The Implementation of Media Education in Hong Kong’s Secondary Curriculum: Reasons, Means, and Impact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strength of the influence of today’s media is well documented. In 1995 Kellner stated that a “media culture has emerged in which images, sounds, and spectacles help produce the fabric of everyday life, dominating leisure time, shaping political views and social behaviour”. A decade later, there are more types of information and entertainment, many more interactive modes for consuming mass media’s message, and a more interconnected global village than ever before. Studies show that many students spend much of their time watching, listening, and interacting with media. The situation is similar in Hong Kong. In view of this, the call for the inclusion of media education in the school curriculum is opportune. Such curricula have been adopted successfully in countries such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. With the proposal of curriculum reforms in year 2000, which emphasized “key learning areas” instead of traditional subjects, new curricular spaces are opening up for media education. A 2004 study noted that many schools claime to have already adopted media education in lessons. It is worth studying the reasons why these schools have decided to do so, how they have implemented media education, and the impact that media education has on students, especially in terms of the nine generic skills emphasized in the recent curriculum reform.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".