Critical media literacy: A new tool and pedagogy for tackling ESL

Many surveys show that low-achievers doubt that the education they are receiving will have a positive impact on their lives (Bacolod & Hotz, 2006; Duncan-Andrare & Morrell, 2008; Halx & Ortiz, 2011; Kincheloe, 2006), which often serves as the basis for their disinterest in school and sometimes even the decision to drop out of school and is especially common among students from marginalised groups and students with low socio-economic status (SES). Therefore, it is evident that the need for a new, more student-sensitive, more student-focused and more relevant to students’ lives pedagogy is needed. Halx (2014) argues that a new kind of pedagogy which proves to be successful among marginalised and low-SES students and includes all of the previously stated characteristics is pedagogy developing critical thinking skills (i.e. critical pedagogy), which is most evident in critical media literacy’s curriculum (Kanpol, 1994). By using contemporary media messages included in music videos, movies, news etc., educators can relate and connect to students’ lives, they can challenge students to critically think about the messages they are receiving and to actively internally and/or externally oppose them (Kellner & Share, 2004, 2005, 2007; Masterman, 1994). Internally, by changing their self-perception and thus improving their self-esteem and consequently their motivation for learning. Externally, by showing their feelings, thoughts, dilemmas to their peers, teachers, parents and other members of society through different communication tools such as different media or a simple conversation. Moreover, it is important that educators encourage students to extend this kind of reasoning to all the messages they are receiving through any kind of communication (Thoman & Jolls, 2004).

This article tries to explain why critical media literacy is suitable as a tool for developing critical thinking skills and thus preventing ESL. In the first part, we define media literacy and critical media literacy and explain why it is supposed to be successful in developing critical thinking skills. In the second part, it is explained how critical media literacy can be regarded as a preventive strategy against ESL. The last part of the article presents concrete strategies for teaching students critical media thinking and critical media analyses in order to prevent ESL. Moreover, in italics specific examples are presented of movie analysis and developing of critical thinking with the help of the five core questions of critical media literacy.

Literature used for this article was found through scientific literature search engines such as ERIC, Emerald, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global. The key words used were: media literacy; critical media literacy; critical pedagogy; critical thinking; drop-out; marginalised groups; academic achievement. For the purposes of this article, scientific papers, online scientific books and some handbooks on the topic of critical pedagogy and critical media literacy were used.

Traditionally, media literacy was defined as the ability to analyse and appreciate literary works and to communicate effectively via good writing (Brown, 1998). With the development of media in the 1970s, it was extended to reading the text of film, television and other visual media. Since the term “media” nowadays may refer to art, billboards, computers, film, moving images, multimedia, music, oral and written language, television and social media, the concept and scope of media literacy has also become wider and more versatile (Gardiner, 1997; Meyrowitz, 1998). Buckingham (2003) therefore argues that media literacy is the knowledge, skills and competencies required to use and interpret media. UNESCO’s definition is, however, more complex and defines media literacy as a process of the assimilation and employment of a media system’s codes and operative skills required to properly use the technology on which these codes are based. Moreover, media literacy, as UNESCO understands it, should also encompass the capacity to access, analyse and evaluate the power of media messages and the capacity to communicate using all forms of media (television, film, radio, recorded music, press, Internet and other digital communication technology) (Perez Tornero & Varis, 2010). Hobbs (1996) defines media literacy as a process of accessing and critically analysing media messages and creating new messages using media tools, whereas Rubin (1998) argues that media literacy means understanding sources of communication technology, the codes used, the messages produced and the selection, interpretation and impact of these messages.

As evident, two components of media literacy definitions are the most common – first, the awareness of the multitude of media messages and, second, a critical ability to analyse and question these messages (Hobbs, 2001; Silverblatt, 1995; Singer & Singer, 1998).

Kellner and Share (2007) define four different approaches to understanding media literacy:

• The first approach is the so-called protectionist approach, which sees media audiences as passive victims and values traditional print culture over media culture. It tries to prevent addiction to media by cultivating an affection for high culture and its values and thus displaying all aspects of media and computer culture in a bad light.
• The second approach is media arts education, which assumes that learning how to construct media messages implicitly teaches media literacy.
• The third approach called media literacy movement defines media literacy as a series of communication competencies, including the ability to access, analyse, evaluate and communicate, and expands the notion of literacy to multiple forms of media.
• The fourth approach – the critical media literacy approach – includes aspects of all three approaches stated above, but puts emphasis on the critical analysis of the dominant ideology used in the media and highlights the importance of detecting prevailing dominant representations of gender roles, race, class and sexuality. Moreover, it expands the analyses to include social issues, issues of control and pleasure, while it promotes the production of alternative media forms and consequently develops critical thinking skills.

Critical media literacy’s curriculum is one of the most compatible curriculums for teaching students critical thinking (Kanpol, 1994). Critical media literacy encourages individuals to apply analytical tools to media practices, promotes critical thinking by encouraging them to examine connections among media, self and others and to understand the issues of power and the media’s role in identity shaping (Buckingham, 1998; Lewis & Jhally, 1998). Critical media literacy also provides a framework to understand media’s impact on shaping beliefs, attitudes and behaviours (Brown, 1998; Kellner, 1995), sociocultural theories of learning and development (Garcia, 2005; Valenzuela, 2005) and critical pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2006). Critical media literacy helps individuals to expand their concept of literacy and develop higher order thinking skills (Hobbs, 1996; Kozma, 1991), which are necessary for developing critical thinking, collaboration and self-direction (Steinberg & Kincheloe, 1998; Dweck, 2000) and are directly related to student achievement (Boske & McCormack, 2011).

Teachers, students and other individuals are often not aware of media’s educational potential and how they shape our reality as its pedagogy is frequently invisible and unconscious. Therefore, it is important to be aware of how media construct messages, influence and educate audiences and impose their messages and values (Kellner & Share, 2005).

To sum up, critical media literacy establishes a critique of mainstream approaches to understanding media messages. Moreover, it is seen as a project which is a tool of democratic social change. This process combines critical inquiry of the media culture and cultural industries, which discuss issues of class, race, gender, sexuality and power. In addition, it promotes the creation of alternative media messages which are opposing the dominant hegemonic media (Kellner & Share, 2007). Marginalised individuals, who are too often stereotyped or misinterpreted in the mainstream media such as the poor, minorities, low-achievers, individuals with behavioural and mental issues etc. who are at risk of ESL and even ESLrs themselves (Gunn, Chorney, & Poulsen, 2009), can use media and information technology through critical media pedagogy. Critical media pedagogy serves as a tool for empowerment in order to tell their stories and express their concerns either through different media projects in classes or in other communication outside of school (YouTube, Facebook, blogs, vlogs etc.). It is very important for these groups of individuals who do not have many opportunities to express their points of view to ventilate them (Kellner & Share, 2005). On the other side, through this process the dominant group is given the opportunity to come across the social realities the marginalised groups are experiencing (Kellner, 2004; Kellner & Share, 2005). Critical media analysis and the production of new media messages can thus serve as the basis for class or public discussion of different issues.

For example, successful students and teachers (as a dominant group) might not be aware of the different struggles low-achievers or students at risk of ESL (as a marginalised group) encounter. Through different learning projects, critical media pedagogy thus offers tools and an opportunity for marginalised students to present their stories, points of view and struggles to the dominant group (and vice versa) using different media. In this way, in addition to developing critical thinking skills, where students together critically analyse their own behaviour and the views of others in school, a welcoming school environment is created in which students feel safe to express their own feelings and views, feel more connected to their school and are thus at a lower risk for ESL.

As can be seen, critical media literacy helps all students, those belonging to marginalised groups such as minorities, low-achievers etc. and those belonging to the dominant groups, to see their own realities and the realities of the other group differently (Kellner & Share, 2005).

There are different ways for educators to teach students how to critically analyse and use the media and no rigid pedagogical models are suggested (Kellner, 2004). The orientations for teaching critical media literacy are instead interpretive reference points from which educators can base their strategies on. Educators should identify the elements and objectives and moreover should understand that principles and programmes may differ in varying contexts (Kellner & Share, 2007).

Based on Masterman’s core concepts of media literacy [1], the Centre for Media Literacy (CML) in its CML MediaLit Kit (Thoman & Jolls, 2004) introduced five core questions to help educators teach media literacy (Kellner & Share, 2007). Further, if applied correctly these five questions can help students (and the rest of the population) change the way they interact with and learn in today’s media culture, their communities and their lives in general and can even help them to develop critical thinking and become active citizens (Erjavec, 2010; Kellner & Share, 2005; Thoman & Jolls, 2004).

Critical media literacy educators should employ all five questions to address the problem of media representation and not only the ones that are most obvious, such as which techniques are used in the media message or how audiences react to the message. Further, educators should challenge their students to question widely accepted assumptions with oppositional interpretations as well as seeking alternative media with oppositional and counterhegemonic representations and messages. In addition, they should encourage their students to produce new media messages, which reflect their own points of view (Kellner & Share, 2007). As a result, students learn about different views on addressed issues, are encouraged to discuss these issues and consequently possibly change their own knowledge, opinion and view on these issues. Moreover, students are encouraged to present their new messages through other public communication channels (such as YouTube, Facebook, blogs, vlogs etc.) and therefore participate in a wider public debate.

These five core questions of critical media literacy are used in practice for teaching critical thinking in many projects in countries around the world (Schofield & Rogers, 2004; Hull, 2003; Guajardo, Guajardo & del Carmen Casaperalta, 2008; Comber & Nixon, 2005). One of such projects based on a critical media literacy framework included students of English as a second language course at a Los Angeles middle school with high ESL rates, where they analysed the media representation of their community and afterwards created their own positive media messages. By using a critical media literacy framework, the lessons became more inclusive for all types of communication and the relationship between information and power was addressed. However, what is most important is that students at risk of ESL were more engaged in new literacies with a critical perspective, and were able to increase their self-esteem, their sense of pride in their community, interest in school and desire to learn (Choudhury & Share, 2012).

It can therefore be assumed that by developing critical thinking through critical media pedagogy students are empowered with tools to realise that low achievement in school or ESL is not something fixed, but created by different messages and that they have the power to recreate and change it. All of this is possible through project-based media production, which can be used not only in media lessons but also in other lessons [3], for making analyses more meaningful and empowering as students acquire tools for responding and taking action on the social conditions externally by discussing their problems, views and dilemmas with others through different means of communication, and internally by changing their self-perception and improving their self-esteem and motivation for learning. As a consequence, students become empowered to transform their own educational process and become active citizens who actively create a more equal and democratic society (Kellner & Share, 2007) as a far-reaching goal.

The article shows that critical media literacy’s curriculum provides a platform for developing critical thinking skills, which is the basis for better decision-making during adolescence and adulthood and is significantly correlated to academic achievement (Marin & Halpern, 2011; Taghva, Rezaei, Ghaderi, & Taghva, 2014) and non-risk behaviour (unprotected sex, drug use, ESL etc.) (Marin & Halpern, 2011). Critical media literacy encourages students to discover underlying elements such as power structures and gendered identities in different media messages (Alvermann & Hagood, 2002) and encourages students to make new, different messages that oppose the dominant ideology (Kellner & Share, 2007). With the help of the five core concepts or questions (Erjavec, 2010; Kellner & Share, 2005; Thoman & Jolls, 2004) students analyse media (and other) messages, create new messages and thus experience their own realities and the realities of others, different individuals (Kellner & Share, 2005). By doing so in either the classroom or through other (more public) means of communication (such as blogs, vlogs, social media etc.), students learn about and discuss the realities of others and consequently gain knowledge and possibly change their views, opinions and behaviour, while they become more self-confident and motivated. It can be said that through critical media literacy students become empowered with strategies to become active and transform their educational process and environment and try to create a more democratic society (Kellner & Share, 2007).

Nevertheless, we should be aware that enacting critical thinking through critical media literacy cannot solve or change the material conditions of students’ lives (poverty, drugs, mental illness etc.) (Shor & Friere, 1987), which are important factors of low achievements and sometimes even ESL. Nevertheless, what developing critical thinking can do is uncover these inequalities and discuss them from different points of view. In this way, educators already create an environment for a more inclusive, politically engaged and socially just curriculum, where all students can feel welcome, accepted and understood and where they feel safe to express their own views and become active creators of their educational path, lives and their society (McInerney, 2009), which are all conditions reducing the risk of ESL.