Resources

Forty years after the Grünwald Declaration (UNESCO, 1982), 15 years after the Paris Declaration (UNESCO, 2007) and 10 years after the publication of the UNESCO Curriculum for Teachers (UNESCO, 2011), the second edition of this important document (UNESCO, 2021) clearly reaffirms the need to train educators, and citizens, in Media Information Literacy (MIL): ‘Fostering the changes in the formal, non-formal and informal education sector that would result from the introduction of MIL and its impact on educators’ professional development is an important goal of this curriculum’ (p. 8). This section of the MIL CC course aims to contribute to that goal by supporting trainers in the design, implementation and evaluation of training sessions in MIL, AI literacy, and disinformation awareness, particularly employing active methodologies suitable for both online and in-person sessions, and for independent learner activities.

Teaching ILM does not mean teaching new content, but rather a different way of planning, implementing and evaluating pedagogical activities, regardless of the context (formal, informal or non-formal) in which they are developed. To this end, this document addresses initial considerations to be taken into account before training, points out precautions to be taken when starting a training course, suggests pedagogical strategies for implementing activities and evaluating them, both in terms of learning achieved and the perception of trainees and trainers in relation to the training itself.

Organising training activities for different audiences in ILM involves careful preparation, continuous reflection and improvement of the training, based on the evaluation carried out, ensuring that the methodologies implemented (and the resources used) are adapted and effective in the specific contexts of the learners. To this end, we begin by presenting a set of considerations:

• Consider the use of step-by-step training activities – suggested in the MIL CC course – that facilitate a deeper understanding of concepts, apart from encouraging interaction and engagement.
• Adapt activities and discussions to the specific needs and knowledge level of the participants.
• Consider the age of the learners when selecting and adapting activities. Activities are differentiated for age appropriateness.
• Ensure that the learning activities are inclusive and accessible for learners with diverse needs and backgrounds.
• Foster collaboration among all stakeholders of the local community for a holistic approach to MIL. This is implemented through training activities that specifically target work with different stakeholder groups.

A training course should be started with activities that help participants relax and build rapport, such as:

• Icebreakers: begin with “get-to-know-each-other” activities to foster a positive learning environment. Examples include brief self-introductions, pair-sharing, or group discussions based on shared images related to digital citizenship.
• Agreeing on Group Rules: Facilitate a collaborative process where participants establish ground rules for the training sessions, promoting democratic learning and establishing expectations for respectful interaction (to access a ready-made activity plan on this topic, please have a look at Raulin-Serrier, Soriani, Styslavska e Tomé, 2020, pp. 12-13)

Pedagogical strategies can be organised into two groups. The first is theoretical content (for example, explaining and discussing essential concepts, presenting projects in the field and research results), using methodologies such as directed and semi-directed teaching, reading, reflection and discussion activities. For example, when exploring concepts (which in the MIL CC course are defined right at the start), the trainer should pay attention to three aspects::

• Provide clear and concise definitions of key concepts such as ‘MIL’, ‘Algorithm’, ‘AI’ and ‘Disinformation’.
• Fit the concepts into the frameworks and/or theoretical models within which they were created, such as the eight-competence model proposed by the European Commission, with an emphasis on Digital Competence (Vuorikari, Kluzer and Punie, 2022), the model of 19 knowledge and skills and six values and attitudes proposed by UNESCO (2021) or that of the Council of Europe, which sees MIL as one of the 10 domains of Digital Citizenship Education (Council of Europe, 2019; Richardson and Miloividov, 2019).
• Use real-world examples to illustrate each domain and its relevance to the students’ lives. Case studies, news articles, and personal experiences can be effectively integrated.

The second group assumes a theoretical-practical logic (realisation of the activity), and can be based on the methodologies referred below:

• Critical discussions: facilitate participatory discussions that encourage critical analysis, reflection, and the sharing of diverse perspectives, promoting the democratic ideal.
• Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Inquiry-Based Learning (IBL): structuring an ongoing activity, carried out in groups, based on the interest of the participants and the conditions of the context in which they live, encouraging independent learning and critical analysis through problem-solving exercises (e.g., creating online content – blogs, podcasts, videos-  designing MIL campaigns) and responding to a problem identified in that specific context (e.g. lack of training for citizens in fact-checking).
• Experiential learning: by implementing project work in their community, participants must apply the lessons learnt during the training course in a real-life context, as well as carrying out ongoing reflection throughout the process.
• Co-operative learning: learning with peers, which fosters collaboration and co-operation, takes place not only within each group, but also between groups.

A traditional MIL proposal that remains very current is the use of the five key MIL questions proposed by the Center of Media Literacy (Share, Jolls and Thoman, 2005), through which participants analyse media messages, identifying the techniques used, embedded values, and viewpoints represented, using worksheets and facilitated discussions. Para tal, partem de real-world media examples (advertisements, news articles, movie clips, etc.) to illustrate key concepts and connect learning to learners’ everyday lives.

We briefly present the questions here, but we strongly recommend exploring documents such as the Center of Media Literacy (Share, Jolls and Thoman, 2005), which offers structured lessons to move from basic skills in analysing media messages to more advanced skills in creating and evaluating media messages, and in understanding the subtle influence of media on individuals and society. The questions, which can be applied to different media messages, are as follows:

• Who created this message? (focuses on authorship and the constructed nature of media).
• What creative techniques are used to attract my attention? (explores the language of media – visual, auditory, etc.).
• How might different people understand this message differently? (emphasizes audience interpretation and varied perspectives).
• What values, lifestyles, and points of view are represented in, or omitted from, this message? (examines embedded values and viewpoints in media).
• Why is this message being sent? (investigates the purpose and motives behind the message).

The ‘Five key questions’ serve as a consistent framework that underpins the activities. The methodology emphasizes active participation, reflection, and collaborative learning to develop students’ critical thinking and media literacy skills. Activity assessment focuses less on formal assessments, and more on observing students’ work, facilitating discussion, and assessing their understanding through active participation in activities and critical discussions.

Using evaluation tools to assess both the effectiveness of the training and the learning outcomes of the participants is an essential aspect of the training, as it enables to both reflect on their effectiveness and to inform future sessions. The resources for evaluating the sessions are available in Module 3 (‘Resources for MIL teaching: videos, games, activities for MIL’), in different formats. To evaluate the satisfaction of the participants and the effectiveness of the training, different forms can be used, such as:

• Written evaluation (e.g., a structured questionnaire): prompts participants to rate their satisfaction with the training based on their expectations, the achievement of learning objectives, and their understanding of key concepts. Open-ended questions allow for qualitative feedback on valuable learning experiences and suggestions for future improvements.
• Oral evaluation: involves a facilitated discussion where participants share their thoughts and feelings about the training. One strategy could be the “Complete the Sentence” activity to stimulate feedback if participants are hesitant to speak freely. Alternatively, a less formal method involving tossing a ball around a circle and having each person answer a summarising question is presented.
• Visual evaluation: employs a visual tool, a ‘spider web’ (Photo 1) where participants rate different aspects of the training (needs assessment, aims and objectives, structure and sequence, content, activities and methods, materials, and interaction and roles). Each criterion has multiple levels, represented by sections in the web that can be colored in to reflect participant’s assessment.

The following methods are suggested for evaluating learning, i.e. the impact of the training on the participants:

• Observational: trainers observe learners’ behaviours in various situations (online quizzes, problem-solving activities, collaborative tasks) to assess their understanding and application of MIL concepts.
• Dynamic: trainers provide active support during the assessment process to identify learners’ maximum proficiency, using online tasks, interviews, or self-assessments.
• Project-based: Learners’ MIL competence is evaluated through real-world projects, campaigns, or research.
• Portfolio: a cumulative collection of student work (tests, creative work, self- and peer-assessments) provides a comprehensive picture of their progress.

Council of Europe. (2019). Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on developing and promoting digital citizenship education. Accessed at: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=090000168098de08

Raulin-Serrier, P., Soriani, A., Styslavska, O. & Tomé, V. (2020), Digital Citizenship Education – Trainers’ Pack. Strasbourg: Council of Europe

Richardson, J & Miloividiv. E. (2019). Digital Citizenship Education Handbook. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Share, J, Jolls, T & Thoman, E. (2005). Five Key Questions that can change the world – Lesson Plans for Media Literacy. Los Angeles (CA): Center of Media Literacy. Accessed at: https://mlw.namle.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/cml25lessons.pdf

UNESCO. (1982). Grünwald Declaration. Accessed at: http://www.UNESCO.org/education/pdf/MEDIA_E.PDF 

UNESCO. (2007). Paris Agenda or 12 recommendations for media education.  Acedido em: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/Parisagendafin_en.pdf

UNESCO. (2011), Media and Information Literacy: curriculum for teachers, Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2021). Media and information literate citizens: think critically, click wisely!. Paris: UNESCO. Acedido em: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377068

Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S. and Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens, EUR 31006 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. ISBN 978-92-76-48882-8, Accessed at: doi:10.2760/115376, JRC128415