learning outcomes. Historically, the authors trace the use of objectives to the work of American educator Ralph Tyler, who has been called the father of educational assessment. Tyler’s looser standards for developing teaching objectives were later refined by educators such as Benjamin Bloom.
The authors suggest that rather than being merely semantic, the move from objectives to outcomes represents a fundamental paradigm shift in education. Indeed, the language itself provides clues to this shift in emphasis – teaching objectives place the emphasis on the teacher, while learning outcomes put the spotlight on the learner. In other words, the change helps to “redirect the teaching/learning process and bring about a closer link to the learner” (p. 233).
To cast further light on the theoretical differences between objective-focussed course design and outcome-based education, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) note as follows:
An objective speaks to the process and the goal. Therefore it is teacher and student focussed. An outcome, a final product or end result, speaks to the goal, so its focus is the student, because learning is the goal for the student. (p. 233)
Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) also suggest links between economic debates about the return of investment on education expenditures and the shift to the more accountable language implied by outcomes.
Application
The authors discuss some implications for this shift from objectives to outcomes for the teacher and the student. A key implication is the need to focus more on educational products than on educational processes. As Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) put it, “the process is no longer the priority in learning…The outcome, what the student…will cognitively, skillfully, or affectively demonstrate by the end of the experience, is most important” (p. 234).
An outcome-based perspective also calls for teachers to empower their students to take ownership of their own academic development. In the words of the authors, “the paradigm shift removed the focus from the teacher and extended the responsibility of learning to the learner” (p. 234).
Furthermore, outcome-based course design demands that in determining the path that a course will take, teachers think first and foremost of the needs of students, rather than starting the planning process with their personal agendas, values, ideologies, or educational preferences.
Finally, although this revision of language is not enough without the paradigmatic changes discussed above, Wittmann-Price and Fasolka (2010) note that teachers can indicate a shift from objectives to outcomes through a small change in course planning phraseology. Instructors should include the antecedent at the end of this course before they state the intended end point of learning (the behavioral outcome), i.e. the student will be able to. This minor adjustment in language is a flag that the course is outcome-based, at least in intent.
References
Wittmann-Price, R. A., & Fasolka, B. J. (2010). Objectives and outcomes: The fundamental difference. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(4), 233-236.
How teachers can use their "power" to advance student learning
As part of my Assessing and Teaching Communication course, I have been reviewing a series of articles related to communication education. I will be posting my synopsis and notes on application/relevance of these articles for communication teachers on this blog. Here is the first one.
Synopsis
Drawing on French and Raven’s well known typology, Finn (2012) reports findings from a study on the five forms of power used by teachers and how this impacts students’ perceptions of whether they are understood or misunderstood by their instructor. The results showed that teachers who exert influence by their knowledge (expert power) and their likability or role modeling (referent power) receive higher perception of instructor understanding (PIU) and lower perception of instructor misunderstanding (PIM) scores from their students, while teachers who rely on coercive power (negative consequences for undesirable behaviors) received lower perception of instructor understanding (PIU) and higher perception of instructor misunderstanding (PIM) scores.
Teachers who exercised power through the ability to bestow desirables on students (reward power) or by virtue of their status/titles (legitimate power) had comparatively less significant impact on students’ PIU and PIM. However, although to a lesser extent, reward power was linked to PIU while legitimate power was linked to PIM.
The study by Finn (2012) builds on earlier studies that have linked positive teacher-student relationships and learning outcomes to PIU. Finn advances the research literature in this field by demonstrating a connection between the type of power used by the teacher and PIU/PIM. Finn’s (2012) research therefore indicates that so-called pro-social teacher behaviors related to the use of power (expert, referent, and reward power) contribute to positive student-teacher relationships and desirable learning outcomes, while so-called anti-social communication behaviors (use of coercive and legitimate power) detract from positive student-teacher relationships and desirable learning outcomes.
Application
Finn’s (2012) study provides some pointers on what kinds of instructors students might view as a model teacher, based on their communication leadership behavior. In so doing, it reveals the model aspiring teachers should try to emulate. When it comes to fostering positive relationships with students and advancing learning outcomes, teachers can best influence learners by delivering quality instruction (use of expert power), combined with a personable, open, approachable, and authentic presence in the classroom (referent power). Teachers should also use reward power (compliment good work publicly), although expert and referent power are likely to be more effective. Teachers should avoid reliance on legitimate power (often expressed through formality and superiority) and coercive power (sanctioning and belittling students) as these types of behavior, especially coercive displays of power, have the most negative effects on PIU, teacher-student relations, and ultimately, learning outcomes.
Reference
Finn, A. N. (2012). Teacher use of prosocial and antisocial power bases and students’ perceived instructor understanding in the college classroom. Communication Education, 61(1), 67-79.
Synopsis
Drawing on French and Raven’s well known typology, Finn (2012) reports findings from a study on the five forms of power used by teachers and how this impacts students’ perceptions of whether they are understood or misunderstood by their instructor. The results showed that teachers who exert influence by their knowledge (expert power) and their likability or role modeling (referent power) receive higher perception of instructor understanding (PIU) and lower perception of instructor misunderstanding (PIM) scores from their students, while teachers who rely on coercive power (negative consequences for undesirable behaviors) received lower perception of instructor understanding (PIU) and higher perception of instructor misunderstanding (PIM) scores.
Teachers who exercised power through the ability to bestow desirables on students (reward power) or by virtue of their status/titles (legitimate power) had comparatively less significant impact on students’ PIU and PIM. However, although to a lesser extent, reward power was linked to PIU while legitimate power was linked to PIM.
The study by Finn (2012) builds on earlier studies that have linked positive teacher-student relationships and learning outcomes to PIU. Finn advances the research literature in this field by demonstrating a connection between the type of power used by the teacher and PIU/PIM. Finn’s (2012) research therefore indicates that so-called pro-social teacher behaviors related to the use of power (expert, referent, and reward power) contribute to positive student-teacher relationships and desirable learning outcomes, while so-called anti-social communication behaviors (use of coercive and legitimate power) detract from positive student-teacher relationships and desirable learning outcomes.
Application
Finn’s (2012) study provides some pointers on what kinds of instructors students might view as a model teacher, based on their communication leadership behavior. In so doing, it reveals the model aspiring teachers should try to emulate. When it comes to fostering positive relationships with students and advancing learning outcomes, teachers can best influence learners by delivering quality instruction (use of expert power), combined with a personable, open, approachable, and authentic presence in the classroom (referent power). Teachers should also use reward power (compliment good work publicly), although expert and referent power are likely to be more effective. Teachers should avoid reliance on legitimate power (often expressed through formality and superiority) and coercive power (sanctioning and belittling students) as these types of behavior, especially coercive displays of power, have the most negative effects on PIU, teacher-student relations, and ultimately, learning outcomes.
Reference
Finn, A. N. (2012). Teacher use of prosocial and antisocial power bases and students’ perceived instructor understanding in the college classroom. Communication Education, 61(1), 67-79.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)