Assessing the Field of Media Education in British Columbia; a survey of teachers in the present-day BC school system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role and impact of audio-visual media have been a matter of considerable debate among Canadian educators for more than sixty years as aids to communicating the curriculum, as forms of artistic and cultural identity, and as part of the critical cultural pedagogies of a liberal education. In British Columbia, the Canadian Association for Media Educators was forged in the early 1990’s and later participated in preparing an integrated media education curriculum for Grades K to 12. Although this initiative legitimated media education within classroom practice, it was not mandatory. This survey of British Columbia teachers set out to determine, why how and to what degree teachers incorporated media education pedagogy into their daily practice. Our survey of eighty teachers in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland indicated that although media literacy has been successfully implemented within the BC school curriculum, its uptake and development is not without challenges. Both a lack of training and resources, combined with the already-busy schedule of teachers, has meant that media literacy remains a secondary objective within Social Studies, English or Humanities lessons. Indeed, many of the specified media education Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs) that teachers believe important are ignored or untaught. With growing evidence that some of the critical literacy ambitions of the integrated curriculum were not finding their way into the classroom we conclude by explaining how our ‘tune-out the screen’ initiative provided a focal point for reemphasizing critical media-education objectives in BC.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".