Television as a Tool of Environmental Adult Education: Limits and Possibilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Television has been conveyer of environmental information particularly since the 1960's. However, critics have accused the mass media of supporting the status quo because of market forces, journalistic standards, and work requirements and even of being a tool of suppression used by the ruling class. (Neuzil & Kovarik, 1997, p. xiii) To date, the potential of television as tool of environmental adult education has been given limited attention. This paper addresses the present state of environmental programming in Europe, Canada and the United States. It begins with brief review of the literature on television and delivery of environmental information and then critically examines three sample programs as way to explore the educational potential of this medium. In general, American programming tends to be emotionalized and less cognitively focused than Canadian and European programs. There is variable lack of critical analysis and placement of environmental issues within the larger socio-political contexts. To improve the effectiveness of television programs within an adult education framework, efforts should be made to increase dialogue and interaction with viewers. Possible adjunct methods would include interactive programs, Web sites and/or the possibility to develop discussion groups. Television as Conveyer of Environmental Issues Since the 1960s, has been general increase in environmental programming on television. Although this trend seems to wax and wane with the prominence of environmental issues, the public often uses mass media as source of information on environmental issues (Hansen, 1993, p. 3). Ostman and Parker (1987) found that in sample of residents of Ithaca, New York, television was second only to newspapers as source of environmental information, and ranked above magazines and radio. In addition, those with less formal education were the most likely to use television. Unfortunately, Greenberg (1988) has shown that American network news coverage tends to use the traditional journalistic determinants of news-timeliness, proximity prominence, consequence, and human interest, plus the broadcast criterion of visual impact to determine the degree of coverage, rather than public health risk. As such, the objectivity of the news media as source of environmental information has become suspect in the minds of the general public. Environmental groups, particularly those such as Greenpeace, use the mass media as primary forum for their claims-making, and use it as means for establishing legitimacy and influence (Hansen, 1993, p. 150). Cracknell (1993, p. 19) warns, there is danger that such organizations will start to see column inches, rather than political effectiveness, as measure of success. In fact, Ostman and Parker (1997) found that their respondents felt that television journalists were among the least reliable compared to authors of books or magazines. Generally, studies show an inverse relationship between hours of television viewing and measures of environmental 'concern' in U.S. college students (Shanaban, 1993, p. 195). However, study of teenagers in Hong Kong found television news viewership had positive correlation with students' environmental knowledge (Chan, 1998). It is unclear if this is comment on the viewing habits of either cohort, the quality of their programming, or how they processed this information. It is possible that the choice of programs viewed and how it is handled by the viewer may be more important than the hours watched. Television as Environmental Adult Education Since most contemporary 'environmental education' has been developed for children and not adults, it is not surprising that the vast majority of media literature in this area focuses on children's programming in schools. In this, tends to be an emphasis on program planning for nature and science modules rather than critical appraisal of programs. …
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».