The Analysis of L1 Teaching Programs in England, Canada, the USA and Australia Regarding Media Literacy and Their Applicability to Turkish Language Teaching.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".