critical thinking skills enabling the development of independent judgments about media content

I.          MEDIA LITERACY

Ii.        definition of mass communication, a.      model of communication is intra or interpersonal, 1.       one sender, one receiver, 2.       return loop is individual, 3.       feedback is usually immediate and specific, b.      changes considerably when applied to media, 1.       one sender, multiple receivers, a)      what happens in each receiver’s black box is individual, b)      return loop doesn’t go to the original sender, c)       feedback is delayed and often nonexistent, c.     this class is an example of mass communication, 1.       one sender – me, 2.       multiple receivers – you, 3.       i get no definite feedback on your response, iii.       mass media, a.      mass model of comm. is the same, but the channel changes, 1.       the channel for this class is speech, a)      feedback, (1)    immediate from how you respond to what i say, (2)    delayed through exams, 2.       the channels for mass media are mechanical, a)      writing, b)      print, c)       radio, d)      sound recording, e)      movies, f)         television, g)      modern communication media, (1)    feedback, (a)    delayed or nonexistent, (b)    must be inferred, (2)    response to feedback is delayed, (3)    makes mass media conservative in approach, (a)    go with what worked in the past, iv.    you must understand how the comm. model works to get the most out of it, a.      known as media literacy, v.      basic elements of media literacy, a.      a critical thinking skill enabling audience members to develop independent judgments about media content, 1.       most people don’t consciously engage with the media, 2.       they don’t think about the messages the receive, 3.       critical, a)      not just “i don’t like”, b)      why do you like or not like it, c)       can you explain your reactions, d)      examine a message, (1)    its content, (2)    its intent, (3)    its effect on the audience – including you, 4.       “ thinking ”, a)      consciously examine the message, b)      react intellectually, not emotionally, c)       put your reaction into words, (1)    we think in words, not feelings, 5.       “ skill ”, a)      to critically think requires cultivation and practice, like learning the piano or to play a sport, b)      apply this skill to all messages you receive, including this class, b.      an understanding of the process of mass communication, 1.       mass media messages are deliberately designed to affect their audiences, 2.       every medium has its own way of delivering that message, a)      can affect the audience’s understanding, b)      for example:, (1)    print uses the syntax of writing, (2)    television uses the syntax of speaking and images, c.     an awareness of the impact of media on the individual and society, 1.       advertising can create desire, 2.       news not only tells us what’s going on, but what to think about, 3.       stereotypes can influence our perceptions of everything we encounter, d.     strategies for analyzing and discussing media messages, 1.       most people leave all the power in determining how to affect the audience to the creator of the message, 2.       you must take that power into your own hands, a)      dissect messages to determine their components and intent, b)      consciously consider how the message can, and does, affect you, e.      the ability to enjoy, understand, and appreciate media content, 1.       many people believe mass media aim at the lowest common denominator, a)      the stupid and lower class, b)      this is crap, 2.       true appreciation comes from looking below the superficial and discovering the many ways a message can be perceived and meaning derived, a)      terry pratchett novels are superb social satires, b)      “the daily show”, (1)    can be funny if you don’t know what’s going on in the world, (2)    true appreciation is only possible for the media literate, (a)    recognize the people, (b)    recognize the events, (c)    understand the commentary, f.      development of effective and responsible production skills, 1.       learn to write clearly, concisely, and effectively, a)      proper spelling, punctuation, grammar, syntax, b)      not just words in a row until you think you’ve said it, 2.       learn to use modern media, a)      build a web page, b)      make a video, (1)    shoot it, (2)    edit it, (3)    put it online, c)       learn to write a script, d)      learn computer programs, g.     an understanding of the ethical and moral obligations of media practitioners, 1.       media pros are under a lot of pressure, a)      legal vs. ethical (e.g., violence on tv), b)      avoiding offending anyone, c)       who decides what’s moral or offensive, and to whom, d)      media must support themselves, which can lead to conflicts, (1)    e.g., a news report that puts a major sponsor in a bad light, (2)    should it be published or aired, (3)    what are the ethics, e)      if you don’t understand the pressures on media, you can only have a knee-jerk, emotional reaction, not reasonable arguments and sensible decisions, h.      to be media literate you need to develop a set of media literacy skills, 1.       ability and willingness to make an effort to understand content, to pay attention, and to filter out noise, a)      it’s easy to just let media messages wash over you, b)      but just because you’re not paying attention doesn’t mean you’re not being affected, c)       you must make a conscious effort to interact with media messages, 2.       an understanding of and respect for the power of media messages, a)      a lot of mass media is banal, rather silly, and even stupid, (1)    easy to dismiss, (2)    easy to consider beneath consideration, (3)    easy to consider to simple to have an effect, b)      if you’re hit with a message often enough it can have an effect, c)       3 rd person effect, (1)    the attitude that “other people are affected, but not me.”, (2)    this is delusional, (3)    media messages are deliberately designed to affect the audience, 3.       the ability to distinguish emotional from reasoned reactions when responding to messages, and to act accordingly, a)      many messages are designed to cause an emotional reaction, b)      emotions can’t be argued with or countered, c)       you must realize you’re reacting emotionally, and try to figure out why, (1)    put your emotions into words, (2)    think with those words, 4.       develop a heightened expectation of media content, a)      avoid just watching or reading for the sake of watching or reading, b)      make an effort to find quality and give satisfaction, c)       don’t just channel or internet surf or leaf through magazines, 5.       know genre conventions and learn to recognize when they’re being mixed, a)      messages can be classified into different categories, (1)    examples:, (a)    sitcoms, (b)    evening news, (c)    horror movie, (d)    entertainment magazine, (2)    each genre has certain distinctive, standardized style elements, (a)    learn those style elements, (b)    recognize when they’re mixed, (c)    example :.

(i)      Daily Show

(a)    Has the elements of an evening news show

(b)    Has an audience, an element of a talk show

6.       Think critically about media messages, no matter how credible the source

A)      in a democracy, media must be credible because they are central to the governing process, b)      be aware that the media are designed to make money, (1)    all messages are slanted to appeal to their audience, (2)    reflect what their audiences already believe, (3)    just because something is said doesn’t necessarily make it true, i.          an understanding of media content as a text that provides insight into our culture and our lives, 1.       a big part of this class, 2.       media have always had a major influence on culture and society, a)      the invention of a medium has altered forever every society that has received it, b)      societies are constructed in large part by their media.

Evaluating Sources: Dive Deeper: Information and Media Literacy

• Fake News, Alternative Facts and Misinformation
• Dive Deeper: Information and Media Literacy

Being able to evaluate sources and detect fake news are two approaches to developing information and media literacy. To become fully literate users of information, we must also learn to incorporate information from other sources into our work and create reliable and effective information resources to share with others. How can we make sure that we're doing those things with integrity? This is the question that we begin to ask as we move toward improving our  information and media literacy .

Information and media literacy involves the development of several overlapping skills:

• Approaching media with a critical eye  
• Learning to find accurate and reliable information
• Determining  the best ways to refute misinformation 
• Sharing information skillfully and honestly (see our guide on citing sources )
• Creating reliable information

Below are resources that can help you embark on your information and media literacy journey: books that you can access online or check out from the LACC MLK Library, infographics, fake news self-assessments, and useful links, all designed to foster better discernment of misleading and false information in our fast-paced and ever-changing media ecosystems. 

LACC Library also offers a host of tutorials on information literacy, found here, in our Information Competency LibGuide . As always, if you need help with any of these resources or with finding more information, ask a librarian. 

eBooks About Information and Media Literacy in the MLK Library Collection

• LACC Library eBook Collection On the right side of the page, find the EBSCO eBooks link.

Print Books About Information and Media Literacy in the MLK Library Collection

Information and Media Literacy Resources and Organizations

Definitions of Information and Media Literacy 

Source: Potter, J. (2010). The state of media literacy.  Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 54(4), 2010, pp. 675–696. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2011.521462

Analyzing Media: Anatomy of a Misleading Facebook Post

Much of the information we consume and share comes to us in bite-sized pieces on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. Often, these easily-digestible messages and posts can mislead. While a post may conform to a point of view that we share, it is still incumbent upon us to verify the information and determine whether the conclusions it draws are valid. Examine the post below to see how social media posts can promote distorted perspectives and to find out how to counter this problem. Then, compare this post with an actual story about the same topic, published in the New York Times.

Anatomy of a Misleading Facebook Post

Investigate the source of the post.

When evaluating claims about the news on social media, it’s important to determine the bias of the source. In this case, Turning Point USA is “a staunch supporter of President Trump” (FactCheck.org)

Verify the information in the headline.

Normally, news stories include both headlines and reports, which allow readers to evaluate whether the headline is accurate. In this case, there is no report to accompany the post, so we must verify the information using others sources. According to FactCheck.org…

• The Mueller investigation did take over two years to complete. The total cost as of September 30, 2018, was $25.2 million. However, the Mueller Report did come to several conclusions:
• The Russians coordinated a sustained cyberattack to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, through both a social media campaign and the hacking of computers tied to the Clinton campaign.
• There was no evidence of any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians to enact this interference.
• The investigation uncovered “multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.”

Based on this assessment, we can determine that Turning Point USA has distorted the facts .

Note the differences between the Facebook post and the same topic covered in a reputable newspaper.

The headline draws a conclusion, but it is less extreme than the one drawn in the Facebook post.

The authors ore noted in the byline, allowing readers to explore their work further.

There is a story that accompanies the headline, giving readers a chance to verify whether it supports the claim of the headline.

The story contains facts, which readers can then verify using other sources.

UNESCO Five Laws of Information and Media Literacy

Five Laws of Media and Information Literacy

We are travelling towards the universality of books, the Internet and all forms of “containers of knowledge”. Media and information literacy for all should be seen as a nexus of human rights. Therefore, UNESCO suggests the following  Five Laws of Media and Information Literacy .

They are inspired by the Five Laws of Library Science proposed by S. R. Ranganathan in 1931. The Five Laws of MIL are intended as guides, together with other UNESCO resources, for all stakeholders involved in the application of MIL in all forms of development.

For more context to the Five Laws of MIL, please see related chapter in the MIL Yearbook 2016 published by UNESCO,  Media and Information Literacy: Reinforcing Human Rights, Countering Radicalization and Extremism .

Law One : Information, communication, libraries, media, technology, the Internet as well as other forms of information providers are for use in critical civic engagement and sustainable development. They are equal in stature and none is more relevant than the other or should be ever treated as such.

Law Two :  Every citizen is a creator of information/knowledge and has a message. They must be empowered to access new information/knowledge and to express themselves. MIL is for all – women and men equally – and a nexus of human rights.

Law Three :  Information, knowledge, and messages are not always value neutral, or always independent of biases. Any conceptualization, use and application of MIL should make this truth transparent and understandable to all citizens.

Law Four :  Every citizen wants to know and understand new information, knowledge and messages as well as to communicate, even if she/he is not aware, admits or expresses that he/she does. Her/his rights must however never be compromised.

Law Five :  Media and information literacy is not acquired at once. It is a lived and dynamic experience and process. It is complete when it includes knowledge, skills and attitudes, when it covers access, evaluation/assessment, use, production and communication of information, media and technology content.

Main Site Navigation Buttons Bottom

Home      Databases A-Z      Research Skills   

Subject Guides      Find Books & Articles

• << Previous: Fake News, Alternative Facts and Misinformation
• Last Updated: Dec 15, 2021 11:38 AM
• URL: https://lacitycollege.libguides.com/evaluatingsources

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Quantifying media literacy: development, reliability, and validity of a new measure

Edward t. arke.

a Department of Communication, Messiah College, One College Avenue, Box 3038, Grantham, PA 17027, USA

Brian A. Primack

b University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA

Media literacy has the potential to alter outcomes in various fields, including education, communication, and public health. However, measurement of media literacy remains a critical challenge in advancing this field of inquiry. In this manuscript, we describe the development and testing of a pilot measure of media literacy. Items were formed based on a composite conceptual model and administered to college communications students ( n = 34). Each of three media literacy subscales had good internal consistency reliability (α 1 = 0.74, α 2 = 0.79, α 3 = 0.75). Principal components analysis revealed a five-factor structure that corresponded closely with the underlying conceptual model. As was expected, the media literacy scale was significantly correlated with a composite critical thinking measure ( r = 0.32, P = .03). This scale may be valuable for the measurement of media literacy and the assessment of media literacy interventions.

Introduction

Educators in the United States lag behind those in Canada, Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand in teaching students about the media and its messages. This type of education can be referred to as “media literacy,” which is generally defined as “the ability to understand, analyze, evaluate and create media messages in a wide variety of forms” ( Aufderheide & Firestone, 1993 ; Thoman, 2003 ). US Government officials such as Federal Communications Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate believe that we must find ways to make our children more “media literate” in order to improve critical appraisal of media messages ( Eggerton, 2006 ).

All 50 states now refer to media literacy in their curricular guidelines and recommendations for public basic education ( Kubey, 1998 ). Similarly, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act calls for a substantial increase in “the proportion of college graduates who demonstrate an advanced ability to think critically, communicate effectively and solve problems” ( Berko, Morreale, Cooper, & Perry, 1998 , p. 175). Since media literacy is primarily a critical thinking skill that is applied to our main source of information, the media ( Silverblatt, 2001 ) instruction in this area can contribute to overall improvements in reaching national educational goals.

However, while the field of media literacy is growing in interest and participation, research including empirical studies appears to be lacking ( Singer & Singer, 1998 ). A recent systematic review of the literature reveals that relatively little quantitative research is available that examines the usefulness of this instruction ( Bergsma & Carney, 2008 ). Hobbs and Frost (2003) concur that there is “little school-based empirical research … to demonstrate the impact of media-literacy curriculum on students' attitudes, behavior, knowledge and academic performance” (p. 332).

One important reason for this is the challenge of measuring media literacy ( Bergsma, 2008 ; Hobbs & Frost, 2003 ; Primack, Gold, Land, & Fine, 2006a ). As Scharrer (2002) states: “The results of participation in media literacy curricula are not often explicitly defined and measured, but there is a generalized notion about what these outcomes are” (p. 354). Such generalizations will not be sufficient as the field of media literacy develops. Accrediting bodies stress assessment to ensure that stated goals and objectives are being obtained. Thus, in order to show the value of the subject matter, media literacy advocates must develop and possess tools to accurately measure and report results that show the desired skill development and improvements.

Previous research on measurement of media literacy

Others have conducted research on the measurement of media literacy. Quin and McMahon (1995) studied two tests developed by a panel of teachers. The first analyzed print advertisements while the second looked at a 12-minute television clip from a situation comedy. Both tests examined the language, narrative, audience and other areas of analysis. Although these measurement instruments seemed to appropriately measure various aspects of media literacy emphasized in various conceptual models of media literacy, extensive psychometric properties of the measures are not available ( Quin & McMahon, 1995 ).

Hobbs and Frost (2003) developed similar methods to measure media literacy. They used an intensive qualitative analysis of student responses to assess student media literacy skills based upon the established definition of media literacy described above ( Aufderheide & Firestone, 1993 ). Constructs assessed included students' ability to identify the purpose, target audience, point of view, construction techniques used in media messages, and the ability to identify omitted information from a news media broadcast in written, audio, or visual formats.

Hobbs and Frost found that their measures of media literacy were internally consistent based on Cronbach's alpha values. Additionally, they found that students who engaged in a grade 11 media literacy course significantly improved on these measures, while students in a matched group who received no instruction did not improve ( Hobbs & Frost, 2003 ). This would suggest that these measures had a certain amount of criterion validity, i.e., they demonstrated changes expected when currently accepted standards of media literacy education were applied. However, these researchers did not assess the underlying factor structure of student responses to assess whether it approximated the underlying conceptual model (content validity). Additionally, they did not assess the construct validity of the scale, i.e., whether values on that scale were significantly associated with other constructs related to media literacy.

Another group of researchers developed a scale specifically to assess media literacy with regard to pro-smoking media messages ( Primack et al., 2006a ). These authors used theoretical modeling, item refinement, and factor analysis to develop and validate a scale measuring adolescents' media literacy with regard to smoking ( Primack et al., 2006a ). They then found in consequent analyses that adolescents' overall “smoking media literacy” as measured by this scale was strongly and independently associated with both reduced adolescent smoking and reduced susceptibility to future smoking ( Primack et al., 2006b ). Although these authors did use appropriate psychometric methods to assess content and construct validity of their scale, this scale was specifically designed to assess smoking-related media literacy, which may or may not be related to overall media literacy. Second, these authors used a Likert-type self-report measure of media literacy. It would be valuable to validate instead a measure of media literacy that is objectively assessed by an outside reviewer.

Media literacy and critical thinking

Critical thinking is one particular construct that may be valuable in the validation of any media literacy scale. In his book Media Literacy: Keys to Interpreting Media Messages, Silverblatt (2001) links media literacy and critical thinking skills when he identifies the primary element of media literacy as “a critical thinking skill that enables audiences to develop independent judgments about media content” (p. 2). He continues by stating that media literacy is first and foremost about applying critical thinking skills to the media. Since critical thinking is often a stated educational objective by administrators both in secondary and higher education, media literacy can be seen as a means of achieving widely subscribed to academic goals.

At least one international study supported the link between media literacy and critical thinking. Feuerstein (1999) examined media literacy as a means to develop critical thinking in children ages 10–12 in six Northern Israeli primary schools. After conducting pre- and post-tests to measure the impact of course content in media literacy related materials, Feuerstein concluded that as pupils increased their experience with their media literacy program, they showed greater gains proportionally in media analysis and critical thinking skills ( Feuerstein, 1999 ). Thus, it may be valuable to assess the relationship between critical thinking and any measure that purports to assess media literacy.

Purpose of the current study

There remains a need to rigorously develop, refine, and validate objective measures of media literacy. The purpose of this study was to begin this process by developing a pilot measure of media literacy and assessing its psychometric properties. Our process began with the development of an objective measurement scale based upon an established conceptual model of media literacy. Aim 1 of the study was then to determine internal consistency of each of the three subscales (radio, TV, and print) as well as the overall scale (Aim 1). We hypothesized that each of these measures of media literacy would be internally consistent according to Cronbach's alpha values (Hypothesis 1). Second, we aimed to assess the content validity of the measure by comparing the underlying factor structure of the measurement data with the conceptual model (Aim 2). We hypothesized that the underlying factor structure would approximate the theoretical basis of the scale (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we aimed to assess construct validity of the scale by comparing media literacy values with an assessment of critical thinking, a construct closely aligned with that of media literacy (Aim 3). We hypothesized that the composite media literacy score would be significantly correlated with composite critical thinking score as measured by the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) (Hypothesis 3).

Conceptual model of media literacy

We developed a conceptual model ( Table 1 ) based on models specific to media literacy (Aufderheide, NAMLE) and broadly related to education (Bloom). In 1993, a group of media literacy scholars met to define media literacy and discuss implications for the field. Their meeting resulted in the following definition: “The ability to understand, analyze, evaluate and create media messages in a wide variety of forms” ( Aufderheide & Firestone, 1993 ). For the purposes of this measurement, we will use this definition with one exception. Specifically, it is beyond the purview of this work to assess the ability of an individual to create a media message. Thus, our working definition of media literacy will be “The ability to understand, analyze, and evaluate media messages in a wide variety of forms.”

Theoretical framework of media literacy.

The National Association of Media Literacy Education has adopted Core Principles of Media Literacy and associated Key Questions of Media Literacy that further define the central domains of this construct. As have others ( Hobbs & Frost, 2003 ; Primack et al., 2006a ), we used these core principles to underlie our conceptual framework of media literacy ( Table 1 ). While few curriculum theorists are familiar with the field of media literacy ( Scrimshaw, 1992 ), the media literacy measure in this study was also linked to the general taxonomy of learning established by Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus (1971) .

Our ultimate conceptual model consisted of five domains: recall, purpose, viewpoint, technique, and evaluation ( Table 1 ). These domains correspond to similar constructs described by Aufderheide, NAMLE, and Bloom ( Table 1 ). The “Recall” domain assesses basic understanding of and access to the media message. The “Purpose” domain assesses comprehension of the purpose of the message. The “Viewpoint” domain assesses both whether the participant can indentify: (1) the sender of the message, and (2) what points-of-view may be left out of the message. The “Technique” domain assesses an individual's ability to analyze the techniques that were used to attract attention. Finally, the “Evaluation” domain assesses how an individual evaluates that message in comparison to his/her own perspective. Thus, this domain will include an individual's subjective assessment of his/her attitudinal reaction to the message as well as other implications of the message.

Setting and participants

The target population for this study was college students enrolled at a Christian liberal and applied arts and sciences college in Pennsylvania. A purposive sample of students in a Communication-based course that is open to non-Communication-based majors was utilized to provide a degree of diversity in the participants. Future testing could be expanded to other institutions, classes that are focused on other disciplines, or a more generally diverse population.

Participants for the study were gathered from an undergraduate class at the institution where the researcher is an associate professor of communication. Their willingness to participate was ascertained through the processes dictated by the IRBs at Duquesne University and Messiah College. Participation was not a condition for a grade in the course in which the testing was conducted. By measuring a diversely enrolled communication-based class the researcher aimed to assemble a population that was representative of the student body. The sample size was 34. This number provided a reasonable amount of data for correlational analysis.

Media literacy

Our media literacy scale consisted of seven measures ( Table 1 ) corresponding to the five domains in our conceptual framework. The “recall” score (0–5) was based on responses to each of seven specific recall items. The “purpose” score (range, 0–5) was based on response to the open-ended purpose item shown in Table 1 . Similarly, each of the other scores (“sender,” “missing,” “technique,” “evaluation,” “inference”) were similarly scored from 0–5. Open-ended responses were evaluated and converted to objective scores based on the work of Worsnop. Specifically, in Assessing Media Work , Worsnop (1996) provides an “Assessment Scale for Response to Media Texts” that guided the conversion of students' open-ended responses to numerical scores. Each of these media literacy measures was assessed for each of three media examples: one radio, one television, and one print. This was done to acknowledge Aufderheide's suggestion that media literacy assess various abilities “in a variety of forms.” We selected these particular types of media following the lead of Hobbs and Frost (2003) . Finally, the use of three different media analysis situations would seem to be a reasonable minimum to base a reliable assessment of mastery ( Gagné & Briggs, 1979 ).