How Are We Doing?

In the Media Education Forum, discussions revolved around what is already going well in the field and what still needs improvement.

An essential part of Media Education Forums are the workshops where media education experts discuss current issues together. This year, one of the forum’s workshops focused on examining the comprehensiveness, systematicity, and quality of Finnish media education, as well as brainstorming pathways towards an even better future.

The workshop utilised the “me-we-us” method, where everyone first reflects on the theme individually, then in small groups. Finally, the thoughts produced by the small groups are shared collectively. Each group was particularly encouraged to produce at least one “key idea” – the most important aspect that should be further developed. Comprehensiveness, systematicity, and quality were chosen as the guiding themes for the examination, as their development is the main goal of national media education policy.

Strengths of media education, things already well implemented, were identified in every group. The most frequently mentioned was the broad field of actors: we have many professionals and expertise. The diversity of the NGO sector was particularly highlighted, but the media education work of libraries, the more inclusive and diverse representation in various media, and KAVI’s role as a coordinator of national and international cooperation were also praised.

Often mentioned strengths included reaching children and especially young people. Reach is promoted not only by a wide field of actors but also by curricula that emphasise media literacy, obliging educational providers. High-quality, readily available, and diverse media education materials for various target groups were also highlighted by several groups. Finnish media education research and multidisciplinary cooperation between actors were recognised as strengths in several groups’ discussions. Legislation supporting media education, the promotion of digital skills, and the media education field’s ability to make new and interesting openings were also cited as strengths.

The range of key areas for development was even broader than for strengths. Most often mentioned in the groups was reaching certain target groups, particularly adults and seniors. There was also seen to be plenty of work in reaching people in vulnerable positions, such as those outside of education and work, as well as various minorities, like immigrants or people with learning difficulties. Target group sensitivity was a topic of discussion in many groups: there are activities and materials, but do they consider and engage different people in various life situations and stages? Equality and equity were widely discussed not only in terms of target groups but also from the perspectives of regional equality and variations between teaching groups.

In many groups, it was also recognised that media education work needs to be more long-term to develop its impact and coverage. This would also be supported by more comprehensive and long-term funding for activities. Many groups also called for more training, particularly training that would reach professionals from various fields, such as childminders and social workers. Collaboration was seen as both a strength and an area for development.

Content-wise, there was a desire for greater emphasis on critical media literacy and the societal and communal dimensions of media literacy in the future. More research-based and interdisciplinary approaches were also desired, but at the same time, the field’s difficulties, especially in universities, were recognised: there are currently few active researchers in media education, and due to budget cuts, the situation is likely to worsen in the future.

So, what were the “key ideas” for development? There were many, so I will summarise just a few from each small group:

• High-quality lifelong media education
• Future orientation and media education as part of democracy education
• Addressing the mismatch problem by tailoring media education to different target groups, recognising vulnerable groups and their skills, and providing suitable contact methods
• Counteracting “worry talk”
• Ensuring regional equality
• Pre- and in-service training
• Promoting interdisciplinary research
• National guidance and campaigns to reach all age groups, state media education actors being more visible in public and promoting good practices in media education
• Long-term funding, money & cooperation

As noted in the workshops, we already have many things going well in media education in Finland. If we can jointly address these development proposals, the comprehensiveness, systematicity, and quality of media education will be even better in the future.

A total of 38 experts, representing a wide range of organisations involved in media education, participated in the workshop. Thank you to all participants for your expert comments and idea sharing!

Text:
Saara Salomaa, Senior Adviser
National Audiovisual Institute

Image: iStock/Perawit Boonchu