Media Education Assessment Handbook

William G. Christ, William G. Christ

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000149197
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Assessing media education is a formidable task because both assessment and media education are complex and controversial concepts. Assessment, which can take place at the individual student, class, sequence, program, department or unit, and university levels, is questioned in terms of reliability, validity, relevance, and cost. Media education, which has been challenged at a number of schools, finds faculty and administrators in the midst of soul-searching about how to clearly articulate its missions and purposes to a broader audience. Departments are under increasing national, state, and institutional pressure to get assessment procedures carried out quickly, but there is an obvious danger in rushing to implement assessment strategies before establishing what is essential in media education. In communication education in general, the "what" of assessment is often discussed in terms of skills, attitudes, affect, values, and knowledge. People assess students to determine what they know, think, feel, value, and can do. Here it is suggested that one of the places to start defining what students should learn from their media education is by identifying outcomes. Outcomes can be assessed in a variety of ways, but first they need to be developed and clearly articulated.

I Programmatic Assessment

1

Defining Media Education

William G. Christ

Trinity University

Before media education programs develop assessment strategies, they would profit from reflecting on what they should be assessing. This chapter highlights five interrelated areas (skills, attitudes, affect, values, and knowledge) in terms of outcomes. An instrument (matrix) for assessing media programs is included.

INTRODUCTION

Assessing media education is a formidable task because both assessment and media education involve complex and controversial issues. Assessment, which can take place at the individual student, class, sequence, program, department or unit, and university levels, is questioned in terms of reliability, validity, relevance, and cost (for an overview of assessment see Banta, 1993; Rosenbaum, 1994). Media education, which has been challenged at a number of schools, finds faculty and administrators in the midst of soul-searching about how to clearly articulate its missions and purposes to a broader audience (see, e.g., Blanchard & Christ, 1993; Sholle & Denski, 1994).

Although a number of strategies for assessing media education have been identified including portfolios, capstone courses, exit exams, internships, exit interviews, advisory boards, and faculty and course evaluations (see Christ, 1994), the focus of this chapter is not on strategies but rather on what should be assessed. Before assessment strategies are implemented, there needs to be agreement about “the what” of media education. (Much of this chapter was first presented in Christ & McCall, 1994.)

Departments are under increasing national, state, and institutional pressure to get assessment procedures carried out quickly. But there is an obvious danger in rushing to implement assessment strategies before establishing what is essential in media education. In communication education in general, “the what” of assessment is often discussed in terms of skills, attitudes, affect, values, and knowledge (see Hay, 1994; Morreale, 1994). People assess students to determine what they know, think, feel, value, and can do. Here, it is suggested that one of the places to start with defining what students should learn from their media education is by identifying outcomes (Christ & Blanchard, 1994). Outcomes can be assessed in a variety of ways, but first they need to be developed and clearly articulated.

SKILLS

All successful courses teach skills. Whether media educators should teach skills or content, applied or theory courses deflects curricular debate from where it should be focused. Instead of being concerned with distracting dichotomies, media educators should be discussing how we can broaden our students’ understanding through a variety of experiences including courses, symposia, practica, and internships. We should be debating which skills and content will help our students reach the educational outcomes of our universities and programs. Teaching television production, for example, without theory is as short-sighted as teaching mass media theory without demonstrating its importance and application to people’s lives as citizens, consumers, and practi tioners (see chap. 11).

Two broad, overlapping areas have developed in media education that have implications for skills assessment. The first can be categorized under the broad heading of critical viewing skills, visual or media literacy. The second can be categorized under communication competencies.

Media Literacy

Brown (1991), as part of his analysis of national and international media literacy or critical viewing skills projects, suggested 20 assessment criteria for judging the projects. Many of his criteria are useful as starting points for assessing media education programs in higher education (see pp. 50-53). Although skills criteria are presented here, it is important to note that the dichotomy between theory and skills is blurred in the media literacy projects where programs are expected to address the “development of cognitive and affective as well as behavioral skills and values-in a holistic setting” (Brown, 1991, p. 44). To have critical thinking skills requires theory. To understand theory requires critical thinking skills. Under “Cognition: Reasoning Skills,” Brown (1991) listed two criteria (several of Brown’s criteria are presented under the “attitudes … ” and “knowledge” sections later in this chapter):

Projects should train participants in the process of selective discrimination, analytical observation, and reasoned assessment based on factual data judged according to meaningful criteria. (p. 52)

The process should begin with analysis and end with synthesis, merging learned factual data with receivers’ experience of TV and their own value system; it should stress inductive (heuristic, a posteriori) exploration from which principles are drawn out, along with the deductive (a priori) process. (p. 52)

Stated more expansively, both criteria would do well as outcomes for liberal education in general. In fact, at their best, the outcomes of media education should be similar to the outcomes of a liberal education in general (see chap. 2). Media education programs should be in the business of working toward the liberal education of their students (see Blanchard & Christ, 1993; McCall, 1987). If, as Gerbner suggested, “liberal education today is the liberation of the individual from the necessity of drifting with the swift cultural tides of our time and the preparation for such self-direction as may be necessary and possible” (Planning for curricular change, 1987, p. 40), then media education outcomes need to reflect this.

After comparing the Association of American Colleges (AAC) outcomes (Association of American Colleges, 1985) and the Carnegie Foundation (Boyer, 1987) outcomes with a synthesized list of professional education outcomes, the Michigan Professional Preparation Network Report (Strengthening the ties, 1988) concluded that, although there are important differences, “one cannot fail to notice that the goals of professional program educators overlap with those traditionally espoused by liberal arts educators” (p. 26). (For an analysis of these three reports see Blanchard & Christ, 1993.) Of the 10 outcomes they cite, the critical thinking competency is one that closely reflects the two skills articulated by Brown.

Critical thinking is described as an ability “to examine issues rationally, logically, and coherently” (Strengthening the ties, 1988, p. 23)-a universally recognized and desired liberal outcome. Professional graduates seek to possess “a repertoire of thinking strategies that will enable them to acquire, evaluate, and synthesize information and knowledge” (p. 23). Professionals also are taught “to develop analytical skills to make decisions in both familiar and unfamiliar circumstances” (p. 23). This competence has also been identified as a key component of the “National Education Goals: 5.5” (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). All classes should have critical thinking as a major outcome (see chap. 7). However, it is particularly possible to demonstrate the “process of selective discrimination, analytical observation, and reasoned assessment based on factual data” (Brown, 1991, p. 52) in reporting and editing, media research, and audience and textual analysis classes, to name a few.

Brown’s two criteria acknowledge the process of education. They suggest that developing critical viewing skills takes time and that there are stages that students go through when learning critical thinking. Stating that “the process should begin with analysis and end with synthesis, merging learned factual data with receivers’ experience” suggests that information is important, but not an end in itself. This criterion suggests that media education programs need to take into account not only teaching styles and curricular concerns, but learning styles (see Grow, 1991; Potter, 1994) and students’ development. If one goal of media education is to educate our students to become “self-directed” (Grow, 1991), then we need to be aware of where our students are and what it will take to meet different student needs. It suggests different methods may be called for to reach different kinds of students and even that different students should be assessed in different ways. (Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap] and the Individuals with Disabilities Act [IDEA] students can demand modified programs for their disabilities. The act, which applies to students through age 21, suggests that although what gets assessed may be the same across students, how it is assessed or the method that information is presented may need to be modified depending on the students’ disabilities.)

As a result of teaching critical thinking skills, “individual and institutional efforts strive not only to guide adults and children to better, more reasonable, more responsive and active analysis and reaction to media experience, but also at times to influence the media managers and governmental bodies responsible for overseeing them” (Brown, 1991, p. 13). This suggests that those with critical thinking skills have the ability as citizens and practitioners to challenge the status quo.

Competency

Whereas media literacy suggests a critical thinking or evaluation function as its main objective or outcome, the competency movement suggests an ability to perform specific communication skills as a fundamental outcome. This is not to say that competency should be limited to skills. For example, McCroskey (1984) wrote, “Communication competence requires not only the ability to perform adequately certain communication behaviors, it also requires an under standing of those behaviors and the cognitive ability to make choices among behaviors” (p. 264). However, where the critical viewing skills perspective stresses analysis, synthesis, and evaluation from an “audience” or “receivership” point of view (see Ploghoft & Anderson, 1981,1982), the competency literature tends to stress a “use,” “behavioral,” or “practitioner” orientation. Although it is possible to identify numerous media education competencies, the discussions in the Oregon Reports (Planning for curricular change, 1984, 1987) and the Michigan Professional Preparation Network Report (Strengthening the ties, 1988) are instructive. Under its “Elements of a Mcxlel Curriculum” heading, the Oregon Report (Planning for curricular change, 1987) suggested five kinds of communication competencies:

1. General literacy-competence in the use of the language.

2. Visual literacy-understanding of visual grammar and phenomena in mass communication.

3. Computer literacy-especially a general knowledge and “hands-on” skills in computer applications in journalism/mass communication fields.

4. Information gathering-ability to systematically gather and use information for various sources pertinent to mass communication.

5. Media writing capability-ability to produce media messages in two...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Part I: Programmatic Assessment
• Part II: Knowledge, Skills, and Attitude Assessment
• Author Index
• Subject Index
• SCA's Criteria for the Assessment of Oral Communication