Throwback to our event with the different Master Class summaries and recommendations from participants.
“Big Data, Internet of Toys and The Privacy Paradox : Great Opportunity or Privacy Nightmare ?”
This theme was facilitated by Stephane Chaudron from Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
Internet-connected Toys (IoToys), like any other Internet of Things (IoT) devices, contain embedded electronic and computing features, such as microphones, cameras, sensors of various kinds that enable them to interact with users and adapt to their actions. They can record, store, analyze and share all sorts of data: sound, images, movements, localities or even body parameters, depending on their configuration.
If IoToys can offer new, important opportunities to children for play, learning, health and educational support, to mention a few, they also raise questions about safety, security, privacy, trust and other fundamental rights of children. Indeed, IoToys, like any internet connected device, participate in fueling data within the large caldron of the “Big data” and provide raw material to algorithmic technologies for behavioral and preferences analyses and profiling.
In this masterclass, presented and moderated by Stephane Chaudron, participants discussed about how the internet landscape is changing, how privacy perception and privacy behavior can be paradoxical and what the elements that matters in the equation are. Through hands-on and game based activities, they debated on how to protect your online privacy, to avoid “algorithmic bubbles” and what are the important parameters and tools to be considered for detecting disinformation and fake news.
Finally, the masterclass was an occasion to reflect on what digital literacy should embrace and what recommendations could be made to policy makers to empower digital citizens and protect their fundamental rights in the digital world.
At the end of the masterclass, participants pointed three important findings:
– We now speak about Internet of EVERYthings: we are surrounded by connected toys. Internet of toys is a starting point to raise the interest to this topic.
– Tools exist to protect our privacy, but we need of digital skills to use them and to make a personalized risk assessment.
– Paradox of privacy: there is a difference between perception and behaviors, depending of offered benefits.
What would be their recommendations?
– For media educators: guide people to make their own risks assessment and increase awareness about the business model.
– For policy makers: increase awareness about the bigdata business model.
“Defining and evaluating media literacy as competences based on different frameworks”
This second topic was facilitated by Pierre Fastrez from the Groupe de Recherche en Mediation des Savoirs, UCLouvain.
This Masterclass consisted in a lecture and a workshop. The lecture was dedicated to the introduction of the issue of defining and evaluating media literacy as competences, and to the review of reference frameworks. The workshop was organized in small groups of participants work on the application of the frameworks to their own media education/media literacy projects.
Although the media education and media literacy community has long agreed on a standard definition for media literacy (Aufderheide & Firestone, 1993), there seems to be little agreement of what competences media literacy specifically consists in, or even on the fact that media literacy is indeed a (set of) competence(s).
The master class covered the topic of how digital and media literacy has been defined in terms of competences or skills in the literature, by reviewing several existing definitions and frameworks (e.g. Carretero Gomez, Vuorikari, & Punie, 2017 ; Fastrez, 2010 ; Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, & Robison, 2006 ; Mioduser, Nachmias, & Forkosh-Baruch, 2008 ; van Dijk & van Deursen, 2014).
The different organizing principles in the frameworks were highlighted in order to compare and contrast their overall logic, and to assess their usefulness in the evaluation of media literacy. Participants were invited to apply one or several of these frameworks to one media education/media literacy initiative from their own professional context.
In term of this masterclass, participants noticed three important findings:
– Despite the long history of media education, media literacy assessment seems to be seldom practiced by media educators. Media literacy assessment is requested.
Nevertheless, it would be necessary to assess Media Literacy, in order to document the efficiency of media education initiatives.
– There are many alternative frameworks and methods for Media Literacy assessment, quantitative or qualitative, but not a one fits all -solution. Decide the method best suited for your project.
Their recommendations would be:
Media educators should be able to do this tailoring work: to assemble the best-fitted approach to Media Literacy assessment based on their own context, and for that, they should educate themselves about the existing alternatives approaches in terms of media literacy assessment.
One of the discussion groups also noted that the existing framework do not take cultural background into consideration. This can be a problem to multicultural projects.
Participants suggested these concrete steps:
Translate al that complex framework to a simple one tu use guide to evaluate media literacy.
Create understandable and easy access media literacy assessment material!”
“Between Protection and Social Scoring – How does Media Education relate to Control and Regulation? »
This masterclass was facilitated by Benjamin Thull, expert on protection of minors at the Media Authority of Baden-Württemberg and Prof. Dr. Andreas Büsch, Catholic University of Mainz.
In this master class, two issues of media regulation were discussed: New efforts in the area of child protection as well as official and covert assessments of individuals. Are commercial services really to blame even when governments collect data to evaluate individuals? There are more and more rating systems (e.g. in China) which influence the social situation of users. Behind the different types of assessment and restriction are cultural and ethical principles which media educators should be aware of.
In terms of the discussions, participants names 3 important findings:
– Social media services are game changers for Protection of Minors (PoM)
– Protection of Minors vs. Media literacy: relation depends on the age
– National law enforcement is limited regarding international companies/services + governments are collecting data as well.
What recommendations are derived from this?
– For media educators:
Develop an ethically-informed attitude, qualify concerning ethical questions, encourage value transfer in projects, address political and ethical issues in your projects, use alliances and act politically.
– For policy makers:
Enforce existing laws, shape regulation internationally & across different sectors, single services need specific solutions.
What concrete steps can be taken now and then?
– Start a wide social discourse about which values are needed regarding individuals and society: Are there old and new values? Reflect issues of power concerning the definition of values.
– Redefine control of your data: « We have to change the criteria of being naked”
– Media education for the elders
“Global Efforts in Media Literacy : Challenges and Opportunities: international perspectives”
This masterclass was facilitated by Carolyn Wilson, Chair of the Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy (GAPMIL).
This presentation provided an overview of current global initiatives and trends in media literacy education. These include UNESCO’s efforts to promote “media and information literacy (MIL)”, and the work of GAPMIL – the UNESCO-initiated Global Alliance on Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy.
The Master Class also explored work being done in Canada which has played a major role in UNESCO’s efforts. In addition, the presentation highlighted some of the topics identified by Canadian educators as having particular relevance and urgency for young people today, and which highlight the importance of a response rooted in the critical framework of media literacy.
Finally, the Master Class ened with a discussion of 5 Core Principles that underpin media literacy initiatives both in Canada and around the world, and that have applications to both present and future work in the field of media literacy.
Participants identified two findings:
– The new interest from the governments for MIL as strategic defense.
– The new conception of privacy: “I need to protect my own privacy AND be concernd by other people’s privacy.
Their recommandations for media educators would be:
– Update their knowledge (interdisciplinary)
– Co-creation of knowledge and co-animation
– Develop the profession
Their recommandations for policy makers would be:
– Include media education into curriculu.
– Create and support a media educator curriculum.
– Give more visibility to initiatives as “train the trainers”
For media professionals:
– Include them into actions
What concrete steps could be taken?
– Leverage e-training initiatives
– Creation of a Media Education Observatory