MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3155005467

Research on “Media Literacy”: A Retrospective Analysis from 1970 to 2019

2019· article· en· W3155005467 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan

Notice bibliographique

RevueGlobal media journal Australia · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLiteracyComputer scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide WebSociologyPedagogy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Extended Abstract   Introduction and Statement of the Problem: The purpose of this study is to describe and analyze the trend of scholarly outputs and growth of “Media Literacy” in Web of Science Core Collection database (WoS) to find countries and regional distributions, and the level of its visibility based on Keywords Plus. A total number of 1,671 documents in WoS with the topic “Media Literacy” from 1970 to 2019 were retrieved and analyzed. The result of the study shows the scientific productivity in “Media Literacy” in the world is not homogeneous and much is left to be required in researches development on “media literacy”. The authors urge scholars in most developing countries to move beyond the exclusive media and communication approach and realize the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach. In 1998, a pioneer in the United States defined media literacy as the process of accessing, critically analyzing media messages and creating a message using media tools. (Hobbs, 1998). In the same year, Brown discusses the media literacy perspectives and highlights that media literacy involves a cognitive process used in critical thinking (Brown, 1998). Since its emerging, also in some developing countries, a very diverse community of scholars and researchers examined media literacy and its implications from each discipline and interdisciplinary point of view. There are good enough number of researches and publications on conceptual and theory building (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000) as well as case study approaches like in preferred media and communication channels (Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan et al., 2009; Indriyanto et al., 2016; Vegiayan et al., 2013) education (Suto & Sakamoto, 2014), children (Hirsjarvi & Tayie, 2011) adolescent (Labas & Males, 2017), rural development (Akar-Vural, 2010) health (Rich, 2004) and healthcare-related program (Akhtari-Zavare et al., 2015) on the globe.   Methodology: Using the Bibliometrics methods, the aim of this study is to discover and describe the trend of scholarly outputs and growth of “media Literacy” publications from 1970 to 2019. Bibliometrics methods have been used to measure scientific progress in many disciplines of science and social science, and are a common research instrument for the systematic analysis of publications. (Farahmand et al., 2018; SM. Etemadifard et al., 2018; Seyed Abolhassan Riazi et al., 2019). The data were collected from the Web of Science Core Collections (WoS) and the only criteria for data collection were the keyword of “Media Literacy”. With the above limitations, in the first stage, 1,671 documents and in the second stage, 642 documents were retrieved and used for data analysis.    Results and Discussion: The annual number of “Media Literacy” publications has grown from 1 in 1980 to 237 in 2016. Also, there was positive growth in the publication each year beginning in 2005. The United States (with total publications 549) is the leading country in terms of total numbers of “media literacy” related publications from early 1970. The rest of the countries in the world, including Spain (212), England (81), China (78), Australia (77) and Russia (71). The diversity of the research area of the publications on “media literacy” was interesting. “Education and Educational Research” was the first research area of all publications related to media literacy; followed by “Communication”, “Psychology”, “Social Sciences” and “Computer Sciences”. The 642 documents which carry “media literacy” in their titles, overall, had the total amount of 4252 citations (average citation per documents was 6.76) which can be considered high in scientific publications. The majority of the documents were in “English” (551 out of 642 documents). Also, most of the documents were in “Article” (64.6%) formats, followed by “proceeding Papers” (20.1%). The time depended on KeyWords Plus shows that “Education”, “TV”, “Adolescent” and “behavior” were the key concepts for conceptualization in this time span. The international collaboration and networking for co-authorship in the area of study also were limited to very few countries only, mainly the United State with few other western countries like Germany, the UK, Canada, and Spain.   Conclusion: The results of the study show the scientific productivity in “Media Literacy” in the world is not homogeneous and much is left to be required in researches development on “media literacy”. The author urges scholars in most developing countries to move beyond the single discipline and approach and realize the importance of multi-disciplinary approaches regionally and internationally. The results of the study also have a lot of implications for countries like Iran where currently has faced a huge number of social media as well as their expand usage among citizens. In the 21st century, citizens need to be trained to deconstruct and analyze the media text as well as engage and challenge media institutions. This is what Hobss (1998) means by “sophisticated citizens” rather than “sophisticated consumers”. Media Literacy, if well understood, might be a more “soft” and positive response to the negative consequence of media influence than those “hard” responds such as banning, filtering and censorship.   Keywords: Media literacy, Retrospective Analysis, Communication, Education, Bibliometric   References Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan, Mehrnoosh Akhtari Zavareh, & Hassan., M. A. (2009). Communication Channels Used by Academic Staff in Interacting with Their Students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 17(2). Akar-Vural, R. (2010). How Rural Schoolchildren and Teachers Read TV Dramas: A Case Study on Critical Media Literacy in Turkey. Urban Education, 45(5), 740-763. doi:10.1177/0042085910377289 Akhtari-Zavare, M., Ghanbari-Baghestan, A., Latiff, L. A., & Khaniki, H. (2015). Breast Cancer Prevention Information Seeking Behavior and Interest on Cell Phone and Text Use: a Cross-sectional Study in Malaysia. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 16(4), 1337-1341. doi:10.7314/APJCP.2015.16.4.1337 Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and practice in new times. Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 193-205. doi:10.1080/00220670009598707 Brown, J. A. (1998). Media literacy perspectives. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 44-57. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02736.x Farahmand, E., Mariani, M., Ghanbari Baghestan, A., Ale Ebrahim, N., & N., M. (2018). Five Decades of Scientific Development on “Attachment Theory”: Trends and Future Landscape. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(3), 2145-2160. Ghanbari-Baghestan, A., Indriyanto, S., SazmandAsfaranjan, Y., & Akhtari-Zavare, M. (2016). Preferred communication channels used by students to interact with their lecturers. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 19(2), 227-241. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2016.074476 Hirsjarvi, I., & Tayie, S. (2011). Children and New Media: Youth Media Participation. A Case Study of Egypt and Finland. Comunicar(37), 99-107. doi:10.3916/c37-2011-03-01 Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates in the media literacy movement. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 16-32. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02734.x Labas, D., & Males, D. (2017). Adolescent perception of electronic media ethical values in the context of sociode-mographic characteristics and media literacy. Nova Prisutnost, 15(2), 211-230. Rich, M. (2004). Health literacy via media literacy - Video intervention/prevention assessment. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 165-188. doi:10.1177/0002764204267261. Seyed Abolhassan Riazi, Abbas Ghanbari Baghestan, Aini Ideris, et al. (2019) Science and Technology Diplomacy and the Power of Students: The Case of Iranian Student in Malaysia. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum 27 (1): 649-662. SM. Etemadifard, H. Khaniki, A. Ghanbari Baghestan, & Akhtari-Zavare., M. (2018). Iran’s Social Sciences Issues in Web of Science (WoS): Who Said What? Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 26(2), 1159 - 1174 Suto, H., & Sakamoto, M. (2014). Developing an Education Material for Robot Literacy. In S. Yamamoto (Ed.), Human Interface and the Management of Information: Information and Knowledge in Applications and Services, Pt Ii (Vol. 8522, pp. 99-108). Vegiayan, K. D., Baghestan, A. G., & Asfaranjan, Y. S. (2013). Exploring employees' preference for communication channels. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 18(4), 504-511. doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.18.4.11710

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,271
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,006

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,474
Écart entre enseignants0,387 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGlobal media journal AustraliaMême sujetTechnology-Enhanced Education StudiesTravaux en français237 207