The Analysis of L1 Teaching Programs in England, Canada, the USA and Australia Regarding Media Literacy and Their Applicability to Turkish Language Teaching.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Two basic approaches namely "independent lesson approach" and "integration approach" appear in teaching media literacy. Media literacy is regarded as a separate lesson in the education program like mathematics and social sciences in "independent lesson approach". However, in "integration approach", activities and outcomes of media literacy are related in an existing course. It has been observed that by the 1990s, media devices and messages started to have a stronger impact on the life of a society which in turn resulted in adoption of integration approach in teaching media literacy by developed countries. Such countries specifically related media literacy specifically with teaching L1. In this study, the countries which were regarded as leaders in teaching media literacy namely England, Canada (the state of Ontario), USA, and Australia L1 teaching programs were taken into consideration in terms of relating L1 teaching with teaching media literacy; therefore, common themes were identified in their programs. A total number of 487 pages of document and 497 gains of L1 teaching programs of these countries were investigated by means of document investigation method. To analyse the data, content analysis was used. In this respect, the first analysis dealt with countries and further analysis identified the common themes of media literacy gains in L1 teaching programs. To analyse the data a qualitative data analysis program MAXQDA (R) was used. The results indicated that the investigated teaching programs involved media literacy gains and activities at an important level with the ratio of 37.2%. Approximately, two thirds of media literacy gains are related with "comprehension" component of media literacy whereas the rest deals with its "production" component. The component of "comprehension" includes the gains in four basic themes namely "understanding the genre of the text", "questioning the text", "identifying the information and ideas in the text", and "thinking the impact of media messages on the other people" in 21 sub-themes. The component of "production" includes the gains in four basic themes namely "forming content", "using methodological information in production", "common production and interaction", "evaluating the own product of message" in 14 sub-themes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».