Keywords: IWB, Great Britain, effective learning, teaching experience.

Dissertation
The interactive whiteboard (IWB) is fast becoming a global phenomenon, appearing in learning environments for all ages on all continents. Indeed in 2010, over a million more interactive whiteboards are forecast to be installed (Futuresource Consulting, 2009). The adoption of the IWB has been supported by governments around the world based on research pilots which have pointed towards the transformative impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching and learning. However, with austerity measures now being required across Europe, it is inevitable that the value of this investment will come under increasing scrutiny.
The UK was one of the earliest adopters of the IWB and, as such, countries are increasingly looking at its experience to assess the impact that the technology has had to date.  72% of all UK learning spaces are now equipped with IWBs (Futuresource Consulting, 2009), with take-up accelerated as a result of the Government’s Interactive Whiteboard Expansion initiative (2004/5) when £50 million funding was allocated following a series of successful test bed cases around the country. IWBs have therefore been in situ for a number of years, and research findings are gradually emerging which paint a picture of their impact.
According to Becta (1), 95% of teachers believe the use of technology is raising standards in schools and colleges (Becta, 2009), with IWBs in particular offering a valuable way of introducing ICT into the classroom.
The design and interface of the IWB is reminiscent of a traditional board, making interactive use of ICT more accessible, even for the less technology-savvy of teachers (University of London, 2002).
As a presentation tool, it offers a powerful, clear display; easy integration of multimedia content and regulated access to the internet (DCFS and BECTA, 2007). As such, it enables teachers to demonstrate a wide range of concepts, while removing many of the time-consuming elements of writing on a traditional board. For instance, diagrams can be easily drawn from the internet and annotated in real-time, increasing the pace of delivery and allowing more time for quality teaching. In addition, the ability to save, record and print flipchart files saves time, supports revision, and promotes the sharing of resources among students and teachers (Becta, 2004).
More important, however, is the transformational effect IWBs have had on learning. They appeal to different learning styles, and through the process of participation, they promote high levels of interaction, support links between learning episodes, and encourage individuals to take ownership of their learning (Cambridgeshire ICT Services, 2008).
Indeed, teachers often report evidence of change, such as students producing higher quality work, becoming more independent learners, and wanting to use the resources in their own time (Prior, 2010).
Yet, it is also clear from the research that to fully realise the benefits of IWBs, training and promotion of effective pedagogy around the IWB must accompany the introduction of the technology (University of Stockholm, 2006; Becta, 2004).
Schools and teachers still differ vastly in their attitude and approach to implementing technology. Those who are more enthusiastic about the IWB tend to embrace its use and want to explore the opportunities that it brings to the classroom. It is therefore important that schools and teachers are aware of the IWB training available, both face-to-face and online. In addition, regular access to IWBs is essential as it enables teachers to practise their skills and become confident users of the technology. Similarly, providing access to software outside the classroom makes it far easier for teachers to prepare lesson content and explore its versatility (University of Stockholm, 2006).
Furthermore, as IWB use continues to evolve, the technology is increasingly being seen as a hub to which you can attach additional solutions. A technology that is proving particularly popular is Learner Response Systems, which allows individual students to participate through handheld devices and provides teachers with instant insight into their understanding. There is also a growing interest in Visual Presenters, which enable teachers to capture, display and annotate still and moving images.

A practical example in the primary context
To illustrate the potential of the interactive whiteboard in a primary context, I will discuss an example based around making Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream more accessible to younger children. This is a lesson I have delivered regularly in training schools on making best use of interactive whiteboards.
With a relatively young audience it needs to be approached with obvious learning objectives clearly defined. This is particularly pertinent today when children’s attention span has been defined by their natural gravitation towards fast moving technology and multimedia. 
A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a play about relationships and people: a superb mix of comedy and drama based around three worlds of lovers, fairies and mechanicals. Using different facets of the interactive software, learners can be encouraged to think about characters, explore language and discuss the impact of settings and context. A range of devices within the software can be deployed to support this, and once learners are engrossed in Shakespeare’s plot, this can be used as a springboard for further creativity, leading the class to develop their own characters and scripts, subsequently recording and playing back this new story, again using tools within the interactive whiteboard and accompanying software. The way this learning unfolds is described below.
It is important to use images which naturally lend themselves to discussion of character and personality. For example, the interactive whiteboard could be used as an introductory «big book», used to present images relating to certain aspects of the play – such as the fairies.

A flipchart is then composed out of layers of images including: 

* A background
* Characters
* Text 
* Handwritten annotations

This page offers the teacher the chance to pull in characters.  These characters may be stored just off the edge of the page or within the library of resources. It may well be appropriate to have a clean page for each character. Using the pen allows the teacher to transfer comfortably skills from using a conventional whiteboard to engaging with basic annotation on an interactive whiteboard.
The fact that characters can be resized means that even within this page, whichever character is being discussed it can become more prominent by use of resizing.  Dragging «handles» is hopefully a trait that has been used within other software platforms.

Another useful device is to have speech bubbles «available» to drag in as receptacles for pupils’ suggested dialogue; this type of resource or tool can easily be prepared in advance thereby not interrupting the flow of the lesson.
Here aspect/size ratio is clearly identified, with two «smaller» characters in the background, offering discussion around character and plot. 

The use of text within a page is an obvious progression from using handwritten words.  Within this page the text can be pulled in from the edge or can already be in place.  Highlighting words that are significant using the highlighter pen is obvious, but an alternative would be the use of the fill bucket which allows words to be individually coloured.

So far we have concentrated on text and images, but there are features which allow for much more interactivity. There is a danger if pages are merely seen as large on-screen versions of a book then the IWB’s true power gets misconstrued.
The use of a circle in the middle of a page is a very versatile and effective way of generating quality discussion, debate and information gathering.

This simple drag and drop activity means that comparison of personalities could be made by, for example, dragging in Helena and Titania.
The focus is on the middle of the circle and the teacher is able to drag and drop words or more pictures in.
Resources within the flipchart pages can be enhanced through the use of hyperlinks to other resources such as:

* Another document or file
* A website
* A sound
* Another page in the flipchart

In this example, the character, Bottom, is about to receive his ass’s head.

It would be very easy to replicate this page, click on Bottom and the duplicated page has him now complete with ass’s head. This type of seamless integration of hyperlinks offers an element of pace to a lesson. Another use of the hyperlink facility enables teachers to activate page notes on each page by clicking on the icon. 
In this example, although there is some background information about the page within the page’s notes, there is also a suggestion for use. 

Changing the background would just be a case of replacing an image.
If Oberon and Puck were moved to another setting how would this affect their conversation?

If the play were set somewhere else, how could this affect the way the three groups operate and interact with each other?
Shakespeare has set the play in Greece but, by introducing the «mechanicals», he grounds it in England.  The pages can be printed so that the pupils can use them as a stimulus for writing.
Using this page the children could look at writing a scene in a particular genre for the characters shown. 

Sound could so easily then be included.  The children record their voices as the different characters and these sound files, stored on the hard drive of the host computer, could be linked to each of the images.
To summarise, I have tried to consider the most effective use of an IWB to enhance teaching and learning in the classroom by adding pace, interest and interactivity. These include:

* Children need to recognise how a background forms the basis of a story. Adding characters and then changing the background offer excellent discussion opportunities.  Oberon and Puck move from the forest to downtown Portsmouth at the click of a button.  How will their conversation now be affected?

* The camera snapshot tool, available in most IWB software, allows images of any shape to be added to a page.  Therefore the above image could easily be broken into several pictures as could any photo or image to which the school has access.  To be able to “storyboard” the story in this way offers pupils a very sound writing platform.

* Having a page of text clearly displayed on the IWB allows for so much more than just reading.  It becomes possible to annotate over the text, for example with words which reflect the senses, additional adjectives and their antonyms. What makes these words much more inspirational is that they can be moved around the board; they can be moved to a “clean” page, where the picture, having been the stimulus, will not now act as a distraction; the words can be resized according to their significance in their description.

* Being able to record sounds just by clicking a button – voices, musical instruments or sound effects.

* Using a choice of different pen widths and colours to model writing, adding interesting words for further discussion.

* Using the «fill» facility to highlight specific vocabulary by changing the colour of individual words.

* Using the countdown clock to add further engagement.

* Using the blind to expose only parts of the page at a time.

* Using the spotlight to draw attention to a specific word or character.

* Children drawing onto a photo imported from a digital camera.  The photograph can obviously be anything, from a known place or from a trip or place recently visited. 

* Having the IWB continuously available for spontaneous use will clearly encourage some children to explore. Children very quickly understand how to find pictures and even with limited reading skills can often find what they need.  Having a folder which links to a topic or theme that children can access is an easy way of encouraging independence.

* Focus circles – Arrange a number of words and/or pictures around a circle.  Dragging two or more of these into the middle allows for children to create interesting sentences.  This is particularly effective when looking at a specific topic where children’s prior knowledge can be explored.  How are they able to combine various key vocabulary?

* Modelling difficult concepts on the board for children allows them to see how they might approach a problem, or how they may record their findings. Rearranging food on the table and recording the different arrays using the camera tool is a perfect way of teaching about a systematic approach to how many ways can you rearrange three items of food. Children can then use this model in a practical activity to develop their understanding.

Lessons for teachers
IWBs and technology will not guarantee an effective delivery of the curriculum, but has the potential for creating a rich and exciting environment which can accommodate a range of learning styles both for the teacher and the children. Developing an engaging and stimulating environment for young children to grow in confidence and become motivated to find out about their world is crucial in any classroom.  Offering a range of activities that foster independence as well as allowing for adult intervention means that each child’s needs can be catered for.  Today’s children, born into our multimedia world will be the creators of tomorrow.
Teachers need to own the way in which technology can be developed in order that children can engage with its full potential. They should create learning activities which suit the needs of their learners.  IWB software should not be limited by prescriptive functions and but should work in tandem with content providers who have a wealth of materials that need to be digitised if their continuing true value is to be realised.  Formative as well as summative assessment as well as discussion and opinion gathering should be built in as part of the technological experience.  The user of learner response devices can be a tremendous bonus to the IWB, and will further support teaching and learning potential.

Interactive whiteboards are more about communication than technology, a comfortable catalyst for speaking and listening. The power with which they grasp their audience means that attention is both focused and purposeful. Alongside learning objectives, lessons should reflect a learning journey allowing the travellers to make wrong turnings and discover new territories. Stimulating discussion by manipulating text and images exploits the full potential of an IWB, but this exploitation is not at the expense of experienced practice.  Primary teachers are creative and imaginative in their teaching. They are skilled communicators who recognise that children are extraordinary in their limitless potential to accept and engage with new concepts.
A dynamic presentation on an interactive whiteboard can raise opportunities for collective engagement, offering varied and exciting ways in which learning outcomes can be achieved. They can form the basis for effective use of multimedia including websites, video and audio, interactive software and other digital equipment including electronic microscopes, cameras, scanners and digital presenters. Many children today are visual learners, images, pictures; colour and other visual media help these children learn.  They have been born into a multimedia world often reflected by their bedrooms and home life and they have no fear when it comes to accessing technology.
By careful use of the tools within the software the teacher is able to motivate pupils in a much more stimulating way, engaging the children’s attention as well as making it more appealing to teach. If the children learn things in lots of different ways they are much more likely to remember as well as genuinely understand. The most exciting aspect of using an IWB is that it enhances teaching and learning in the classroom.  A collaborative approach, using a variety of different techniques, means that there is an ownership from both teacher and student of the outcome.

Conclusion
The reality is that IWBs have now become an integral part of the fabric of many classrooms and offer teachers a valuable tool offering a number of benefits, both in terms of the practical advantages for teaching and the transformational effect the technology has on learning.
However, like any tool they must be used effectively to achieve their potential. A clearly defined training strategy and continuing dialogue about pedagogy and IWB use will help teachers to reap the rewards of the technology and ensure innovative and effective use in the classroom.

Margaret Allen is a former primary teacher in the UK and now works as head of European Education Strategy for interactive learning technology provider, Promethean.  

Notes
(1) Becta (the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) was a non-departmental public body of the Department for Children, Schools and Families in the UK prior its demise following the change of Government in the UK in May 2010.

References
Becta (2004), What the research says about interactive whiteboards, http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf
Becta (2009), Raising Standards, http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=41516
Cambridgeshire ICT Services (2008), Action Research Project for the Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, http://c9s.e2bn.net/e2bn/leas/c99/schools/c9s/
DCFS e BECTA (2007), Evaluation of London Challenge Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project, study commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills.
Futuresource Consulting (2009), Quarter 4, http://www.futuresource-consulting.com/
Prior E. (2010), Wellington Primary School, Test Bed Project Case Study.
University of London (2002), Impact on Primary Teaching, King’s College, University of London.
University of Stockholm (2006), Study commissioned by the City of Stockholm comparing use of ActivBoards and Smartboards, Stockholm.

References
Buckingham D. (2010), Il futuro della media literacy nell’era digitale. Sfide per la politica e per la pratica, «Media Education. Studi, ricerche, buone pratiche», n. 1, pp. 27-38
Buckingham D. (2003), Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Calvani A., Fini A. e Ranieri M. (2010), La competenza digitale nella scuola. Modelli e strumenti per promuoverla e svilupparla, Trento, Erickson.
Cappello G. (2009), Nascosti nella luce. Media, minori e media education, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
Celot P. e Tornero J.M.P. (2008), Media Literacy in Europa. Leggere, scrivere e partecipare nell’era mediatica, Roma, Eurilink, Eurispes.
Gee J.P. (2003), What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Jenkins H., Clinton K., Purushotma R., Robison A. J. e Weigel M. (2006), Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the Twenty-first Century, MacArthur Foundation.
Ranieri M. (2010), La media literacy nei documenti dell’Unione europea, «Media Education. Studi, ricerche, buone pratiche», n. 1, pp. 111-116.

Keywords: United States, media literacy, digital learning, assessment, technology, education, learning, teaching.

The United States faces significant challenges in educating all its citizens. Nearly 25% of students do not complete high school. One-third of those who do graduate are unprepared for postsecondary education, forcing colleges and universities to devote time and resources to offering remedial courses. We anticipate that four of every ten new jobs will require some advanced education or training and the thirty fastest growing fields will require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree. Only about 40% of American young people earn a two-year or four-year college degree and significant racial inequalities persist (US Department of Education, 2010).  
To address this situation, schools are in the midst of a digital revolution, as more and more educators are beginning to appreciate the need to prepare students for life in the 21st century. In the United States, there has been an intensive focus by mainstream public education on the acquisition of technology tools for use in the classroom. With more than 15,000 school districts, 3 million teachers and 75 million children in primary and secondary schools, more than $16 billion will be spent in 2010 on educational technology in the United States, not including technology costs in higher education (US Department of Education, 2010).
Hundreds of vendors compete to provide computers and hardware, flat screens and display technology, networking equipment, filtering and monitoring software, multimedia content, resources for online learning and assessment tools. According to the U.S. Department of Education, «Technology provides access to a much wider and more flexible set of learning resources than is available in classrooms and connections to a wider and more flexible set of “educators,” including teachers, parents, experts, and mentors outside the classroom. Engaging and effective learning experiences can be individualized or differentiated for particular learners (either paced or tailored to fit their learning needs) or personalized, which combines paced and tailored learning with flexibility in content or theme to fit the interests and prior experience of each learner» (2010, p. 28).
In general, however, this vision of education focuses on using technology tools to support traditional learning outcomes in English, math, history and science, defined in relation to performance on high-stakes tests. In the field, we find that teachers may or may not be willing to move to more innovative and student-centered approaches to learning. This is true even of young teachers. In a recent survey of preservice teachers’ views on technology use, students said that the best way to learn about the use of technology in education was by observing strategies used by other teachers. When asked, “In your teaching methods courses, which technology tools or techniques are you learning to use?” respondents most often chose the most basic of the 22 answers provided: «using word processing, spreadsheet, or database tools» (Fletcher, 2010). This strongly suggests that a new generation of teachers may not be up for learning innovative strategies that help them incorporate digital and media resources in ways that support digital and media literacy learning.
Another vision of technology integration, one more deeply connected to the humanities, is emerging in the United States. It emphasizes not tool use per se, but a set of competencies or life skills that are necessary for full participation in our highly-mediated society. Digital and media literacy is defined as the ability to: (1) make responsible choices and access information by locating and sharing materials and comprehending information and ideas; (2) analyze messages in a variety of forms by identifying the author, purpose and point of view and evaluating the quality and credibility of the content; (3) create content in a variety of forms for authentic purposes, making use of language, images, sound, and new digital tools and technologies;  (4) reflect on one’s own conduct and communication behavior by applying social responsibility and ethical principles; and (5) take social action by working individually and collaboratively to share knowledge and solve problems in the family, workplace, and community, and participating as a member of a community (Hobbs, in press).

Increasing momentum for empowerment and protection
In October, 2009, the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy (a project of the Communications and Society Program and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation) released its report Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age. In it, the Commission made recommendations covering a continuum of information needs, from good journalism to digital and media literacy, from universal broadband and open networks to transparent government and public engagement.
To develop a nationwide commitment to integrating digital and media literacy as critical elements of education at all levels, The Knight Commission has urged the federal government to launch a national initiative to assess the quality of digital and media literacy programs in the nation’s schools. As the Knight Commission indicated, it will take collaboration among federal, state and local education officials to produce the reforms that are needed.  Other community stakeholders have a role to play as well.
Increased momentum is largely developing because of widespread public awareness of the practical value of digital and media literacy competencies for all 300 million citizens in the United States. To be able to apply for jobs online, people need skills of finding relevant information.  To get relevant health information, people need to be able to distinguish between a crackpot marketing ploy for nutritional supplements and solid information based on research evidence. To take advantage of online educational opportunities, people need to have a good understanding of how knowledge is constructed, how it represents reality and articulates a point of view. For people to take social action and truly engage in actual civic activities that improve their communities, they need to feel a sense of empowerment that comes from working collaboratively to solve problems. 
Digital and media literacy competencies are not only needed to strengthen people’s capacity for engaging with information, but also for addressing potential risks associated with mass media and digital media. For example, concerns about identity theft are emerging as the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reports that 10 million Americans were victimized last year by willingly giving personal information to robbers, often because «they couldn’t distinguish an email from their bank from an email from a predator» (Rothkopf, 2009, p. 5).
In the United States like in many Western European countries, the pendulum swings back and forth over time, through periods of increased (or decreased) concern about the negative aspects of media and technology. Comprehensive research from the European Union identifies three types of risk associated with the digital age:

• content risks including exposure to illegal, harmful or offensive content, including violent/sexual/racist/hate material;
• contact risks, including contact with strangers, privacy, cyberbullying, and cyberstalking; and
• conduct risks involving misinformation, giving out personal information, illegal downloading, gambling, hacking and more (Staksrud, Livingstone, Haddon, and Ólafsson, 2009). 

In the United States, the pendulum-like discourse about risks and opportunities continues to swing back and forth. Recently we have seen anxieties about Internet predators give way to fresh optimism about the possibility that children are developing social learning skills by updating their Facebook pages or playing World of Warcraft (Ito et al, 2008).
Fortunately, most people recognize that protection and empowerment are not in opposition ‒ they are two sides of the same coin. The Internet creates new ways for people to express themselves socially. For example, it enables and extends forms of sexual expression, often in new forms that involve webcams, live chat and pornography. In a country with the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world, a recent report from the Witherspoon Institute (2010) offers compelling evidence that the prevalence of pornography in the lives of many children and adolescents is far more significant than most adults realize, that pornography is deforming the healthy sexual development of young people, and that it is used to exploit children and adolescents. About 15% of teens aged 12-17 report that they have received sexually explicit images on their cell phones from people they knew personally (Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2009). A 2008 Centers for Disease Control report notes that 9% to 35% of young people say they have been victims of electronic aggression.  Sexting and cyberbullying are also examples of how human needs for power, intimacy, trust and respect intersect with the ethical challenges embedded in social participation in a digital environment.
Digital and media literacy will not be a panacea for American social problems, however. And it won’t let media companies and producers off the hook when it comes to their own social responsibility. But as Jenkins et al (2006, p. 19) point out, one key goal of media literacy education is to «encourage young people to become more reflective about the ethical choices they make as participants and communicators and the impact they have on others».

Federal support for digital and media literacy
Typically, education is controlled at the local level in the United States, with each state and school district taking responsibility for developing curriculum frameworks and assessment measures. Limited federal funding for education is available. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) has proposed a bill, the 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund Act, that would provide matching federal funds to states offering students curriculum options that include information literacy and media literacy. According to the bill, «Students need to go beyond just learning today’s academic context to develop critical thinking and problem solving skills, communications skills, creativity and innovation skills, collaboration skills, contextual learning skills, and information and media literacy skills» (Open Congress, 2010). If passed, the bill would appropriate $100 million a year for states that have developed a comprehensive plan for implementing a statewide 21st-century skills initiative and are able to supply matching funds.
Another federal agency, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has created a media literacy online game to teach children ages 8- 12 about the variety of types of advertising in their lives. This federal agency has had a long and complicated relationship with advertising targeted at children. In the 1970s, when the FTC first explored regulating advertising of products targeted to young children, their work was stymied by pressure from the business community. Congress then revised the commission’s mandate in ways that limited their ability to regulate advertising to children (Jordan, 2008). But now the FTC is now taking steps to promote advertising literacy in the classroom with Admongo (www.admongo.gov),  an online multimedia edutainment game and curriculum designed in collaboration with Scholastic, an educational media company. The program is designed to teach children ages 8 to 12 basic principles of advertising literacy, including increasing awareness of types of advertising, understanding ad techniques, and examining methods of targeting audiences.

Approaches to outcomes measurement
There are so many dimensions of media and digital literacy that it will take many years to develop truly comprehensive measures that support the needs of students, educators, policymakers and other stakeholders.  Unfortunately, although «technological literacy» will be part of the 2012 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), this framework will not include digital and media literacy competencies (Cavanaugh, 2009). Instead the focus is on engineering and systems thinking, with the goal to evaluate students’ understanding of «interconnections among technologies».
Measures of digital and media literacy are desperately needed to measure learning progression. Scholars have identified theoretical and conceptual frameworks for measuring media analysis competencies and developed and validated performance-based and questionnaire items for use with adolescents (Hobbs, 2007; Primack et al., 2006). Benchmarks for assessment, targeted to children and young people ages 9, 14 and 19, are needed to both establish the need for new programs and to measure program effectiveness. A simple online test requiring no more than 30 minutes to complete could measure the ability to identify the author, purpose and point of view of messages in print and digital formats, including making judgments of the credibility of information sources and simple media composition activities.
Careful video documentation of instructional practices is essential to generate a base of research evidence to determine which approaches to digital and media literacy education are most likely to empower students to participate fully as citizens of a digital age. An online database of video excerpts of classroom learning can be a resource for teacher education programs nationally and around the world. It can be used as the basis upon which to develop a meaningful test for new teachers to measure their ability to implement digital and media literacy instructional practices into the curriculum. At the present, few states require new teachers to demonstrate competence in digital and media literacy education. The State of Texas does include measures of digital and media literacy education competencies as 15% of the test for new English teachers in Grades 8-12 (Texas Education Agency, 2006), but its methodology of brief written vignettes with multiple choice options limits its effectiveness. The development of an online video documentation database could be developed as an international collaborative venture. Members could be able to upload clips of their own teaching practices and download clips for use in teacher education. Such a database would dramatically improve our knowledge base in teacher education for digital and media literacy education. 

Conclusion
At the heart of the momentum right now for digital and media literacy education is the widely-recognized sense among members of the public that we must work to simultaneously empower and protect people whose everyday lives become more and more saturated and enmeshed with media and digital content. As philosopher John Dewey has made clear, true education arises from thoughtful exploration of the genuine problems we encounter in daily life. In thinking of digital and media literacy as the new humanities, these practices help us engage with ideas and information to make decisions and participate in cultural life.
Rather than view empowerment and protection as opposing points of view, we must see them as two sides of the same coin. Because mass media, popular culture and digital media and technology do contribute to shaping people’s attitudes, behaviors and values, not only in childhood but across a lifetime, there is a public interest in limiting the potential harmful aspects of it. Privacy, physical and psychological safety, and freedom from exposure to objectionable, disturbing or inappropriate material are needed for the healthy development of children and youth. At the same time, empowerment is important because people gain so many personal, social and cultural benefits from making wise choices about information and entertainment, using digital tools for self-expression and communication and participating in online communities with people, around the neighborhood and around the world, who share their interests and concerns. Because it addresses the themes of both protection and empowerment, digital and media literacy offers an approach to technology integration that is more authentic and meaningful than a simple «gee whiz!» gaping over technology tools. Only time will tell if it continues its ascendency as an innovative approach to renew K-12 education in order to prepare students for life in a media-saturated society.   

Renee Hobbs is one of the leading authorities on media literacy education in the United States. She is a Professor at the School of Communications and Theater at Temple University in Philadelphia and holds a joint appointment at the College of Education. She founded the Media Education Lab in the Department of Broadcasting, Telecommunications and Mass Media. Over her career, she has raised over $2.5 million to support media literacy education in the United States. She has written dozens of scholarly articles, created multimedia curriculum resources and offered professional development programs on four continents to advance the quality of media literacy education in the United States and around the world.

References
Cavanaugh S. (2009), Tech group critical of proposed NAEP standards, «Education Week», September 14.
Fletcher J. (2010), A sobering survey, «T.H.E. Journal», Retrieved August 31, 2010 from http://thejournal.com/Articles/2010/06/01/A-Sobering-Survey.aspx.
Hobbs R. (in press), Advancing the Recommendation of the Knight Commission’s Report on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, Washington, DC, Aspen Institute.
Hobbs R. (2007), Reading the media: Media literacy in high school English, New York, Teachers College Press.
Ito M., Horst H., Bittanti M., Boyd D., Herr-Stephenson B., Lange P., Pascoe C.J. and Robinson L. (2008), Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning.
Jenkins H., Clinton K., Purushotma R., Robison A. and Weigel M. (2006), Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century, Chicago, IL, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy (2009), Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age, Washington, DC, The Aspen Institute.
Jordan A. (2008). Children’s media policy, «The Future of Children»,vol.18, n. 1, pp. 235-249.
Open Congress (2010), S1029. 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund Act, http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s1029/show.
Pew Internet & American Life Project (2009), Teens and Sexting, Retrieved August 1, 2010 from http://www.pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx.
Primack B.A., Gold M.A., Switzer G.E., Hobbs R., Land S. R. and Fine M. J. (2006), Development and validation of a Smoking Media Literacy scale, «Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine», vol. 160, pp. 369-374.
Rothkopf A. (2009), Keynote address to the National Forum on Information Literacy, Washington, DC, October 15, Retrieved August 31, 2010 from http://www.infolit.org/20th_anniversary/20th_anniversary.html.
Staksrud E., Livingstone S., Haddon L. e Ólafsson K. (2009), What Do We Know About Children’s Use of Online Technologies? A Report on Data Availability and Research Gaps in Europe (2nd edition), London, London School of Economics and Political Science, EU Kids Online.
Texas Education Agency (2006), Texas Educator Certification Preparation Manual. English Language Arts and Reading 8-12, Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://www.texes.ets.org/prepMaterials/.
US Department of Education (2010), National Educational Technology Plan 2010. Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology, http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
US Department of Education (2010), Teachers Use of Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools, 2009, Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/index.html.
Witherspoon Institute (2010), The Social Costs of Pornography: A Statement of Findings and Recommendations, Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://www.socialcostsofpornography.org.

Keywords: digital literacy, media literacy, European initiatives, European Commission.

Recognition of media literacy in the European Audiovisual Services Directive (art. 37) is the result of a long process in which organizations such as UNESCO and the European Commission (EC) have played an important role, not only in the development of the public dimension of media literacy, but also in the acceptance of the importance of media education on the political agenda.
The UNESCO International Congress on Media Education in Germany in 1982 released the Grünwald Declaration on Media Education (1) , ratified by the 19 participating countries, which was the origin of this development. The Grünwald Declaration was the first to state the need for education and political systems to promote a critical understanding and awareness among citizens regarding the media. Seventeen years after the Grünwald Declaration, the rapid technological development in the late 1990s caused the UNESCO congress in Vienna, titled Educating for the media and the digital age (2) , to establish that: «Media Education is part of the basic entitlement of every citizen, in every country in the world, to freedom of expression and the right to information and is instrumental in building and sustaining democracy…» In 2002, UNESCO held the Youth Media Education Seminar in Seville (3) , which reaffirmed the creative and critical component of media literacy, highlighting how media education should be included in both formal and informal education at both the individual and community level.
Meanwhile, the European Parliament and European Commission have also played an important and active role in the development of media literacy in Europe, and have led the concept to include two dimensions: the protection and promotion of human rights, mainly regarding the protection of minors; and the social and economical raison d’être. The permanent Safer Internet Programme (4) , the first step in such protection politics, was created in 1999 to empower parents, teachers and children with Internet security tools. However, it also covers other media, such as videos. Its objective is «fighting illegal and harmful content and conduct online», especially that in relation to youngsters. On the other hand, at the Lisbon European Council (5) (in March 2000), the European Union introduced socioeconomic reasoning by acknowledging that «the EU is confronted with a quantum leap stemming from globalisation and the new knowledge-driven economy». The strategic goalis «to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion». The e-Learning initiative (6) forms part of this European strategy to achieve these objectives. Later, the Multi-annual e-Learning Programme 2004-2006 (7) , established that one of its priorities would be «to counteract the digital divide». The action plan set out the following steps: a) understanding digital literacy; b) identification and dissemination of good practices.
From 2000 to 2008, the European Commission launched several initiatives to promote digital literacy among the EU Member States: a high-level expert group advised on the development of these actions; some studies were carried out and, gradually, the outcomes were reflected in changing the Commission’s strategy from the promotion of digital literacy (8) to public policies and stakeholders initiatives in support of digital literacy (9) .

Promoting digital literacy
The European Commission requested the implementation of a course of action: to promote digital literacy within the e-Learning Programme. In order to do so, they commissioned a study «to identify and analyze a limited number of successful and innovative experiences for promoting digital and media literacy and identifying strengths and weaknesses». The Report Promoting digital literacy. Understanding digital literacy, carried out by the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), focused on two aspects: a) the identification and analysis of a limited number of successful and innovative experiences that have helped promote digital and media literacy, and b) the strengths and weaknesses of these experiences; and, c) the drawing up of recommendations for the implementation of Promoting digital literacy course of action.
After identifying unattended groups and shortcomings in the practice, methodology and promotion of digital literacy, and in order to implement these strategies for development, the study recommends adaptation to the different learning contexts and needs of the different publics, with a view to reducing the digital divide in Europe. This presents a new concept whose characteristics are broken down into a literacy that is not only digital, but also cultural, comprehensive and complex, linked to the citizens, and humanistic.
Finally, the study establishes the following factors for overcoming the obstacles that prevent the full development of a digital culture.

• Context: establish which social and geographical areas the subject of digital culture should focus on, according to priority and effort, and how it should be implemented.
• Relevance, motivation and involvement: the public is reflected through strategies that increase relevance and trigger positive motivation.
• Critical awareness and participation: create participation and co responsibility platforms between the general public and the ICT industrial production system.
• Pedagogy and tutelage: provide support and tutoring systems in all ICT stimulating activities, especially for specific groups, especially when directed at underprivileged groups.
• Balance and solidarity: actions should help provide fair access to ICT for all sectors of society. The more advanced sectors should give support and reinforcement to those that are behind, working with them to fulfil their needs and demands.
• Cultural and institutional innovation: governments, education systems, businesses and institutions must renovate themselves to take advantage of ICT development, while at the same time contributing to ICT expansion and growth in all areas of society by utilizing their specific positions.

Digital literacy high-level experts group
As part of the i2010 and e-Inclusion 2008 initiatives (10) , the European Commission set up a Digital Literacy High-Level Experts Group (11) to provide expertise and guidance on digital literacy policies in preparation for the Commission Communication on e-Inclusion. The experts, representing industry, academia and civil society, were invited to comment on the findings of the Digital Literacy Review that the Commission had produced as part of its commitments as a result of the Riga Declaration in 2006 (12) .
The experts presented recommendations for digital literacy policies:

• Context: embed initiatives within local socio-economic contexts.
• Support awareness campaigns (particularly for disadvantaged groups).
• Use formal and informal learning (and platforms); use intermediaries to motivate, and enable groups and individuals to generate content.
• Support the development of content and services for marginalised users.
• Focus on the development of users’ critical, cultural and creative skills.
• Develop and use evaluation and impact assessment frameworks.
• Propose strategies that will encourage synergies and partnerships among public authorities, civilian society and industry; engage the private sector.

During the e-inclusion Ministerial Conference & Expo (in Vienna 2008), the DG Information Society and Media presented the outcome of the EC’s The Digital Literacy Review, as well as the aforementioned recommendations. The main conclusions were: «Digital literacy remains a major challenge and more efforts need to be dedicated to supporting disadvantaged groups, in particular those over 55 (and) secondary digital divides may be emerging in relation to quality of use and more needs to be done to increase the levels of confidence and trust in online transactions and the use of ICT for lifelong learning for all».
On a legislative level, in 2006 the European Council also developed the Recommendation on Empowering Children in the New Information and Communications Environment (13) , adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the 974th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies. The recommendation called on EU Member States to familiarize children with the new ICT environment (14) . A new Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (15) identified the abilities that should be developed: digital competence (critical use of technology), social and civic competence (provide individuals with the tools to play an active and democratic role in society), critical awareness and creative competence (individuals should be capable of assessing the creative expression of ideas and emotions spread by the media). The same year, the EP issued Recommendation 2006/952/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the protection of minors and human dignity (16) , which emphasized the need for teacher training in the field of media literacy; as well as the inclusion of media literacy in the curriculum in order to protect children and, at the same time, to promote responsible attitudes among all users. All of these initiatives fostered the media education (and literacy) policy.
In parallel, focusing exclusively on media literacy, the European Commission set up the EU Media Literacy Expert Group (17) , whichincluded experts from different backgrounds, who reflect both the role of the media industry in media literacy and that of academic research, in order to analyse and define media literacy objectives and trends and therefore highlight and promote the best practices at European level and propose actions to follow in promoting media literacy.
Based on the findings of the Media literacy experts group, the EC launched its Public Consultation (18) , a questionnaire that sought the public’s views on media literacy in relation with digital technologies, and information about initiatives in commercial communications, as well as cinema and the online world. The replies showed that the correct way to speed up progress in this field would be to spread regional and national good practices in Media Literacy. «It also emerged that criteria or standards for assessing media literacy are lacking and that good practices are not available for all aspects of media literacy. Accordingly, the Commission sees an urgent need for larger-scale, longer-term research into developing both new assessment criteria and new good practices» (p.5).
In the second half of 2007, the study titled Current trends and approaches to media literacy in Europe (19) was commissioned by the European Commission to the UAB. The study maps current practices in implementing media literacy in Europe and confirms the results of the aforementioned consultation and recommends measures to be implemented in Europe to increase the level of ML. It also outlined the possible economic and social impact of EU intervention in this field.
The trends identified were: a) media convergence as a pervasive reality in Europe, b) the growing concern for the protection of users, mainly children; c) the general public’s critical awareness, d) the growing presence of media literacy in curricula, e) a more attentive and responsive media industry, f) the active participation of civil associations (of parents and teachers), as well as g) the participation of European institutions and the emergence of regulatory authorities.
As regards the difficulties that media literacy faces, the study mentions a) the lack of a shared vision of goals, concepts, methods, research and assessments; and b) the cultural barriers that prevent innovations in some regions, as well as the lack of coordination among the parties involved, both on a national and a European level. In response, the study proposes recommendations covering all these areas in order to promote media literacy: a) technology-innovation relationship as a system to foster awareness of media technology; b) stimulation of creativity; c) campaigns to encourage awareness; d) boosting of research; e) establishment of regulatory authorities; development of quality standards and indicators; f) establishment of public policies that ensure that the whole population participates in the benefits and responsibilities of the IS.
Another significant European initiative is the MEDIA Programme 2007 (20) , which stresses the importance of media literacy and in particular film education initiatives, especially those organised by festivals (in cooperation with schools) for young people.
As an important output from these initiatives, on December 20th, 2007, the EC addressed Parliament with the Communication A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment (21) , which builds on the results of the work of the Media Literacy Expert Group on the findings of the public consultation, and on the experience of the Commission’s previous and current media literacy-related initiatives. This Communication established a more precise concept of media literacy, including the main aspects that the European Commission and Member States should cover with regard to media literacy.
A year later, on December 16th, 2008, the European Parliament adopted the Resolution (22) on the Report of Media literacy in a digital world (23) , which had been scheduled (November 24th) for consideration in a plenary session on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education. It demanded EU Member States to pay systematic attention to the development of media literacy, and the European Parliament «welcomed the Commission’s communication COM(2007)0833 on the same issue. However, it believes that there is room for improvement to the extent that the European approach intended to foster media literacy needs to be more clear cut, especially as regards the inclusion of traditional media and recognition of the importance of media education» and urged the EC to request the regulatory authorities of audiovisual and electronic communication to cooperate in order to improve media literacy. It recognised the need to develop national codes of conduct; called on the Commission to devise a media literacy indicator with a view to fostering ML in the EU; and it urged expansion of its policies to promote media literacy, work with local, regional and national authorities and intensify cooperation with UNESCO and the Council of Europe.
The Parliament urged the EC to develop an action plan on media literacy and organise a meeting with the Committee on Audio-Visual Media Services in order to facilitate information exchange and cooperation on a regular basis.

The european audiovisual media services directive
These efforts to make digital and media literacy a key element of the development of the information society in Europe concluded in the enactment of the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive (24) which was incorporated (on December 2009) into legislation in all Member States of the European Union, introducing the need to promote media literacy into a regulation of the media system for the first time.
The AVMSD will become one of the main instruments of media policy in Europe as article 37 institutionalises media literacy as one of the measures to be boosted. It therefore makes media literacy a vital element of the regulation of the European audiovisual industry and provides a less detailed definition of media literacy than previous definitions: «It includes the skills, knowledge and understanding that allow consumers to use the media effectively and safely». The Directive has been shown to be innovative in that its text stresses the general public’s creative and critical abilities with regard to the media, focusing on informed choice and the use of new technological opportunities. It highlights that a media-literate person is not a passive consumer of programmes, but rather is someone who selects what they wish to consume by means of an informed choice.
In addition, the AVMSD stresses the protective role of media literacy and urges Member States to «promote the development of media literacy in all sectors of society and monitor its progress closely», thus strengthening the idea that media literacy is not only the responsibility of formal education, but also of the media industry, professionals, regulatory authorities and families, among others.
In conclusion, the past ten years have been highly favourable for the launch of a European policy on media literacy. During these years, the European Commission has set the philosophical and legal bases for its development, both in Europe and in its member countries. Thus it is expected that in coming years, the communication and education policies of each country will know how to properly promote the development of the media literacy of their populations and thus stimulate universal media literacy.

Notes
(1) International Symposium on Media Education, Grünwald, Federal Republic of Germany, http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/MEDIA_E.PDF, last visit on September 2010.
(2) Vienna Conference Educating for the Media and the Digital Age, Recommendations addressed to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), April18-20, 1999, http://www.nordicom.gu.se/clearinghouse.php?portal=linkdb&main=reconedu.php&, last visit on September 2010.
(3) Recommendations addressed to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Youth Media Education, Seville February 15-16, 2002 http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5680&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, last visit on September 2010.
(4) The Safer Internet Programme, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/policy/programme/index_en.htm, last visit on September 2010.
(5) Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000, Presidency Conclusions, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm, last visit on September 2010.
(6) European Commission, e-Learning – Designing tomorrow’s education (COM(2000) 318 final), Brussels, May 2nd 2000, http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/elearning/comen.pdf, last visit on September 2010.
(7) European Commission, Proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a multi-annual programme (2004-2006) for the effective integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education and training systems in Europe (e-Learning Programme) COM(2002) 751 final 2002/0303 (COD) Brussels, 19 of December 2002, http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/elearning/doc/dec_en.pdf, last visit on September 2010.
(8) Pérez Tornero J.M. (2004), Promoting Digital Literacy. Understanding Digital Literacy, Final Report EAC/76/03, http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/elearning/doc/studies/dig_lit_en.pdf, last visit on September 2010.
(9) European Commission and DTI (2009), EU Digital Literacy Review. Public policies and stakeholder initiatives, http://www.epractice.eu/en/library/332834, last visit September 2010.
(10) The Commission adopted on 8.11.2007 the Communication European i2010 initiative on e-Inclusion – to be part of the information society, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/policy/i2010_initiative/index_en.htm, last visit on September 2010.
(11) Digital Literacy: High-Level Expert Group Recommendations, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/digital_literacy/digital_literacy_hlg_recommendations.pdf, last visit on September 2010.
(12) European Commission (2008), Digital Literacy European Commission working paper and Recommendations from Digital Literacy High-Level Expert Group, e-Inclusion Ministerial Conference & Expo, 30th November-2nd December, 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/digital_literacy/digital_literacy_review.pdf, last visit on September 2010. (The Report presents the outcome of the Digital Literacy Review that the Commission has undertaken as part of the commitments made in the Riga Declaration in 2006 and in the e-Inclusion Communication in 2007 (COM(2007) 694 final.)
(13) Council of Europe, Recommendation Rec(2006)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on empowering children in the new information and communications environment, 27th September, 2006,
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/25152/11861425271Recommendation_Rec%282006%2912.pdf/Recommendation%2BRec%282006%2912.pdf, last visit on September 2010.
(14) The European Council published the Internet Literacy Handbook, a guide for parents, teachers and young people, http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/internetliteracy/hbk_en.asp, last visit on September 2010.
(15) European Commission, Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning, (2006/962/EC), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF, last visit on September 2010.
(16) European Parliament, Recommendation 2006/952/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the protection of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and on-line information services industry [Official Journal L 378 of 27.12.2006], http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/audiovisual_and_media/l24030a_en.htm, last visit on September 2010.
(17) See: http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/literacy/expert_group/index_en.htm, last visit on September 2010.
(18) European Commission, Making sense of today’s media content: Commission begins public media literacy consultation, Brussels, 6 October 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/literacy/consultation/index_en.htm, last visit on September 2010. See also the Report on the results on the public consultation on Media Literacy: http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/media_literacy/docs/report_on_ml_2007.pdf, last visit on September 2010.
(19) Pérez Tornero J.M. and Celot P. (2007), Current trends and approaches to media literacy in Europe, EC, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/literacy/studies/index_en.htm, last visit on September 2010.
(20) Decision No. 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_327/l_32720061124en00120029.pdf, last visit on September 2010.
(21) European Commission (2007), A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions , COM(2007) 833 final, Brussels, December, 12th, 2007, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0833:FIN:EN:PDF, last visit on September 2010.
(22) European Parliament, The legislative observatory, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindByProcnum.do?lang=en&procnum=INI/2008/2129, last visit on September 2010.
(23) European Commission, Report on media literacy in a digital world (2008/2129(INI)), Committee on Culture and Education, (Session Document) November 24th, 2008
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-0461&language=EN, last visit on September 2010.
(24) Audiovisual Media Service Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of December 11th 2007), http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/avms/index_en.htm (The AVMSD replaces the European Directive on Television without Frontiers, DTVSF 89/552/EC).

Keywords: media literacy, digital literacy, media policy.

From «media education» to «digital literacy»
Media literacy and media education are issues of current concern in Spain. Teachers, politicians, NGOs, opinion leaders, regulators, etc. are aware of the importance of this field. Actions and projects have been addressed at strengthening media literacy. However, these actions are generally uncoordinated and lack planning. The development of the media literacy movement has been similar in Spain to elsewhere in Europe. In the 60s, some educational institutions used media as a teaching tool in the classroom. The first media resources used were movies that engendered cinema clubs where people debated cinema. In the 70s, the General Law on Education (LGE, 1970) (1) promoted the use of media in schools, but only in a pragmatic and instrumental way, as a tool to support formal education. In 1980 the Audiovisual Media Commission was created by the Ministry of Education. One of its duties was «to conduct studies and make proposals to develop and achieve a more effective use of audiovisual media in teaching» (2) It was a positive step, but there is mention of «media education». The Commission did not have executive power and it was limited to informing and advising institutions in relation with the media as didactic tools. Among its first actions it organized the first «International Conference on Audiovisual Media in the Education System» (Salinas, 1989).
At the same time, a series of books was systematically published on media education and technologies in education that contribute to the development of a certain awareness of the need to implement the critical study of media in schools. These publications helped enrich the debate on media education (3) and educational media. At this time, the terms used were «media education» and «educommunication», which were mainly focused on teacher training and the use of media (particularly video) as a tool to support the teaching-learning process.
In spite of the advent of mass media in society, especially television, only a few educators and experts, who were worried about the impact of television content on education, started pioneering work in developing media education. Thanks to this work, several interesting projects emerged in the early 90s, such as the Programa Prensa y Escuela of the Ministry of Education, La Aventura del Saber (4), an educational television program co-sponsored by the Ministry of Education and RTVE-, and some pioneering programs carried out by regional broadcasters (Telemadrid and TV3) (Pérez Tornero, 2010)
In 1990, the enactment of the Law on the General Organization of the Educational System (LOGSE) promoted the integration of the media as a teaching tool in the educational system. This law yielded some representative projects, such as the Programa Mercurio which used audiovisual media, Prensa – Escuela, using printed media, and the Programa Atenea, Alhambra which used new information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Gabelas, 2007). However, despite its good purpose, it patently lacked an integrated approach.
The late 90s were active times in the legal advancement of media literacy in Europe. During these years, the term «digital literacy» was adopted in Spain. The term appeared when the European Union designated digital competence as one of the main education skills. But there were other important influences. At this time, several UNESCO conferences called for the need for educational and political systems to promote critical knowledge among citizens, or to establish the right to media education as «a basic right of all citizens» and a «tool in the construction and sustaining of democracy». The UNESCO Vienna Conference, «Educating for the Media and the Digital Age» (1999), defined media education as a «basic right of all citizens» and a «tool in the construction and sustaining of democracy». Also involved at the legislative level, the Council of Europe drew up in March 2000 a strategic objective of the Union «to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion» (5). In 2002, UNESCO held the Youth Media Education Seminar in Seville (6).

Media literacy in the educational curriculum
In this context, the Spanish curriculum has incorporated the concept of digital literacy, but has not incorporated the concept of media literacy. The compulsory school curriculum in the Spanish Educational System (primary and secondary) contains digital literacy as a part of the skills students must achieve, but no specific subjects have been defined. Generally media education or digital skills are a cross curricula subject linked to civic education and active citizenship.
Article 3 of the Royal Decree 1631/2006 establishes that Secondary Education should contribute to the development of abilities that would enable students «to develop basic skills in the use of information sources and to acquire new knowledge with critical judgment», and «to acquire basic preparation in the field of technologies, particularly in information and communication» (7).
The annex of The Royal Decree 1513/2006 establishes the incorporation of eight basic competences in the Primary Education curriculum to emphasize those skills that are considered to be indispensable. One of these competences is dealing with information and digital skills, meaning the regular use of the available technological resources to solve real problems in an efficient way, besides evaluating and selecting technological innovations as they appear, depending on their utility for undertaking specific tasks (8).

Media literacy today
Recent years have shown a gradual integration of two terms, digital competence and media education, in the more comprehensive concept of media literacy. This latter concept offers the advantage of including a critical view of the media system and ICTs and it includes more actors and more fields than merely education: it especially involves the inclusion of media and civil association.
Two conferences ‒ in 2009 and 2010 ‒ showed the changes in the use of the terms. The first of these, Citizens’ participation in public life through media, was organized in November 2009 by the European Association for Viewers Interests (EAVI), and the Spanish Senate with the support of the European Commission. For two days, the conference addressed different issues, such as the role of international institutions in support of media literacy, civilian participation through the media, and the relationship between media and power. The second conference, Media Literacy and Digital Cultures, held in Seville in May 2010 and organized by the Gabinete de Comunicación y Educación of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and the Latin American Association of Educational and Cultural Television (ATEI), was fully consistent with the AVMSD (9), and with the Communication from the Commission and European Parliament issued on Media Literacy in the knowledge Society. It was the biggest meeting to be held in Spain on media literacy in the last decade.

Finally, we must mention the seminar on Media Literacy and Audiovisual Authorities, organized by the Mediterranean Network of Regulatory Authorities (RIRM) (10) – June 2010; and presided by the Andalusian Audiovisual Council (CAA). The participants in the conference –all the Audiovisual Authorities from Mediterranean countries- highlighted the need to meet the requirements of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AMSD) and demanded a more active role for the audiovisual regulatory authorities.

Training
In Spain there are three Postgraduates: Masters Degrees: «International Master in Communication and Education» (11), promoted by the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), and that has been running for 20 years; University Master in Communication and Education: from Information Society to Knowledge Society, at the National University of Distance Education (UNED) in Madrid and the recently created Interuniversity Master in Audiovisual Education & Communication (12), promoted by two universities, the International University of Andalusia (UNIA) and the University of Huelva (UHU).
With regard to teacher training, for more than 15 years, all teaching degrees have included a core subject called «New technologies applied to education». In addition, the Royal Decrees (BOE 29/12/2007) (13) that regulate the professional degrees to qualify as a Teacher of Childhood Education and Elementary Education; and the Masters Degree to qualify as a Teacher of Secondary Education, establish training objectives to give teachers competences in the use of ICT.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Education, and each Autonomous Community ‒ through the autonomous Education Department ‒ offer summer courses and continuing education with ICTs. In this regard, we should stress the cases of Catalonia and Andalusia, where the authorities have established obligatory courses for teachers that deal with the incorporation of digital textbook in schools. However, in the national scenario, Media Literacy as a concept has not been developed enough, as shown by the National Program «Escuela 2.0» that was approved by the Council of Ministers on September 4, 2009 and launched in the 2009-2010 academic year (14) .
The Government of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia launched, in November 2009, the Competences in Information and Communication Technologies Accreditation Program Acreditación de Competencias en Tecnología de la Información y la Comunicación (ACTIC) (15). People aged 16 years or over can demonstrate their knowledge and digital competences by solving a telematic test and obtaining a certificate issued by the local authority (Generalitat). Last, February Barcelona City Council launched a Digital Literacy Plan (Plan de Alfabetización Digital 2010-2010), which includes 24 proposals for promoting digital literacy.
Also in Catalonia, the Audiovisual Council of Catalonia (CAC) – the local regulatory authority – has launched a number of media literacy initiatives as has the Audiovisual Council of Navarra in Spain. Regarding the media industry, there have been a few initiatives, such as the «Audience Offices» (RTVE and Antena 3), and «The Press enters classrooms», which is a project promoted by different newspapers, «El País» and «El Mundo», among others.

Research and initiatives
In the field of research, there have been some works such as: Proyecto Pigmalión and the projects developed by the Official Institute of Radio and Television of Spain (Instituto Oficial de Radio y Televisión Española ‒ IORTVE). The studies carried out by the Office of Communication (Gabinete de Comunicación) at the UAB have been highly active in promoting the concept of “media literacy” and many applied research projects.
There are also the Andalusian Grupo Comunicar, which publishes one of the most recognized journals in the field of Media Education, the Educomunicadores Association (AIRE) in Madrid, as well as the initiatives of the European Observatory of Children’s Television (OCTA) and the International Association of Media Education Mentors. It is also important to mention the activities carried out by a teachers’ project, AulaMeida in Catalonia.
Many specialists have contributed to the development of awareness of media education, digital literacy and, media literacy. We could mention Jose Ignacio Aguaded, Enrique Martínez Salanova, Ma. Amor Pérez, Roberto Aparici, Agustín García Matilla, Antonio Bartolomé, Joan Ferrés, Mar de Fontcuberta, José Manuel Pérez Tornero, José Luis Rodríguez Illera, Julio Cabero and Lorenzo Vilches, among others.

Next steps / prospects
On May 1st, the Ley General de la Comunicación Audiovisual (General Law on Audiovisual Communication (LGCA, 2010) (16) will allow greater optimism regarding the future of media literacy in Spain. One of the most innovative aspects is that the LGCA –drawing on the Audiovisual Media Services Directive- explicitly includes the obligation of promoting media literacy (Article 6): «Public authorities and providers of audiovisual communication services should contribute to Citizens’ Media Literacy» (17). The Law establishes the National Council of Audiovisual (Consejo Estatal de Medios Audiovisuales -CEMA) which, in order to promote the Media Literacy competences of Spaniards, will prepare «an annual report of media literacy levels, using the indicators used by the European Commission and/or other indicators that the Council considers appropriate» (Art. 6f).
The fact that media literacy has been taken into account as part of the political and public agenda in Spain, allows us to trust that there will be a real change from digital competence to media competence as an essential step towards a fairer, more democratic society. Furthermore, in the forthcoming years we can expect the increasing participation of more and new – and traditional – actors in media literacy issues: ONGs, families, municipalities, media, authorities, teachers’ associations, journalists, lawyers, etc.

Nuria Fernandez-Garcia, PhD candidate, is a research scholar in Journalism and Communication Sciences at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Spain. She is a member of the Gabinete de Comunicación y Educación, a research group specialized on Media Literacy and Educational Media, at the above mentioned university. Her principal research interests relate to the general and specific aspects of media literacy and political communication, and the relationship between gender, politics and media. Her latest articles include: Framing Hillary Clinton en la prensa española: ¿Candidata o mujer? (2010), Dones polítiques i mitjans de comunicació: dona, mare, filla, esposa… i política (2010), and La construcción mediática del líder político desde una perspectiva de género (2008).

Notes
(1) Ley 14/1970, de 4 de agosto, General de Educación y Financiamiento de la Reforma Educativa.
(2) BOE, 13 maggio 1980, http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-1980-9961, last visit September 2010.
(3) In this sense, we should cite the pioneering work by Luis Miguel Martínez, Victoria Camps, José Manuel Pérez Tornero, Roberto Aparisi, Ignacio Aguaded, Mar Fontcuberta, Agustín García Matilla, Lorenzo Vilches, J. L. Rodríguez Illera, Antonio Bartolomé, Martínez Salanova, Amor Pérez and Joan Ferrés.
(4) La aventura del saber. Génesis y desarrollo de un espacio educativo, http://reddigital.cnice.mecd.es/4/firmas_nuevas/articulo12/tv_5.html, last visit September 2010.
(5) Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March, 2000, Presidency Conclusions, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm, last visit September 2010.
(6) Recommendations addressed to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO, Youth Media Education, Seville, 15-16 February 2002, http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5680&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, last visit September 2010.
(7) Real Decreto 1631/2006 establishing minimum standards for Secondary Education, Boletín Oficial del Estado, January 5th, 2007, n. 5, p. 677, http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/01/05/pdfs/A00677-00773.pdf, last visit September 2010.
(8) Real Decreto 1513/2006 establishing minimum standards for Primary Education, Boletín Oficial del Estado, December 8th, 2006, n. 293, p. 43053, http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2006/12/08/pdfs/A43053-43102.pdf, last visit September 2010.
(9) Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2007/65/CE), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:332:0027:01:EN:HTML, last visit September 2010.
(10) La Red de Instituciones Reguladoras del Mediterráneo discuten en Málaga sobre la necesidad de elevar los niveles de alfabetización mediática, CAA, http://www.consejoaudiovisualdeandalucia.es/opencms/opencms/Actualidad/nuevaNoticia_0233, last visit September 2010.
(11) http://www.gabinetecomunicacionyeducacion.com/formacion/master-internacional-de-comunicacion-y-educacion, last visit September 2010.
(12) http://www.uhu.es/master-educomunicacion/, last visit September 2010.
(13) http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2007/12/29/pdfs/A53735-53738.pdf, last visit September 2010.
(14) http://www.plane.gob.es/escuela-20/, last visit September 2010.
(15) http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/actic, last visit September 2010.
(16) Ley General de Comunicación Audiovisual, 7 March 2010, in BOE, num. 79, 1 April 2010, p. 30157. http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2010/04/01/pdfs/BOE-A-2010-5292.pdf, last visit September 2010.
(17) http://jmtornero.wordpress.com/, last visit September 2010.

Keywords: media, literacy, digital, definitions.

As long as existed media has, both its form and content, been of interest for and even been thrown suspicion on by authorities, researchers, and parents. This is not surprising, because when combining a world, which in a short time has experienced an explosion of media, with the natural instinct of man to protect his offspring, it is not more than natural that new phenomenon are met by suspicion and cautiousness (Drotner et al., 1996, p. 61). Consequently, because of their mission of responsibility these parties naturally are the most interested and involved in formulating an agenda for understanding, use, and evaluating media. The phenomenon of media literacy is such an agenda.

Media literacy – some definitions
We have many names for the things we love. Anyhow, the plurality of concepts on media competencies available indicates an interest and involvement in the issue. On the other hand, it also expresses a difficulty in capturing the significance of what such competencies could be about and thus stressing a need of a discussion and investigations on possible meanings of the concepts in use.
As a professional of media education, belonging to the Swedish speaking population of the officially bilingual Finland, I have faced multiple uses and meanings of concepts in the field, not at least depending on the different languages. At the outset this article therefore takes a local perspective in its discussion of the media-pedagogical concepts currently in use; it mainly presents the situation within a Finnish-Swedish context. Yet, the content and the discussion about different concepts in use, is a global phenomenon, even if they are not exactly the same in different parts of the world. Nevertheless, a discussion about the use of concepts needs to proceed along with progressions in this new field of research. Being an article about media literacy I will consequently start by elaborating the meanings of the concepts media and literacy.
«Media» is a collective noun that exists as both an independent word and as the first element in composite words or concepts. In research, the media concept has traditionally been used referring to technology, its function, or to its societal meaning, i.e. culturally, economically, politically etc. Consequently, concepts as «ICT» or «digital» can be regarded as subordinated to «media».
By the literacy concept is in the first place understood an individual’s ability to read and write. Thus literacy is, by the use of what is read and written, closely linked to the individual’s survival in society. Despite the ability to read and write, the literacy concept is also connected to the meaning being literate, i.e. being educated and cultivated. Which then could the meanings of the media literacy concept be?
In Swedish the concept media literacy can be translated by two concepts, «medieläskunnighet» which on one hand refers to the ability to understand media messages [reading ability] and on the other hand «medieläsfärdighet» which connotes a practical skill, an ability to practically use media messages [using ability]. The corresponding concept in Finnish is «medialukutaito» [media reading ability]. The concept connoting user activity, «mediataito»(Fi) [media skill], embodies neither just a reading ability but yet more than technical ability (Tella et al., 2001, p. 30). Besides reading and using ability «mediataito» is suggested to involve verbal, cultural, communicative, social, educational, ethical, and aesthetic capabilities as well.
In order to come further from media literacy as merely reading and using abilities or skills, the Finnish researchers Varis (1998, pp. 375-391) and Kotilainen suggest a use of the competence concept. They regard that «competence» is more all-encompassing than the aforementioned reading and using abilities, and hints at a proficiency that the individual secures for e.g. professional duties. According to Varis (1998, pp. 375-391) media competence, takes places in social situations whereby the individual realizes the social significance of media, understands that media interpretation differs from person to person, and furthermore that the messages of media always are biased from economic, political, as well as cultural perspectives. Kotilainen (1999, pp. 17; 22-25) regards media competence as a way for the individual to survive in the media society. Media competence according to her consists of knowledge about media, critical attitude, technical skills, and interactive competencies.
According to Kupiainen and Sintonen (2010, p. 63) media literacy could be regarded as a focal practice, requiring things, physical or mental, around which individuals gather and by discussion and meaning exchange create social contexts. Besides focal practice, media literacy also requires technology, knowledge, and skill.
Regarding the competence concept Erstad (2005, pp. 120-152) makes a distinction between «having qualifications» and «being competent». Digital competence is in first hand not to have but to be; it signifies a readiness to act and an ability to form judgments and is therefore needed for survival in the learning society. Its meaning is close to aforementioned literacy concept and being literate, «bildning» (Sw).
In this paragraph the meanings of «media literacy as reading and using ability», «media skill», «media competence», and «media literacy as being literate» have been examined. To this end the analysis has shown that instead of building separate categories, the concepts often overlap and enter into one another. What distinguishes the concepts from each other is the fact that they have been formulated within different scientific contexts and applies to somewhat different situations. «Media skill» is suggested as an ability to communicate and learn in virtual learning environments while the media competence and being media literate concepts describe media-cultural abilities, abilities for the media society. But together these concepts seem to build a visible progression so long as they are used in unity with their original meanings.
Inspired by Potter (2005, p. 22), saying media literacy is not a category but a continuum, the concepts are placed as follows (Figure 1).

Fig. 1 Dimensions in a continuum (Arnolds-Granlund, 2010, p. 51).

In the definition of these five concepts different semantic dimensions can be distinguished. A simple categorization of the five dimensions results in three aspects: understanding, acting, and evaluating, bearing in mind that they occur both individually and socially (Figure 2).

Fig. 2     The understanding, acting, and evaluating aspects of media literacy (Arnolds-Granlund, 2010, p. 52).

These aspects can be viewed as a progression from understanding to action and finally to evaluation, not unlike Aristotle’s distinction of knowledge.
Proceeding from Aristotle’s distinction of knowledge, being literate «bildning» means being scientifically knowledgeable, «episteme» [to know that], practically knowledgeable, «techne» [to know how], and practically wise, «fronesis» [to know why] (Gustavsson, 1996, p. 51). Following this, being media literate (educated, cultivated) could mean «knowing something about media, being able to use media, and doing the right/good things with the help of media» (Arnolds-Granlund, 2004, pp. 3-5; 2010, p. 52).

«Media» literacy or «digital»
As was mentioned in the previous paragraph the «digital literacy» is by researchers used in almost equal meaning as «media literacy». For instance Erstad’s definition on digital literacy consists of nearly the same aspects as has the summarising Figure 2 (Arnolds-Granlund, 2010, pp.51-52).
Within many of the European initiatives on education and research both concepts media literacy and digital literacy are used. A brief review of EU sites show that two programmes of the EU Commission, Media programme and Information Society, use each of them either of these concepts. It seems as if a distinction made on the basis of technology, i.e. between so called new and old media. Anyhow, the skills and qualifications that are mentioned in the articles are about understanding, acting, and evaluating.
According to the articles, digital literacy is described as understanding information, performing tasks in digital environments and thus accessing knowledge, and using digital tools and facilities (Gilster, 1997, p. 1; Aviram and Eshet-Alkalai, 2006, p. 1; Martin, 2005, pp. 135-136; Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan, 2006, p. 9). Still it seems as if «critical thinking rather than technical competence» would be «the core skill of digital literacy» (Martin and Grudziecki, 2006, p. 254). Yet, the aspect of being literate is not mentioned within these articles. On the basis of this, it seems as the use of either «media literacy» or «digital literacy» should not be a matter of meaning but merely as a choice of perspective or representation in different academic discourses.

Media literacy in the finnish national school curriculum
Issues on media literacy are widely discussed within the Finnish society. Despite this, it has not until now been a subject within Finnish basic education. Anyhow, in the present National core curriculum there are seven cross-curricular themes of which two are media related and which are all supposed «to permeate all education» in school. Both concepts«media literacy as a reading ability» and «media literacy as a using ability», as well as the concept«media knowledge», emerge in the curriculum for basic education of the Swedish speaking population. The goal that the pupils should practice media knowledge«both as a user and a producer» is also determined in this document (National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004 p. 37).

Media literacy assessment
Because media literacy education is not a subject within the National curriculum and consequently no objectives has been established, there are no classroom assessments made either. Neither have there been any assessments made by the national school authorities. Anyhow, a study on assessment criteria for media literacy levels in Europe was carried out in 2009 in 27 European countries for the Commission, including Finland. The aim of the study was to analyse the most appropriate criteria for the assessment of media literacy levels and provide the Commission with a set of such criteria (Celot, 2009, pp. 4; 20; see also Tornero’s paper on Media Education in Europe in this issue, NdR). The study indentified two factors of media literacy, Individual and Environmental.
Individual factors consisted of such personal and social competences as individual’s technical skill of utilization, critical understanding, and communicative competences to establish social relations through the media. The Environmental Factors included such contextual factors which are regarded to have impact on media literacy of individuals. These are availability of information, media policies of the society, education, and the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders of the media community (Celot, 2009, p. 55). The 27 European countries placed themselves on different levels within this assessment. The Nordic countries, especially Finland and Sweden were in the forefront (Celot, 2009, pp.75).

Future expectations and priorities of media literacy development
In March 2010 the European Commission launched the Europe 2020 Strategy to prepare the EU economy for all possible challenges of next decade. The Digital Agenda for Europe is one of the seven initiatives of the «Europe 2020 Strategy», set out to define the key role that the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) will have to play. The Digital Agenda of Europe aims at successful digital economy by the year 2020 and to maximize the potential of ICTs and outlines seven priority areas for action of which «enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion» is one (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions, A Digital Agenda for Europe, 2010, p. 24).
On a national level, the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture is preparing two initiatives of importance for media literacy. These are a proposal for the distribution of lesson hours and the general national objectives for the new Basic Education Act and The new legislation on visual programs; proposal of the expert group which have prepared the total reform.
Similar to the previous National curriculum for the basic education this proposal, Basic education 2020 ‒ The national general objectives and distribution of lesson hours (2010), does not suggest media literacy education as a subject of its own. Rather it is proposed to be integrated within existing curricular subjects.Unfortunately, as two other school subjects have been proposed, consequently the importance of media literacy education has decreased.
The proposition of a new legislation suggests a Centre for media education and visual programs which is supposed to take over the duties of protection which belonged to the previous Finnish Board of Film Classification. According to the proposed legislation the Centre is supposed to promote media educational activities together with other authorities and societies within the field (Den nya lagstiftningen om bildprogram; Förslag från arbetsgruppen som berett totalreformen, 2010, pp. 56-58) [The new legislation on visual programs; proposal of the expert group which have prepared the total reform],). According to this proposal media education can be regarded as an activity fixed by law.  Unfortunately the proposed law text does not specify the meaning of the media education concept, which leaves the proposal at this respect somewhat inefficient.
Hitherto the discussion on media literacy mostly has dealt with conditions in Western countries and focused on the individual’s competencies regarding content and technology. However, the future use of media is and will in an even higher degree turn to be participatory. Therefore, understanding otherness and recognizing the contribution of each others, are key competencies of media literacy (Kupiainen, 2010). A global awareness and an identifying of possible digital divides, local and global, will be fundamental in future media literacy research (Kotilainen, 2010b; See also Kotilainen, 2010a, pp. 65-73). We might not yet have experienced the consequences, cultural, economical, or political, of a world divided into two, those who have had the possibilities to develop media literacy and those who have not. Neither, have we fully understood the importance of a world characterized by mutual understanding and collaboration.

Sol-Britt Arnolds-Granlund is a lecturer in media education at the Faculty of Education, Åbo Akademi University, Vasa, Finland. She has a share in the development of media literacy education during the last decade, national and Nordic. At present she is a member of several management teams, development groups, and research projects on media literacy. Her main research interests are conceptual investigations in media literacy, media literacy instruction, and children’s and young people’s meeting with and learning from and by the means of media.

References
Arnolds-Granlund S-B. (2010), Conceptual considerations in Media Education. In S. Kotilainen e S.-B. Arnolds-Granlund, Media Literacy Education. A Nordic Perspective, Göteborg, Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
Arnolds-Granlund S-B. (2004), Är du medieläskunnig, mediekompetent eller rent av mediebildad? Om färdigheter för mediesamhället, «Arena för modersmål och litteratur» [Arena for mother tongue and literature], «Medlemsblad för Svenska modersmålslärarföreningen i Finland r.f.» [Membership magazine for the Swedish Association of Mother Tongue Swedish in Finland].
Aviram R. and Eshet-Alkalai Y. (2006), Towards theory of digital literacy: Three scenarios for the next steps, «European Journal of Open Distance E-Learning», Retrieved http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Aharon_Aviram.htm.
Celot P. (a cura di) (2009), Study on Assessment Criteria for Media Literacy Levels. «European Association for Viewers Interests»,   Retrieved http://www.eavi.eu/.
Drotner K., Jensen K. B., Poulsen I. and Schrøder K. (1996), Medier och kultur [Media and Culture], Lund, Studentlitteratur.
Erstad O. (2005), Digital kompetanse i skolen [Digital Competence in School], Oslo, Universitetsförlaget.
European Commission (2010), Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, Retrieved http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf.
European Commission (2010), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions, A Digital Agenda for Europe, Retrieved http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digital-agenda communication-en.pdf.
Gilster P. (1997), Digital literacy, New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Grunderna för grundskolans läroplan [National Core Curriculum for Basic Education] (2004), Utbildningsstyrelsen [The Finnish National Board of Education], Retrieved from http://www02.oph.fi/svenska/ops/grundskola/LPgrundl.pdf.
Gustavsson B. (1996), Bildning i vår tid: om bildningens möjligheter och villkor i det moderna samhället [Education in Our Time: About the Possibilities of Education and Condition in the Modern Society], Stockholm, Wahlström & Widstrand.
Jones-Kavalier B.R. and Flannigan S.L. (2006), Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century, «EDUCAUSE Quarterly», vol. 29, n. 2, pp. 8-10, Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0621.pdf.
Kotilainen S. (1999), Mediakasvatuksen monet määritelmät [The Many Definitions of Media Education]. In S. Kotilainen M. Hankala and U. Kivikuru U. (a cura di), «Mediakasvatus» [Media Education], Helsinki, Edita.
Kotilainen S. (2010a), Global Digital Culture Requires Skills in Media Literacies. In U. Carlsson  (a cura di), Yearbook 2010: Children and Youth in the Digital Media Culture from a Nordic Horizon, Gothenburg, Nordicom.
Kotilainen S. (2010b), Interview made by e-mail, August 2010.
Kupiainen R. and Sintonen S. (2010), Media Literacy as a Focal Practice. In S.Kotilainen e S.-B. Arnolds-Granlund, Media Literacy Education. A Nordic Perspective, Göteborg, Nordicom, University of Gothenburg.
Kupiainen R. (2010), Interview made by e-mail, August 2010.
Martin A. (2005), DigEuLit – A European Fram,ework for Digital Literacy: a Progress Report, «Journal of eLiteracy», vol. 2, pp. 130-136, Retrieved http://www.jelit.org/65/01/JeLit_Paper_31.pdf.
Martin A. and Grudziecki J. (2006), DigEuLit: Concepts and tools for digital literacy development, vol. 5, n. 4, Retried from http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5iss4/martin-grudziecki.pdf.
Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö [The Ministery of Education and Culture] (2010), Perusopetus 2020 – Yleiset valtakunnalliset tavoitteet ja tuntijako [Basic education 2020 – The national general objectives and distribution of lesson hours], «Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä  2010:1» [Reports of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2010:1].
Potter W. (1998), Media Literacy, Thousand Oaks, Sage.
Undervisnings- och kulturministeriet [Ministry of Education and Culture] (2010), Den nya lastiftningen om bildprogram; Förslag från arbetsgruppen som berett totalreformen [The new legislation on visual programs; Proposal from the expert group which have prepared the total reform], Undervisningsministeriets arbetsgruppspromemorior och utredningar 2010:10 [Memoradums and reports by expert groups of Ministry of Education].
Varis T. (1998), Viestintäkasvatuksen haasteet ajan kuvana: johdatusta mediakompetenssin merkitykseen [Challenges of Communication Education as an Image of Today: Management to the Meaning of Media Competence]. In U. Kivikuru and R.  Kunelius, (a cura di), Viestinnän jäljillä [On the Track of Communication].

Keywords:media education, pleasure, critical analysis, creative media production.

Introducing the media in the classroom
Over the last decades the socializing function played by traditional educational institutions (namely, family and school) has been questioned by other, more informal, and often more effective, agents: peer and sub-cultural groups, political organizations, social movements, and above all the media. With regard to school in particular, the success of the media has urged serious reflection upon several aspects of the educational processes (Cappello, 2009).
First, the media activate forms of learning that – unlike alphabetical learning – interpellate multiple/multi-sensorial intelligences (Gardner, 1983), proving to be more involving and motivating for generations of students born and raised in a media-saturated environment. They contribute to question the supremacy of the rational dimension of learning (based on logical reasoning) and the parallel confinement of its affective/creative/bodily dimension (based on play and pleasure) to the early years of schooling, to certain disciplines (art, music or physical education), to laboratory activities. What they require is an epistemological and methodological pluralism that redefines education in the light of new cultural expressions and visions of reality as well as new teaching approaches that take into account how the traditional vertical, one-to-many, educational relationship is being integrated (and not simply replaced) by a more horizontal, peer-to-peer one, based on the social network paradigm (Wiki, blogs, Facebook, MySpace, etc.). That implies a radical move from a media education approach aiming at protecting the students from the media to an approach that is more interested in understanding the multiple ways in which young people adopt and adapt, use and interpret the media in their everyday life.
Second, the media challenge the idea of what it means to be «literate» today. They require new forms of literacy that go beyond its traditional application to the writing and reading of verbal language, and to the acquisition of merely functional skills. These new forms of literacy have all to do with the media (visual literacy, television literacy, cine-literacy, digital literacy, etc.). The adoption of a media education perspective questions the continuing dominance of print culture within formal education, and in particular the textual emphasis of much of the teaching. Moreover, it requires to frame the study of the formal codes and conventions of the different forms of communication (not only print) within a broader understanding of the social, economic and historical contexts where those forms are produced, distributes and used.
Third, media education necessarily entails the development of competencies in «reading» and «writing» the media, that is it aims to develop both critical understanding of the media and active participation in a media-saturated society. In a sense, we might say that media education enables people to think about the media and also do things with the media, whether at school, in their workplace, private life or civil society. That’s why media educators are increasingly combining critical analysis with creative production, thanks also to recent technological developments that have made media production much more accessible and easier.
Fourth, media education challenges the techno-utopist rhetoric, often dominating in the contemporary discourses of educators, policy makers, media technology entrepreneurs, about the «revolutionary» introduction of educational technology in schools. Techno-utopists bracket out the historical dimension of technological innovation, abstractly identifying it with social change and «modernization», glossing over the conditions, the conjunctures, the specific uses and interests which concretely lead to certain innovations rather than others. They tend to celebrate digital media as thaumaturgical tools for improving educational processes. Some of them even venture to foresee the future disappearance of all formal education in favor of multiple forms of self-learning (wisely prompted and satisfied by the market). In other words, there seems to dominate a sort of instrumental progressivism (Robins and Webster 1999) which fails to distinguish innovation from mere technological infrastructuring, to recognize that in fact innovation processes are much more complicated, time-consuming and multidimensional; that in the age of informationalism (as Manuel Castells calls it), the crucial factor is no longer information per se (nor the mere access to it), but rather the intellectual capacity to select and process it; that media technologies are neither mere tools for communication and information, nor simply teaching/learning aids. They are indeed «philosophical devices» that shape the life environment people live in, transform the spatial-temporal organization of social life, condition social agency and the ways people relate to reality, to themselves, to others.

Beyond the critical vs. creative debate
Traditional views of media education’s role often place the primary emphasis on the semiotic deconstruction of media ideological manipulation and the development of critical attitudes. The key concern here is with locating and evaluating meaning. Yet, as innumerable studies and surveys have shown (ISTAT 2008; Livingstone and Haddon 2008; Buckingham 2000; 2003; Morcellini, 1997), children do not experience the media as devices for conveying meaning, but rather as symbolic resources providing images, fantasies and opportunities for imaginative self-expression and play. As such the media are cultural forms that raise complex questions about taste, pleasure, identity, sociality and cannot be reduced to narrowly rationalistic/ideological formulas. Most of the times, young people’s uses of the media have to do with pursuing hobbies and sports, with chatting and exchanging instant messages with friends, with playing games (possibly online according to MUD modalities), shopping and downloading pop music and movies, etc. Critical analysis does not help understanding the experience of «immersion» and «flow» that is frequently evoked by computer gamers (Carr et al., 2006); or the emotional intensity and intimacy of some forms of online interaction (boyd 2008); or the ritualizing fascination of fandom practices (Lewis, 1992).
The privileging of critical analysis has led to a radical depreciation of practical activity as politically incorrect and pedagogically worthless. Animated by a general frankfurtian suspicion of the deceptive pleasures of popular culture, media educators have long believed that any kind of media production in the classroom was a form of «technicism», of «cultural reproduction», of «deference and conformity» to dominant media practices (Mastermal, 1985). However, they have lately questioned this approach, recognizing that, in order for critical analysis to be pedagogically valid, it is necessary to situate it, to channel abstract thinking into the flux of the emotions, pleasures and creative action enacted during practical activity.
In other words, media educators have come to recognize that critical analysis and creative production should dialectically feed each other, originating a kind of reflective practice (or, if you will, of practical reflection). Taken alone, reflection risks to be merely abstract knowledge.
In a seminal article written in 1981 – «How does girl number twenty understand ideology?» – Judith Williamson talks about this risk. «Girl number twenty» is student Sissy Jupe in a popular episode of Charles Dickens’ Hard Times (Chapter 2). During a class, she is summoned by the authoritarian rationalist Mr. Gradgrind to define a horse. Totally unsatisfied with her stumbling, timid answers, he outrageously exclaims «Girl number twenty unable to define a horse!». The problem is that Sissy’s knowledge of horses is not based on «facts» (i.e. rational knowledge), it is situated and experiential, embodied in the activities she carries out in the circus where she lives in.
Exactly like Gradgrind’s obsession with «facts» – as Williamson suggests – media educators’ preference for ideological analysis fails to recognize the value of students’ lived media experience and hence makes no difference to them. As a consequence, when deconstructing for instance, women’s representations in advertising, they may end up «“doing” images of women as an English student might “do” medieval poetry, or a history student “the Tudors”» (1981/2, p. 84). Moreover, by focusing on feminist ideological deconstructions of media representations as the only «politically correct» move, media educators fail to connect with contemporary forms of gender politics – as enacted, for instance, in the notion of «girl power». Analyzing female «stereotypes» and «body objectification» does not help us to understand the appeal of media phenomena such as the Spice Girls, Lara Croft or Sex and the City that seem to combine «objectification» with a powerful celebration of agency. Media educators run also the risk of prompting the students to give «politically correct» answers playing the part of being «mature and responsible» (Buckingham, 2006).
In sum, critical analysis, taken alone, ends up either silencing students (just like Sissy Jupe) or prompting them to give pre-packaged answers. In order to avoid that, critical analysis must be connected with the knowledge/experience they already have and «acted out» through some kind of creative practical activity. It is through this connection that media educators can prise open already existing contradictions, thereby «renovating and making «critical» an already existing activity» (Gramsci, 1971, p. 331).
However, if critical analysis, taken alone, may amount to abstract knowledge, creative practical activity too, if taken alone, is severely limited, since it may turn into a mere self-referential and highly subjective play. The term «creativity» is increasingly being used among teachers, educational and cultural policy makers, and of course media educators too, «acting as a kind of «magic ingredient» that is assumed to produce all sorts of transformative effects» (Buckingham, 2003, p. 127). Creativity is romanticized as the individualistic emanation of an «authentic» self who finally finds «free» expression; as such, it an unmediated and spontaneous process escaping all kind of over-determining rules, conventions or structures. This notion is indeed quite influential and at the same time problematic, especially in educational settings. It implies that creativity is just an innate talent and hence cannot be taught, analysed, assessed and evaluated. When it comes to education, this idealist notion of creativity collides with the social, collaborative dimensions of creative production, ignoring the complex relationships between «creative expression» and «technical skills» as well as the importance of reflection and self-evaluation. Moreover, it could be argued that creative production is inherently social, both in the sense that it is collaboratively governed and negotiated through different social, cultural and economic agents and processes, and in the sense that it uses socially available symbolic resources (cultural and social capital) to make meaning (Bourdieu, 1984; Griswold, 2008).
The work of Anne Haas Dyson (1997) and Donna Grace and Joseph Tobin (1998) provides interesting examples of how children may use elements of their media experiences in their creative productions in the classroom (2). Dyson describes a classroom practice of creative writing where the children are asked to write a play enlisting their classmates to act out their stories. As expected, all children drew their inspiration mainly from cartoons stories (such as The Three Ninjas and Power Rangers) bringing the informal play in the schoolyard into the classroom, including all the complex race, social class, age and gender negotiations that go with it. Surely enough, this activity furthered children’s skills in interpreting, analysing, comparing and contrasting texts, as well as their skill in writing more elaborate texts. But more importantly, it provided children with a participatory forum where the pleasures of the media and the informal play of the schoolyard enter the classroom and become a means for defining their social identities as well as a site for negotiating the potential tension between the official curriculum of the school and the unofficial culture and practices of everyday life.
Similarly, Grace and Tobin (1998) show how video production in an elementary school in Hawaii gave children the possibility to transgress the policing norms and conventions of life in school, drawing inspiration from popular media culture, not only children’s programs or family movies, but also horror films and «off-rated» programs such as Beavis and Butthead. Like the Rabelaisian «carnival-goer» evoked by Mikhail Bakhtin, they shot their videos using play, irony and laughter, bodily functions, horrific violence, bad taste and manners to reverse the official order and authority.
In sum, these examples, albeit briefly described here, show that by combining critical analysis with creative production, media education can open a space in the classroom where students can explore the «pleasurable» aspects of their media daily experiences and at the same time engage critically their subject positions (as citizens and consumers) in contemporary media culture and ultimately understand the conditions under which those pleasures are socially constructed. They also show that, when it comes to media production, teachers must learn to step back and cede to students part of their authority and control, both because youngsters frequently have far larger technical skills and also because production is precisely about students expressing their own personal thinking and creativity. Although this may appear as a form of relinquishing the centrality of teachers’ authority, it is in fact a way to radically redefine it, concentrating on its mediating, “scaffolding” function. Crucially, it is still up to teachers to orchestrate classroom activities according to a sound pedagogical project. It is still their task to help students set their own targets, resolve disputes, allocate and manage responsibilities and resources, conduct an effective intra and inter-group communication, work within the deadlines, evaluate processes and products, etc.
But most of all, it is still up to teachers to integrate production work with the broader pedagogical and critical questions the activity is intended to explore. While «having fun» and «playing» with their favourite media characters and narratives, students should be constantly encouraged to take a distance from them, to evaluate them critically, to reflect upon the motivations and consequences of their production choices. In other words, media educators should not see production as a pedagogical goal per se. Of course, they should enable students to use the media to express themselves creatively and to communicate, but that must be always accompanied by systematic reflection and self-evaluation in order to make informed decisions and choices.
Ultimately, that is, I think, what (media) education is all about: students reaching their own conclusions on certain issues by going through a self-determined process of deconstruction/reconstruction of knowledge, learning and social action, a process constantly acted out through creative activities, and thoughtfully scaffolded by the crucial, authoritative and  yet anti-authoritarian, intervention of the teachers in class.

Gianna Cappello, teaches Media Sociology at the University of Palermo. She is co-founder and current president of MED, the Italian Association for Media Education.

Notes
(1) Following Buckingham (2003), I define media education as the process of teaching and learning about the media, while media literacy is the outcome of it, that is the knowledge and skills students acquire through that process.
(2) For more examples and a critical discussion about them, see Buckingham 2003, chapter 10. See also Sefton-Green and Buckingham, 1998.

References
Bourdieu P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London, Routledge.
Boyd D. (2008), Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (ed.), Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Buckingham D. (2006), Media Education. Alfabetizzazione, apprendimento e cultura contemporanea, Trento, Erickson.
Cappello G. (2004), Né con la tv, né senza la tv. Bambini, media e cittadinanza nel XXI secolo, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
Cappello G. (2009), Nascosti nella luce. Media, minori e media education, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
Carr D., Buckingham D., Burn A. and Schott G. (2006), Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play, Cambridge, Polity Press.
Dyson A.H. (1997), Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and classroom literacy, New York, Teachers College Press.
Gardner H. (1987), Formæ mentis: saggio sulla pluralità dell’intelligenza, Milano, Feltrinelli.
Grace D. and Tobin J. (1998), Butt jokes and mean-teacher parodies: Video production in the elementary classroom. In D. Buckingham, Teaching Popular Culture. Beyond Radical Pedagogy, London, UCL Press.
Gramsci A. (1971), Prison Notebooks, London, Lawrence and Wishart.
Griswold W. (2008), Cultures and Societies in a Changing World (3rd edition), Thousand Oaks, CA, Pine Forge Press.
ISTAT (2008), La vita quotidiana nel 2008. Indagine multiscopo annuale sulle famiglie, http://www.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20100319_01/inf_09_07_vita_quotidiana08.pdf (last visited in September 2010).
Livingstone S. and Haddon S. (eds) (2009), Kids Online. Opportunities and Risks for Children, Bristol, UK, Polity Press.
Masterman L. (1985), Teaching the Media, London, Comedia.
Morcellini M. (1997), Passaggio al futuro. Formazione e socializzazione tra vecchi e nuovi media, Milano, FrancoAngeli.
Robins K. and Webster F. (1999), Times of the Technoculture: From the Information Society to the Virtual Life, London, Routledge.
Sefton-Green J. and Buckingham D. (1998), Digital Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia, London, UCL Press.
Williamson J. (1981), How does girl number twenty understand ideology?, «Screen Education», n. 40, pp. 80-87.

Keywords: critical understanding, digital information, credibility, young people, education.

Introduction
In the last ten years, the image of «digital natives» to depict those generations that grew up on «bread and bits» has gathered ample success. Authors like Prensky (2001a; 2001b) and others (see e.g. Taposcott, 1998; Oblinder and Oblinder, 2005) have given us a picture of young people born after the 80’s as gifted with new cognitive styles and able to deal with great quantities of information critically. Familiarity with continuous flows of information apparently render «digital natives» more skilled in interpreting information and in distinguishing between reliable and unreliable information (Veen and Vrakking, 2004). In this sense someone has defined them as «net savvy» (Levin and Arafeh, 2002).
In reality, as different sources have remarked (Calvani et al., 2010; Jacquinot, 2009; Bennet et al., 2008), young people’s familiarity with technology and their technical skills should not deceive us. National and international research studies on a wide scale show that students generally tend to trust the reputed good quality of contents found on the web, revealing scarce critical reflection and passivity, and leaving much up to chance without any kind of source assessment  (see e.g. Sutherland-Smith, 2002; Eagleton et al., 2003; Ravestein et al., 2007).
Thus, judging from the results of these research studies: one is not born, but potentially could become an internet user… So, what does become an internet user mean? What specific problems do the Internet and digital media cause, especially for the younger generation? How can we empower young people’s ability to critically understand media and online digital contents?
In this brief article, we will deal with these questions and present a didactic activity with junior secondary school students aiming at developing forms of critical reflection towards the Internet, as a digital information environment.

Credibility and reliability in digital environments
We have stated that one is not born, but potentially could become an internet user. So, what does become an internet user mean? The answer can be concise but complex at the same time. Becoming internet users means acquiring a set of competences, skills and knowledge to read online information and contents critically, to assess their credibility and reliability, to create information rather than just receive it passively. The concept of credibility itself, together with that of reliability is what renders this definition complex. What do we mean when we say that information is credible? What criteria do we have to assess source credibility? Does the concept of credibility change in the digital era? And how does it change?
When we try to reflect on the concept of credibility and similar concepts, we realize that we are dealing with fluid meanings that are difficult to define. An interesting attempt at reconstructing the semantic evolution of the concept of credibility can be found in Metzger and Flanagin (2008), who illustrate that from Aristotle onwards, the theme of credibility has been dealt with from different research perspectives giving also different results, so that today a clear-cut and shared definition of this concept does not exist. Although Aristotle distinguished between three dimensions, that is, ethos (e.g., appeal derived from the orator’s characteristics), pathos (e.g., appeal on emotions) and logos (e.g., appeal based on reasoning), ultimately, he maintained that credibility depended on the orator’s characteristics. Later, in the 20th century, social psychologists returned to the theme: the Yale Group defined credibility in terms of expertise and reliability and, for the first time, outlined a distinction between source credibility, message credibility and the people’s credulity. After, interest in the theme of credibility was shown by media professionals. Here, the significant discovery was that the more the public depends on the media the more it considers them credible. In other words, media credibility also exists.
A new era of studies on credibility then started towards the end of the last century with the arrival of the Internet and digital media. Within these environments, notions that were previously kept distinct, like source, message and media credibility, are merged together. In particular, the Internet has introduced new significant problems as regards assessment of information credibility/reliability: so, what are the elements that distinguish online information from that transmitted through traditional channels?
First of all, the fact that everybody – provided they have access to digital technology, obviously – can produce digital content and publish it online, even anonymously, is a novelty: who is responsible of the information in this case? How far can a particular piece of information be considered reliable?
Information sources are a very crucial element for judging and assessing credibility. Nevertheless, on the Internet, sources are unclear and ambiguous. Sometimes they are missing, other times they are incomplete and others they are either indecipherable or ambiguous or hidden. A source can be missing because there are no common standards of publication; it can be indecipherable because it refers, for example, to specific situations that are unknown to the majority of readers; it can be confusing or ambiguous because it was produced by more than one person (e.g. Wikipedia: what is the source in this case?) or because it is taken from other sites through aggregators, thus creating a sort of context deficit.
One should also consider that there are no quality controls capable of guaranteeing information reliability, just as there are no common standards for publishing online information: it can easily be modified or plagiarized.
Moreover, the information and media channels convergence can influence credibility judgements, confusing the user on various levels: think of, for example, the «levelling effect» (Burbules, 1998), that is, the leveling of information quality due to the way search engine systems present results, with commercial sites and non-commercial ones appearing together on the same page,
In brief, abundance, lack of quality control, fragmentary nature, context deficit, disintermediation and so on transfer onto the user most of the cognitive work, necessary to assess online information credibility and reliability (Ranieri, 2006).
At the same time, in social networks, new mechanisms of establishing credibility through new forms of social approval are emerging, which compensate for the anonymous nature typical of digital environments. In their careful analysis of the problem, Metzger and Flanagin (2008), indicate four new strategies: conferred credibility, which depends on the positive reputation of the person or entity that recommends a source; tabulated credibility, which is based on peer ratings that are tabulated to give a metric for quality or credibility of an aspect of an individual, organization or product; reputed credibility, which is based on the reputation a person or an organization has within a social network; and finally emergent credibility, which springs from the work of people or social groups who collaborate in an open environment to create repositories of digital resources (e.g. Wikipedia).
What impact do these characteristics of digital information have on young people? What competences are necessary to assess online information credibility?
Online information credibility is particularly problematic and more dangerous with young people. First of all, younger generations use the Internet to research information more than adults: young people are «big consumers» of digital information and very often it is their only source. Moreover, their perception of the risk factor can be lower because they do not deem themselves as possessors of sensitive data (e.g. financial information). Their lack of life experience makes it difficult for them to understand some of the mechanisms that produce credibility. Apart from their personal experiences, young people are different from adults as regards their cognitive and emotional development (Eastin, 2008).
All these elements call for a thorough education to empower critical thinking and forms of higher cognitive reflection, in line with what Dewey said more than a century ago, and more recently Morin.

Critical understanding and digital media: a webquest on digital teens
We shall now focus, on an educational activity aiming at enhancing the ability to critically understand and use online contents, and some results that emerged during the implementation of the activity in a  junior secondary school. The unit, entitled «To be or not to be…digital teens» (2), was designed and implemented by Marco Guastavigna and Maria Ranieri within the European Project on Media Education «On Air» (3). As stated before, the purpose was to enhance students’ critical understanding of media messages, especially online contents available on the Web, and develop awareness of and reflection on reading and writing even different types of media. The focus on diverse media was based on a cross-media approach to the issue of digital communication. The idea was that to develop critical thinking it was important to face with different needs on the basis of relevance, extension, and intensity, or on the basis of the presence of a target and the use of a spoken language.
The project for the activity was inspired by the WebQuest model (Dodge, 2005), a teaching method derived from Inquiry-Based-Learning, where students are asked to accomplish a task using a given set of Internet resources and also other digital resources found, selected and evaluated by themselves. The topic proposed as a field of inquiry was how media (TV, newspapers, the Web) represent teenagers and their relationship with digital media in order to promote students’ reflection on their own relationship with the Internet.

Fig.1      The Home Page of the webquest «To be or not to be…digital teenagers?».

The activities in the unit were:

• initial exploration of the given online resources about the relationship between adolescents and digital media;
• extension of the initial set of resources through the search for further information using the internal search engines of the BBC and YouTube; 
• analysis, comparison and evaluation of the located resources with the aim of discovering views and values, implicit representation of adolescents and so on;   
• organization of the selected material and synthesis;
• presentation of the synthesis in a variety of communicative formats such as oral presentations, power point presentations, editing of a post in a blog, writing of an article for the newspaper.

In order to develop students’ awareness of the search strategies carried out to locate new online resources, pupils were provided with a reviewing tool to note down key words used for the search, the number of obtained results and comments. Other didactic tools which could be used during the activity were: a document about the fundamental rules of journalism, a document about conceptual maps as tools to structure ideas and concepts and a draft of a conceptual map as a cue to organize the information found during the search and selection process.
As regards evaluation, three levels were considered: students’ satisfaction, learning results and change of perceptions and representations. For each level a specific assessment tool was created.
The unit was implemented in the province of Massa (Italy), in a junior secondary school, during the period April-May 2010. 18 students were involved. The activity was carried out in the computer room and was managed by the maths teacher supported by a student who was doing her thesis and supervised by Maria Ranieri (4). The activity required 16 hour (2 h. per week).
We do not have enough space here to provide a detailed report of the experience (5). We will just focus on the answers given by the students to the questionnaire, administered before and after the experience, to explore their ideas about the Internet as an informative source. We believe that from the comparisons important differences emerge and that these differences show that even a short experience – if supported by well designed learning tools – may influence and even change students’ perceptions of the Internet and their relationship with information.

Fig. 2     Activities carried out in the classroom (6)

The dimensions explored through the questionnaire were: «How do you select information found on the web?»; «Do you think the information on the Internet is neutral?», «When you have to write a report on a certain topic, do you consider only the information on the Internet or not? If not, which other sources do you consider?»; «Do you know how a search engine works? How do they influence the results?».
From the answers obtained before the educational experience some main topics have emerged pertaining to two dimensions: technology and critical thinking. As regards the technological dimension, we noticed that even though pupils very often use Google, they have no conception of how a search engine works: 8 out of 10 pupils revealed that they have no idea about what exactly a search engine is, and how it influences the results. The majority of the students tends to use only the information on the first page of the results. Only 2 students out of 10 go on Google and «think about and then write the exact key word to receive the useful information, and then select only what best fits the needs», or «among several pieces of information select only the most appropriate for the purpose».
As regards critical thinking, we can notice that pupils have confused ideas about the neutrality of information: 7 out of 10 declare they do not doubt the reliability and credibility of the information found on the Internet. They answered that «Information is neutral because when I look for a word I always find the correct answer», or «Yes, information is neutral because on Google and on Wikipedia there is everything I look for».
Only 3 pupils out of 10 gave a negative answer: «Information is not neutral, because many people create fake websites on the Internet»; «No, because on Google you may find incorrect information», or «No, because everyone has access to the Internet, and much of the information can be false».
Finally, before starting the educational activity the majority of pupils considered information found on any website as valid as if it were found in a book, or in an encyclopedia; few pupils doubted whether information on the Internet was always credible or reliable.
The same questionnaire was administered at the end of the experience. The results showed that there still was a bit of confusion about the knowledge of search engines, or of how information is given, but there was a significant change about how students perceive the neutrality of information on the Internet. The majority of pupils, who previously answered that online information was neutral and credible, now changed their minds: «No, information is not neutral because on the Internet no one checks site contents», or «No, because on the Internet there is a lot of fake information», or «information on the Internet is not regarded as being true like in books, simply because everyone can write their thoughts on the Internet». Significantly M. who in the first questionnaire wrote: «Information on the Internet is neutral because when I look for a word on Google or Wikipedia I find what I am looking for, and the meaning that I find is correct», in the second questionnaire she wrote «Information on Google is not always neutral because there are so many websites I have to be careful, because the information I find can sometimes not be true».
We can consider these answers as positive results of the experience, which allowed pupils to start a deeper reflection around the issue of source credibility of online information and contents.

Conclusions
The considerable impact that digital information today has on our lives requires more refined competences to critically understanding information. In the digital era, information is always more fragmentary, lacking context and having ambiguous sources. At the same time, the growing complexity that characterizes today’s systems of creating credibility in digital environments demands an urgent and deep reflection on the underlying mechanisms and on the new strategies of assessing information that are being developed on online networks. A study of these mechanisms has just started and much is left to be done.
On one hand, research on the media should provide useful elements for a better understanding of the transformations underway. On the other, media education still remains an important answer to help younger generations make use of digital contents critically. At school first of all, but also in other contexts, development of competences to critically understand information should, in our opinion, be a priority of 21st century education. The experience we have presented here, though limited in time and number of participants, is indicative of how far we still have to go: «one is not born, but rather becomes an internet user», and because of this, the intervention of the school and the education institutions is fundamental.

Maria Ranieri is a researcher and a lecturer in Educational Technology at Faculty of Sciences of Education of the University of Florence (Florence, Italy).

Notes
(1) It is the title given to a workshop by CLEMI (Paris, France) on Internet education, recalling what Simone de Beauvoir wrote about women in  The Second Sex,sixty years ago (Jacquinot, 2009).
(2) The activity is available online at the following address: http://www.noiosito.it/med/wqen.
(3) The «On Air» project was proted by the Italian Association of Media Education (MED), (http://www.medmediaeducation.it) and the Faculty of Communication Studies of the University La Sapienza (Rome). Detailed information about the project, the partners, the objectives and the results achieved are available at the following address: http://www.onair.medmediaeducation.it.
(4) She is Sabina Guadagni, who has followed all the implementation process in the classroom with great sensitivity and attention.
(5) A detailed account of the experience is available on the project web portal: http://www.onair.medmediaeducation.it.
(6) Pictures have been taken by Sabina Guadagni.

References
Bennett S., Maton K. e Kervin L. (2008), The «digital natives» debate. A critical review of the evidence, «British Journal of Educational Technology», vol. 39, n. 6, pp. 775-786.
Burbules N. C. (1998), Digital Texts and Future of Scholarly Writing and Publication, «Journal of Curriculum Studies», vol. 30, n. 1, pp. 105-124.
Calvani A., Fini A., and Ranieri M. (2010), La competenza digitale nella scuola. Modelli e strumenti per svilupparla e valutarla, Trento, Erickson.
Dodge B. (1997), Some Thoughts About WebQuests, e-paper: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html.
Eagleton M. B., Guinee K. and Langlais K. (2003), Teaching Internet literacy strategies: the hero inquiry project, «Voices from the Middle», vol. 10, n. 3, pp. 28-35.
Eastin M.S. (2008), Toward a Cognitive Developmental Approach to Youth Perceptions of Credibility. In M.J. Metzger and A.J. Flanagin (ed.), pp. 29-47.
Jacquinot-Delaunay G. (2009), De quelques repérages pour la recherche en education aux médias. In P. Verniers (ed.), EuroMeduc. L’éducation aux medias en Europe. Controverses, défis et perspectives, Bruxelles, EuroMeduc, pp. 143-151.
Levin D. and Arafeh S. (2002), The digital disconnect: The widening gap between Internet-savvy students and their schools, Washington, DC, Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Metzger M.J. and Flanagin A.J. (ed.) (2008), Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, The MIT Press.
Oblinger D. and Oblinger J. (2005), Is it age or IT: First steps towards understanding the net generation. In D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger (a cura di), Educating the Net generation, EDUCAUSE, Boulder, CO, pp. 2.1-2.20.
Prenksy M. (2001a), Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently?, «On the Horizon», vol. 9, n. 6, p. 4.
Prenksy M. (2001b), Digital natives, digital immigrants, «On the Horizon», vol. 9, n. 5, pp. 1-6.
Ranieri M. (2006), Formazione e cyberspazio. Divari e opportunità nel mondo della rete, Pisa, ETS.
Ravestein J., Ladage C. and Johsua S. (2007), Trouver et utiliser des informations sur Internet à l’école: problèmes techniques et questions éthiques, «Revue française de pédagogie», n. 158, pp. 71-83.
Sutherland-Smith W. (2002), Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen, «The Reading Teacher», vol. 55, n. 7, pp. 662-669.
Tapscott D. (1998), Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation, New York, McGraw-Hill.
Veen W. and Vrakking B. (2006), Homo Zappiens. Growing up in a digital age, London, Network Continuum Education.