Textbook Tasks for Social Change: Instantiation of Development Debates and Interposition of Pedagogical Interventions in Media Literacy Education

John N. Ponsaran
{"title":"Textbook Tasks for Social Change: Instantiation of Development Debates and Interposition of Pedagogical Interventions in Media Literacy Education","authors":"John N. Ponsaran","doi":"10.5590/jssc.2023.15.2.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As materialization of their discursive stance as instructional communicators and media producers, textbook authors instantiate various development debates as well as interpose a wide range of pedagogical interventions for critical reflection and adoption by learners. This qualitative study sought to situate these development debates and the counterpart pedagogical interventions within the context of textbook task design as an application and embodiment of social justice communication. The development debates serve as the proposed contexts for media text analyses, reflective exercises, case studies, and media production, among others. Correspondingly, the interposition of interventions allows students to make sense of and act upon the instantiated development debates. Intrigued by the intricacies of textbook task design, I undertook this media education inquiry to contribute to the goals of foregrounding pressing development and policy issues and applying appropriate critico-creative pedagogies. By employing critical thematic analysis, I was able to extract, code, and interpret the qualitative data that revealed the diverse but interconnected socio-sectoral issues and the dialectical categories of pedagogical interventions. As contextual themes, the following development debates surfaced: poverty-related, governance-related, election-related, migration-related, tourism- and sports-related, women- and gender-related, misrepresentation- and marginalization-related, information- and media-related, and technology-related issues. As forms of intermediation, the interposition of pedagogical interventions to development debates can be classified into the following dialectical categories, namely: traditional versus critical, individual versus collective, isolated versus intersectional, personal versus structural, and academic versus more than academic.","PeriodicalId":484360,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sustainable Social Change","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sustainable Social Change","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5590/jssc.2023.15.2.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As materialization of their discursive stance as instructional communicators and media producers, textbook authors instantiate various development debates as well as interpose a wide range of pedagogical interventions for critical reflection and adoption by learners. This qualitative study sought to situate these development debates and the counterpart pedagogical interventions within the context of textbook task design as an application and embodiment of social justice communication. The development debates serve as the proposed contexts for media text analyses, reflective exercises, case studies, and media production, among others. Correspondingly, the interposition of interventions allows students to make sense of and act upon the instantiated development debates. Intrigued by the intricacies of textbook task design, I undertook this media education inquiry to contribute to the goals of foregrounding pressing development and policy issues and applying appropriate critico-creative pedagogies. By employing critical thematic analysis, I was able to extract, code, and interpret the qualitative data that revealed the diverse but interconnected socio-sectoral issues and the dialectical categories of pedagogical interventions. As contextual themes, the following development debates surfaced: poverty-related, governance-related, election-related, migration-related, tourism- and sports-related, women- and gender-related, misrepresentation- and marginalization-related, information- and media-related, and technology-related issues. As forms of intermediation, the interposition of pedagogical interventions to development debates can be classified into the following dialectical categories, namely: traditional versus critical, individual versus collective, isolated versus intersectional, personal versus structural, and academic versus more than academic.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
社会变革的教科书任务:发展辩论的实例和媒介素养教育中教学干预的介入
作为教学传播者和媒体生产者的话语立场的具体化,教科书作者实例化了各种发展辩论,并为学习者的批判性反思和采用提供了广泛的教学干预。这项定性研究试图将这些发展辩论和相应的教学干预置于教科书任务设计的背景下,作为社会正义沟通的应用和体现。发展辩论可作为媒体文本分析、反思练习、案例研究和媒体制作等的拟议背景。相应地,干预的介入使学生能够理解实例化的发展辩论并采取行动。教科书任务设计的复杂性引起了我的兴趣,我进行了这次媒体教育调查,以期为突出紧迫的发展和政策问题以及应用适当的批判性创造性教学法的目标做出贡献。通过采用批判性的主题分析,我能够提取、编码和解释定性数据,这些数据揭示了多样化但相互关联的社会部门问题和教学干预的辩证类别。作为背景主题,下列发展辩论浮出了台面:与贫困有关的、与治理有关的、与选举有关的、与移民有关的、与旅游和体育有关的、与妇女和性别有关的、与歪曲和边缘化有关的、与信息和媒体有关的以及与技术有关的问题。作为中介形式,教学干预对发展辩论的介入可以分为以下辩证类别,即:传统与批判,个人与集体,孤立与交叉,个人与结构,学术与超越学术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Experiences of Women in Sierra Leone Relating to Accessing Breast Cancer Treatment Textbook Tasks for Social Change: Instantiation of Development Debates and Interposition of Pedagogical Interventions in Media Literacy Education Walden’s New Journal! Journal of Sustainable Social Change
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1