Content uploaded by Priscila Berger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Priscila Berger on Jun 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comunicar, n. 64, v. XXVIII, 2020 |Media Education Research Journal |ISSN: 1134-3478; e-ISSN: 1988-3478
www.comunicarjournal.com
Teachers’ mediation practice:
Opportunities and risks for youth
media behavior
Prácticas de mediación docente: Oportunidades y riesgos
en el comportamiento mediático de jóvenes
Priscila Berger is Research Assistant at the Department of Empirical Media Research and Political
Communication at the Technische Universität Ilmenau (Germany) (priscila.berger@tu-ilmenau.de)
(https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9097-2094)
ABSTRACT
Research with children and adolescents shows that teachers are one of the agents from whom they receive mediation of
their media use. However, little is known about teachers’ mediation practice. This study aims to approximate teachers’
practice with the concept of mediation by, firstly, systematizing a set of curricular media-related competences into the goals
of maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks in youngsters’ media behavior. Then, teachers’ professional and personal
characteristics are tested for associations with the mediation of risks and opportunities of students’ media use. Data collected
in a survey with 315 teachers in Germany were analyzed. Results of regression analysis show that most factors predicted
both opportunities and risks in a similar way. Teachers are more engaged in maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks
when they use information and communication technologies (ICT) more frequently, consider the respective competences
important, engage in collaboration with colleagues, do not teach STEM subjects, and do not work in a Gymnasium. Having
received ICT-related training was a significant predictor only of mediation of opportunities, while age was a significant
predictor only of mediation of risks. Implications of the findings and how the concept of mediation can contribute to the
development of teachers as media educators are discussed.
RESUMEN
Estudios con niños y adolescentes han mostrado que los profesores son uno de los agentes de quien reciben la mediación en
el uso de los medios. Sin embargo, poco se conoce sobre las prácticas de mediación docente. El objetivo de este estudio es
aproximar la práctica docente con el concepto de mediación a través de, en primer lugar, la sistematización de un conjunto de
competencias curriculares relacionadas con los medios, con el objetivo de maximizar las oportunidades y minimizar los riesgos
en el comportamiento mediático de los jóvenes. Posteriormente, se examinan las características de los profesores para buscar
asociaciones con la mediación de riesgos y oportunidades del uso de los medios por parte de los estudiantes. Se analizaron
datos recogidos en una encuesta con 315 profesores en Alemania. Los resultados del análisis de regresión muestran que
los profesores están más comprometidos en maximizar las oportunidades y minimizar los riesgos cuando utilizan las TIC
con más frecuencia, consideran importantes las respectivas competencias, colaboran con colegas, no enseñan asignaturas en
STEM y no trabajan en escuelas del tipo Gymnasium. Haber recibido capacitación relacionada con las TIC fue un factor
significativo solo de la mediación de oportunidades, mientras que la edad fue un factor significativo solo de la mediación
de riesgos. Finalmente, se discuten cómo el concepto de mediación puede contribuir al desarrollo de los profesores como
educadores de medios.
KEYWORDS | PALABRAS CLAVE
Mediation, media literacy, teaching practice, opportunities, risks, secondary education, quantitative analysis, media
use.
Mediación, competencia mediática, práctica docente, oportunidades, riesgos, educación secundaria, análisis
cuantitativo, uso de medios.
Received: 2019-12-26 | Reviewed: 2020-01-30 | Accepted: 2020-03-11 | Preprint: 2020-04-15 | Published: 2020-06-01
DOI https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-05 | Pages: 47-56
1
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
48
1. Introduction
The necessity to educate children and adolescents to cope with the risks and seize the opportunities
associated with digital media is widely recognized. Minimizing risks and expanding opportunities in online
use are goals of media education expressed in practices such as mediation exercised by socializing agents
(Kirwil, 2009; Livingstone et al., 2017) and the fostering of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) (Hobbs,
2010; KMK, 2012; Pöttinger & Meister, 2014).
Mediation is defined as “management of the relation between child and media” (Livingstone & Helsper,
2008: 581), while fostering MIL refers to teaching about media, usually in the context of schools (Berger
& Wolling, 2019; Hatlevik & Hatlevik, 2018; Lorenz et al., 2019). In the research about the mediation of
children and adolescents’ media use, parents have received the most attention (Mendoza, 2009). Indeed,
studies frequently point out that parents are the primary agents from whom children and adolescents report
receiving mediation of online media use (Jiménez-Iglesias et al., 2015; Livingstone et al., 2011; Shin &
Lwin, 2017). However, research also shows that teachers have been recognized as influential mediating
agents of children and adolescents’ safe internet use (Jiménez-Iglesias et al., 2015; Kalmus et al., 2012;
Shin & Lwin, 2017; Tejedor & Pulido, 2012).
Thus, it is relevant to understand teachers’ mediation practices in the media education of youngsters.
Nevertheless, most of what is known about teachers as mediating agents was investigated from the
perspective of children and adolescents. Some studies explored the perspective of parents, pointing out,
for instance, the mediation strategies adopted and the associations of parents’ characteristics with different
mediation strategies (Lee, 2013; Livingstone et al., 2017; Nikken & Jansz, 2014; Nikken & Schols, 2015).
Nevertheless, the perspective of teachers about mediation activities remains scarcely researched.
Teachers’ practices in media education have been studied mostly in terms of their integration of
information and communication technologies (ICT) for instruction (Ertmer, 2005; Knezek & Christensen,
2016; Petko, 2012) and their fostering of students’ MIL (Lorenz et al., 2019; Hatlevik & Hatlevik, 2018;
Siddiq et al., 2016). Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the teachers’ practices of fostering students’ MIL
and mediation of students’ media use are equivalent. Although both practices share common goals, they
are usually discussed individually, as Mendoza remarked, “parental mediation and media literacy are two
fields that have not often crossed paths” (2009: 29). Considering the research about teachers as media
educators, this also seems to be the case.
This study aims to connect the concepts of fostering MIL and mediation in the teacher’s practice.
Firstly, it systematizes a set of curricular media-related competences according to what is common ground
between the two practices: the functions of maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks in youngsters’
media use. Secondly, it explores teachers’ professional and personal characteristics associated with the
mediation of risks and opportunities in students’ media use. Therefore, data collected in a survey with
315 teachers of secondary schools in the state of Thuringia, Germany, are analyzed.
1.1. Teachers as media educators
The role of teachers as media educators is frequently associated with a curriculum. Media education
curricula in Europe tend to follow frameworks of MIL, digital, and computer literacy (Frau-Meigs et al.,
2017). Taking as an example the state of Thuringia, Germany, its media education guideline for secondary
schools, called “Kursplan Medienkunde,” consists of a list of competences that students should develop.
Typically, secondary schools in Germany have students between 10 and 18 years old. Findings of the
study by Brüggen et al. (2017) show that parents in Germany consider 11-12 years the most critical age in
terms of online risks for their children. Thus, media education in secondary schools can target this critical
group as well as older children and adolescents.
The “Kursplan Medienkunde” has seven competence areas: 1) Information and data; 2) Communi-
cation and cooperation; 3) Media production; 4) Presentation techniques; 5) Analysis and assessment;
6) Media and society; 7) Law, data security, and youth media protection. In an evaluation report
of the guideline, Wolling and Berger (2018) observed that the competence areas of the “Kursplan
Medienkunde” are consonant with the ones proposed by well-known references, such as the European
Digital Competence Framework (Ferrari, 2013), the Framework of the Partnership for 21st Century
https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-05 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
49
Learning (2015), and the UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Framework (UNESCO, 2013).
Teachers usually carry the primary responsibility in schools for developing MIL competences with their
students (Brüggemann, 2013). In German school curricula, media literacy is not a subject but should
be taught in the realm of traditional school subjects instead (KMK, 2012). Thus, schools and individual
teachers usually have the freedom to decide which media competences will be addressed in each subject.
Despite guidelines of media education, Hartai observed that, not only in Germany, but also in the member
countries of the European Union in general, it is not clear who should teach media education and with
what qualifications, and “there is no single or well-defined focus of media literacy in formal education”
(2014: 67). Due to this lack of firm establishment of media literacy in the school curricula, it is likely to
exist considerable variance in the efforts that teachers invest in fostering MIL.
Studies addressed this variance and identified the following positive predictors of teachers’ fostering
of their students’ media-related competences: adopting ICT for instruction more frequently (Berger &
Wolling, 2019; Hatlevik & Hatlevik, 2018; Lorenz et al., 2019; Siddiq et al., 2016), having more positive
attitudes towards the value of ICT for instruction (Berger & Wolling, 2019; Hatlevik & Hatlevik, 2018;
Karaseva et al., 2015; Siddiq et al., 2016), feeling better prepared to deal with ICT (Hatlevik & Hatlevik,
2018; Siddiq et al., 2016), collaborating with other teachers to exchange knowledge and experiences about
media education (Lorenz et al., 2019), teaching humanities subjects (Berger & Wolling, 2019; Siddiq et
al., 2016), and teaching in specific types of schools (Berger & Wolling, 2019). Among these studies
that explore the teacher’s perspective, only the study by Karaseva et al. (2015) addresses the fostering
of media-related competences as mediation.Otherwise, most of the studies that refer to teachers as
mediating agents investigated mediation from the perspective of children and adolescents, not of teachers.
Consequently, the question arises of whether it is only a matter of terminology, or if there are differences
in the teachers’ practices of fostering students’ MIL and mediating students’ media use.
Different from MIL frameworks, the concept of mediation of children and adolescents’ media use does
not usually establish competences as goals. Therefore, it is less applicable in a curricular format. Concepts
of mediation develop around the idea of adopting strategies to influence children’s and adolescents’ media
use (Kalmus, 2013; Kirwil, 2009). Thus, mediation happens concerning a minor’s natural media behavior
(Livingstone & Helsper, 2008), influencing, managing, or shaping it through different kinds of intervention
or strategies. In the literature, five main types of mediation strategies are identified: 1) Restriction through
rules and limitations of determined aspects of the media usage, e.g., time or access to particular contents;
2) Co-use, when the agent and the minor engage together in a shared media activity; 3) Monitoring, when
the agent verifies details about the minor’s media use in records left on devices (e.g., browser history, chat
logs); 4) Supervision, when the agent observes what the minor is doing with the media while the activity
is happening; 5) Active mediation, when the agent instructs and talks to the minor about media content
or media use (Bartau-Rojas et al., 2018; Livingstone & Helsper, 2008; Nikken & Jansz, 2014; Nikken &
Schols, 2015; Smahelova et al., 2017).
Mendoza (2009) discussed possible connections between different types of mediation and media
literacy, focusing on parents as media educators in regard to children’s television consumption. For
instance, the author connects restrictive mediation to a protectionist approach to media education,
observing that advice materials addressed to parents frequently suggest adopting restrictions to children’s
media use. This creates an idea that restriction is the easiest way to protect minors from harm that media
may cause. When it comes to active mediation, Mendoza argues that it is “the type of mediation most
closely aligned with media literacy” (2009: 36) since it consists of talking to the minor about media use.
In their study with teachers from Estonia and Latvia, Karaseva et al. (2015) found out that
teachers engaged mostly in active mediation and co-use to teach competences that help students identify
opportunities in online media use and develop critical thinking. Teachers also reported adopting social and
technical restrictions to try to protect students from potentially harmful online content. These findings
suggest that the fostering of media-related competences happens through practices of (mainly active)
mediation. Thus, the boundaries between the practices of mediation and fostering MIL are not clear, and
both practices can happen interchangeably. Therefore, instead of looking at teachers’ efforts in specific
curricular areas of media literacy, this study seeks to approximate the concepts of fostering MIL and of
©ISSN: 1134-3478 •e-ISSN: 1988-3293 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
50
mediation. Therefore, it systematizes teachers’ practice according to what the two concepts share in
common: the goals of expanding opportunities and reducing risks in students’ media use.
1.2. Mediation of online risks and opportunities
Livingstone and Haddon (2009) proposed a classification of risks and opportunities in online media use
in the areas of content, contact, and conduct (Table 1). These areas correspond to situations that children
and adolescents are likely to engage in when they are online. The area of content refers to when the minor
is a recipient, and thus, encounters opportunities and risks in the content available online to everyone. The
area of contact considers the minor as a participant in a communicational situation, in which the minor
engages in interactions with other people, mainly peers and adults. Finally, in the area of conduct, the
minor is an actor, who initiates the interactions with others. Brüggen et al. (2017) proposed the additional
area of contract, referring to financial costs that may occur due to unintentional in-app purchases and
subscriptions, which can be done with a few clicks, especially on smartphones. However, this area was
connected only to risks.
Research that tested factors associated with mediation of risks and opportunities focused only on parents
so far, i.e., the associations were tested only regarding parents’ characteristics and the types of mediation
they tend to adopt. The literature employed restrictive, active and enabling mediation as outcome variables,
where restrictive mediation corresponds mostly to the mediation of risks (Mendoza, 2009), enabling
mediation tends to favor opportunities (Livingstone et al., 2017), and active mediation can target either
risks or opportunities (Nathanson, 2002). In different studies, a higher level of digital skills was associated
with more frequent employment of restrictive mediation (Lee, 2013; Livingstone et al., 2017; Nikken &
Jansz, 2014) and also with enabling mediation (Livingstone et al., 2017). However, when it comes to
usage, Nikken and Jansz (2014) found that parents who use the internet less frequently tended to employ
restrictions more often. Similarly, Nikken and Schols (2015) found a negative association between the
amount of time that parents spend with media (TV, computers, or touchscreens) and the frequency that
they apply restrictive and active mediation. In terms of demographics, most types of mediations tended
to be adopted more frequently by female parents (Livingstone et al., 2017; Nikken & Jansz, 2014),
although adoption of technical restrictions was an exception (Nikken & Jansz, 2014). Finally, the age
of the parent was negatively associated with enabling mediation but positively associated with restrictive
mediation (Livingstone et al., 2017).
This study attempts to approximate the concept of fostering media literacy with the concept of
mediation by focusing on the fostering of competences that aim to expand opportunities and the ones
that aim to counteract risks in students’ media use, with the research question:
RQ: How can teachers’ efforts in mediating opportunities and risks of students’ media use be explained?
Based on the literature about teachers’ fostering of MIL, factors are tested as predictors of both
opportunities and risks. Positive associations are expected with regular use of ICT in class, positive attitudes
towards media education, training, and collaboration with colleagues. In contrast, negative associations are
hypothesized with teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and teaching at a
Gymnasium. In the German school system, Gymnasium is a type of school that emphasizes the preparation
for entering higher education and is selective. Thus, it is considered more differentiated from other school
types. Based on the studies with parents, mediation of both risks and opportunities are expected to be
https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-05 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
51
negatively associated with private digital use and positively associated with being female. Age is expected
to predict risks positively and opportunities negatively.
2. Methods
2.1. Data collection and sample
The study employs data of a survey conducted with secondary teachers in 2017 in the state of
Thuringia, Germany. From the secondary schools of the state (approx. 468 with 12,100 teachers), 88
schools were randomly selected to participate in the voluntary survey. The principals of the selected
schools were asked to distribute the questionnaire among the teachers in their school. Besides the link
to the online survey, schools also received printed questionnaires with a pre-stamped envelope. Thus,
teachers could answer the online or the paper version of the questionnaire.
The sample of the study consists of 315 teachers (response rate of 12%). The majority are female
(72%) and older than 50 (53%). Half (50%) have over 25 years of experience in the teaching practice. The
characteristics of the sample are similar to the teachers’ population in Thuringia (Thüringer Ministerium
für Bildung, Jugend und Sport, 2018).
2.2. Measures
Mediation of risks and opportunities. Teachers were asked how frequently they would conduct
activities in their classes aiming to foster several media-related competences in their students on a scale
from 1=never to 5=very frequently. Within these competences were identified the ones aimed at
minimizing risks and maximizing opportunities in the dimensions of content, contact, and conduct, based
on Livingstone and Haddon (2009). The dimension of contract (Brüggen et al., 2017) was not adopted
because it refers only to risks. The sets of competences were tested with a principal component analysis.
The factor solution delivered two dimensions that together explained 63% of the variance (Table 2). The
dimensions were consonant with the framework proposed by Livingstone and Haddon (2009). The only
exception was “Following the adequate norms for online communication,” which was initially identified as
addressing the risk of conduct (i.e., avoid that students perpetrate cyberbullying or hate speech). However,
in the analysis, it loaded in the dimension of opportunities. Due to this contradiction, the item was excluded
from the composite scales. All the other items had their scales averaged to build two composite scales:
teachers’ mediation of online opportunities and teachers’ mediation of online risks.
©ISSN: 1134-3478 •e-ISSN: 1988-3293 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
52
• ICT use in class. Teachers were asked how often they use a set of 12 ICTs to conduct activities
with their students in class on a scale from 1=never to 5=several times a week. The items
were averaged, resulting in a composite scale indicating frequency of use of ICT with students
in class (alpha=0.90, M=2.83, SD=0.88).
• Importance of risks and opportunities.Teachers were asked how important they consider that
students develop each of the competences in Table 2 on a scale from 1=not important at all
to 5=very important. The items were averaged to build the composite scales of importance
attributed to competences that address opportunities (alpha=0.70, M=3.98, SD=0.46) and to
competences that address risks in students’ online use (alpha=0.77, M=4.43, SD=0.41).
• Training. Teachers were asked whether they received in-service or pre-service training on how
to teach students about media use. The answer options were 0=no or 1=yes (yes=37.10%).
• Collaboration. Teachers were asked whether they learned about how to teach students about
media use through exchanges with other teachers. The answer options were 0=no or 1=yes
(yes=46.30%).
• Private digital media use. A question asked how important teachers consider the internet,
computers, smartphones, and social media for their private use. For each item, the possible
answers were on a scale from 1=not important at all to 5=especially important. These four
items were averaged to build a composite scale of importance of digital media for private use
(alpha=0.76, M=3.68, SD=0.72).
• School subjects taught. Teachers were asked whether they taught biology, chemistry, mathemat-
ics, physics, and informatics. The answer options were 0=no or 1=yes. Those who answered
“yes” in one or more items were grouped to indicate the teachers involved in the instruction of
STEM subjects (yes=44.48%).
• Type of school. Among five types of schools of the German school system operating in the state
of Thuringia, teachers were asked to indicate the type of school where they teach. As the main
differences exist between Gymnasium and other types of schools, the reference measure was
set to Gymnasium, with answer options 0=no or 1=yes (yes=35.83%).
• Age and gender. Teachers were asked to choose in which of seven age groups they belonged,
ranging from 1=up to 29 years old until 7=55 or older (largest group 7=34.30%). In addition,
teachers were asked to inform their gender 0=female, 1=male (female=72%).
2.3. Data analysis
The hypothesized associations were tested with linear regression analyses so that the effects of each
predictor can be verified when the remaining predictors in the model are held constant. One regression
model was calculated for opportunities, and another for risks. Bivariate correlations between the predictors
and variance inflation factors did not indicate multicollinearity problems.
3. Results
The findings shown in Table 3 point out that teachers’ mediation of online opportunities are positively
and significantly associated with teachers’ use of ICT for instruction, the level of importance that teachers
attribute to the competences that emphasize opportunities in media use, having received ICT-related
training, and having collaborated with colleagues in ICT issues. Teaching STEM subjects and teaching
at a Gymnasium associate negatively and significantly with the mediation of opportunities. The effects of
importance attributed to competences that emphasize risks, private digital media use, age, and gender are
close to zero. When it comes to the mediation of risks, positive and significant associations were found with
the use of ICT in class, the importance attributed to competences that emphasize risks in media use, ICT
collaboration with colleagues, and age. Teaching STEM subjects and teaching at a Gymnasium predicted
mediation of risks negatively and significantly. No significant associations were found with importance
attributed to competences that emphasize opportunities, having received training in ICT, private digital
media use, and gender. The models explain 52% of the variance in the mediation of opportunities and
51% in the mediation of risks.
https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-05 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
53
4. Discussion and conclusion
Based on theoretical and statistical analyses, a set of competences distributed in seven areas in the
“Kursplan Medienkunde” was rearranged into the goals of maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks
in students’ media use. Besides presenting another way of organizing media-related competences, the study
tested factors associated with emphasizing opportunities and risks. The significant associations found are
mostly consonant with findings of studies that predicted traditional areas of MIL. These results indicate
that fostering media literacy and mediating students’ media use are closely related and blend in teachers’
practice. When teachers’ are addressing the fostering of competences established in a media literacy
curriculum, they are likely to mediate their students’ media use. Thus, it is pertinent to question whether
it is beneficial for schools to adopt frameworks of media literacy that consist of several different areas of
competence. Such guidelines with multiple areas might look challenging, too comprehensive, and unclear
to some teachers, especially when many teachers in charge of MIL education do not have specific training
for it (Hartai, 2014).
Also, most factors predicted both opportunities and risks in a similar way in terms of significance,
strength, and direction of effects. This finding suggests that mediating opportunities and mediating risks
do not compete with each other in teachers’ practice. Similarly, Livingstone et al. (2017) found that
enabling and restrictive mediation are applied in a mixed way by parents. The strong associations with
using ICT for instruction raise the possibility that besides active mediation, co-use may be a mediation
practice employed by teachers, as already signalized by Karaseva et al. (2015). However, co-use at
school might differ considerably from co-use at home. For instance, at school, co-use might be initiated
more frequently by teachers and be paired with active mediation. Conversely, at home, children might
have more opportunities to initiate co-use with parents.
The findings also confirm that teachers’ favorable attitudes toward media education are crucial for their
engagement in practices involving media (Ertmer, 2005; Karaseva et al., 2015; Knezek & Christensen,
2016). Nevertheless, ICT training associated significantly only with the mediation of opportunities.
Possibly, teachers are more frequently trained to focus on opportunities rather than on risks that media
offer, as Trültzsch-Wijnen et al. (2017) observe, that media education in Europe has moved to a focus on
efficiency and operational skills. However, research shows that parents and students believe that teachers
share responsibility in the mediation of risks (Brüggen et al., 2017; Tejedor & Pulido, 2012). Therefore,
teacher training should respond accordingly. In regards to collaboration with colleagues, it seems that
encouraging exchanges between teachers can contribute to their engagement in media education practices
(Hatlevik & Hatlevik, 2018), including mediation of opportunities and risks. Since colleagues tend to share
similar work conditions and the same school culture, collaborating with other teachers might be more
efficient than external training, which cannot consider the individual school environment.
Concerning the negative associations with teaching STEM subjects, it seems that some school subjects
like humanities favor the fostering of topics related to media use, especially the ones that refer to critical
competences (Siddiq et al., 2016; Fraillon et al., 2020). Regarding the school where teachers work, as
©ISSN: 1134-3478 •e-ISSN: 1988-3293 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
54
MIL is not part of the “Abitur,” the tests that are evaluated for admission in higher education programs in
Germany, Gymnasium teachers seem to prioritize less the mediation of students’ media use. Moreover,
students’ socioeconomic conditions might play a role. On an international basis, there is a positive
association between students’ ICT competence level and their socioeconomic status (Fraillon et al., 2020).
In Germany, students from families with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to attend a Gymnasium
(Wernstedt & John-Ohnesorg, 2008). Thus, Gymnasium teachers might perceive that the students are
competent enough regarding opportunities and risks in media use and so, do not feel the urge to engage
regularly in mediation practices.
Concerning teachers’ personal characteristics, only age was associated with the mediation of risks. It is
possible that older teachers might be more sensitive to the potential harm that media may cause and, thus,
give higher priority to approach risks in media use. Contrary to the research about parental mediation, no
associations were found with gender and private media use. Parents’ media habits and the duties of male
and female parents reflect the values of the family. While these values influence parents’ active mediation,
teachers’ mediation is expected to occur according to the culture, processes, and curriculum of the school
as well as their professional experience and attitudes, instead of personal habits, values, and opinions.
This study challenges to look at teachers’ fostering of MIL as mediation of opportunities and risks of
students’ media use. Schools could consider implementing simplified media education guidelines that aim
at the fostering of competences that emphasize opportunities and risks in media use. This approach could
be able to involve more teachers in media education for being more straightforward and appealing than
guidelines with several competence areas. Also, making explicit the goals of maximizing opportunities
and minimizing risks might help teachers become aware of their relevance in mediating students’ media
use. Moreover, teachers must be conscious that online environments are dynamic and bring regularly
new opportunities and risks, resulting in a big challenge for keeping curricula and training up to date
(Frau-Meigs et al., 2017). In this sense, collaboration and informal exchanges among teachers have good
potential to overcome this question. While there is no indication from research that the relevance of MIL
contents varies significantly according to children’s age, the effects of mediation strategies vary (Chen &
Shi, 2019). Thus, it could be pertinent that media education guidelines for schools consider including,
besides curricular competences, the mediation strategies that teachers can use to foster MIL in different
school years. However, for this purpose, more research is needed about teachers’ mediation strategies
and their potential impacts.
This study is a secondary analysis of existing data. Thus, it is necessary to acknowledge limitations
regarding the validity of the measures of mediation practices. Teachers’ mediation of opportunities and
risks in students’ media use was not directly measured. Instead, in the original instrument, the teachers’
fostering of competences in the seven areas of the “Kursplan Medienkunde” was measured. In terms
of strategies, it was possible only to assume that teachers fostered these competences mainly by active
mediation (Karaseva et al., 2015; Mendoza, 2009). Future studies should focus clearly on developing
measures of teachers’ mediation strategies. Then, it will be possible to explore associations between the
fostering of specific media-related literacies and mediation strategies adopted.
Funding Agency
The data analyzed in this study were collected in the realm of the project “Media literacy in Thuringian schools” (2551000176),
financed by the Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport.
References
Bartau-Rojas, I., Aierbe-Barandiaran, A., & Oregui-González, E. (2018). Parental mediation of the Internet use of primary students:
Beliefs, strategies and difficulties. [Mediación parental del uso de Internet en el alumnado de Primaria: creencias, estrategias y
dificultades]. Comunicar,54, 71-79. https://doi.org/10.3916/c54-2018-07
Berger, P., & Wolling, J. (2019). They need more than technology-equipped schools: Teachers’ practice of fostering students’
digital protective skills. Media and Communication,7(2), 137-137. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1902
Brüggemann, M. (2013). Digitale Medien im Schulalltag: Eine qualitative rekonstruktive Studie zum Medienhandeln und
berufsbezogenen Orientierungen von Lehrkräften. [Digital media in the school reality: A qualitative reconstructive study of
media management and teachers’ professional orientation]. Kopaed. https://bit.ly/2J4iZGy
Brüggen, N., Dreyer, S., Drosselmeier, M., Gebel, C., Hasebrink, U., & Rechlitz, M. (2017). Jugendmedienschutzindex: Der
Umgang mit onlinebezogenen Risiken—Ergebnisse der Befragung von Heranwachsenden und Eltern. [Youth media protection
https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-05 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
55
index: Dealing with online risks—Findings of the survey with youth and parentes]. FSM - Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle
Multimedia-Diensteanbieter e.V. http://bit.ly/3b1KCvM
Chen, L., & Shi, J. (2019). Reducing harm from media: A meta-analysis of parental mediation. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly,96(1), 173-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018754908
Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational
Technology Research and Development,53, 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504683
Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. Publications
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2788/52966
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020). Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA International
computer and information literacy study 2018 international report. Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38781-5
Frau-Meigs, D., Velez, I., & Michel, J.F. (2017). Public policies in media and information literacy in Europe: Cross-countr y
comparisons. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315628851
Hartai, L. (2014). EMEDUS - European media literacy education study: Report on formal media education in Europe.
Hungarian Institute for Education Research and Development. http://bit.ly/38UClty
Hatlevik, I.K., & Hatlevik, O.E. (2018). Students’ evaluation of digital information: The role teachers play and factors that
influence variability in teacher behaviour. Computers in Human Behavior,83, 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.022
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. http://bit.ly/2tA8mqD
Jiménez-Iglesias, E., Garmendia-Larrañaga, M., & Casado-Del-Río, M.A. (2015). Percepción de los y las menores de la mediación
parental respecto a los riesgos en Internet. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social,70, 49-68. https://bit.ly/2UdqPEs
Kalmus, V. (2013). Making sense of the social mediation of children’s Internet use: Perspectives for interdisciplinary and
cross-cultural research. In Wijnen, C.W., Trültzsch, S., & Ortner, C. (Eds.), Medienwelten im Wandel:
Kommunikationswissenschaftliche Positionen, Perspektiven und Konsequenzen. [Media worlds in change: Positions, perspectives
and consequences of the Communication Science] (pp. 137-149). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19049-5_11
Kalmus, V., Von-Feilitzen, C., & Siibak, A. (2012). Effectiveness of teachers’ and peers’ mediation in supporting opportunities and
reducing risks online. Children, risk and safety on the Internet: Research and policy challenges in comparative perspective, (pp.
245-256).
Karaseva, A., Siibak, A., & Pruulmann-Vengerfeldt, P. (2015). Relationships between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, subject cultures,
and mediation practices of students’ use of digital technology. Cyberpsychology,9(1). https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2015-1-6
Kirwil, L. (2009). Parental mediation of children’s Internet use in different European countries. Journal of Children and Media,
3(4), 394-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482790903233440
KMK (Ed.) (2012). Medienbildung in der Schule—Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 8. März 2012. [Media education at
school—Resolution of the Kultusministerkonferenz from 8. March 2012]. http://bit.ly/2Z5l3VX
Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new
model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,28(3), 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-2
Lee, S.J. (2013). Parental restrictive mediation of children’s Internet use: Effective for what and for whom? New Media &
Society,15(4), 466-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812452412
Livingstone, S., & Haddon, L. (2009). EU kids online: Final report. LSE, EU Kids Online. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgvds
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2011). Risks and safety on the Internet: The perspective of European
children. Full ndings. EU Kids Online. http://bit.ly/35Deqwt
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E.J. (2008). Parental mediation of children’s Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media,52(4), 581-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150802437396
Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E.J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G.A., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities
and minimizing risks for children online: The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of
Communication,67(1), 82-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12277
Lorenz, R., Endberg, M., & Bos, W. (2019). Predictors of fostering students’ computer and information literacy – analysis based on
a representative sample of secondary school teachers in Germany. Education and Information Technologies,24, 911-928.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9809-0
Mendoza, K. (2009). Surveying parental mediation: Connections, challenges and questions for media literacy. Journal of Media
Literacy Education,1(1), 28-41. http://bit.ly/2PA5vGF
Nathanson, A.I. (2002). The unintended effects of parental mediation of television on adolescents. Media Psychology,4(3),
207-230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0403_01
Nikken, P., & Jansz, J. (2014). Developing scales to measure parental mediation of young children’s internet use. Learning, Media
and Technology,39(2), 250-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.782038
Nikken, P., & Schols, M. (2015). How and why parents guide the media use of young children. Journal of Child and Family
Studies,24(11), 3423-3435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0144-4
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (Ed.) (2015). P21 framework definitions. https://bit.ly/2QAPSik
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in classrooms: Sharpening the focus of the ‘will, skill,
tool’ model and integrating teachers’ constructivist orientations. Computers & Education,58(4), 1351-1359.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.013
Pöttinger, I., & Meister, D.M. (2014). School’s out? Informal and formal media education-An international perspective. In School’s
out? Informelle und formelle Medienbildung. Kopaed. http://bit.ly/2Ws1hog
Shin, W., & Lwin, B. (2017). Parental mediation of children’s digital technology use in Singapore. Journal of Children & Media,
11(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1203807
©ISSN: 1134-3478 •e-ISSN: 1988-3293 •Pages 47-56
Comunicar, 64, XXVIII, 2020
56
Siddiq, F., Scherer, R., & Tondeur, J. (2016). Teachers’ emphasis on developing students’ digital information and communication
skills (TEDDICS): A new construct in 21st century education. Computers & Education,92-93, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.006
Smahelova, M., Juhová, D., Cermak, I., & Smahel, D. (2017). Mediation of young children’s digital technology use: The parents’
perspective. Cyberpsychology,11(3), 11-11. https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2017-3-4
Tejedor, S., & Pulido, C. (2012). Challenges and risks of Internet use by children. How to empower minors? [Retos y riesgos del
uso de Internet por parte de los menores. ¿Cómo empoderarlos?]. Comunicar,39, 65-72.
https://doi.org/10.3916/c39-2012-02-06
Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport (Ed.) (2018). Statistisches Informationssystem Bildung: Personal nach Alter
und Durschnittsalter. [Statistical education information system: Staff by age and average age]. http://bit.ly/36OmkU1
Trültzsch-Wijnen, C., Murru, M.F., & Papaioannou, T. (2017). Definitions and values of media and information literacy in a
historical context. In Public policies in media and information literacy in Europe: Cross-countr y comparisons (pp. 91-115).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315628851-3
UNESCO (Ed.) (2013). Global media and information literacy assessment framework: Country readiness and competencies.
http://bit.ly/2PWFal8
Wernstedt, R., & John-Ohnesorg, M. (2008). Soziale Herkunft entscheidet über Bildungserfolg Konsequenzen aus IGLU 2006
und PISA III. [Social background decides about success in education. Consequences from the IGLU 2006 and the PISA III].
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. http://bit.ly/2Ss3xKc
Wolling, J., & Berger, P. (2018). Die Vermittlung von Medienkompetenz in allgemeinbildenden Schulen: Zentrale Ergebnisse
eines Evaluationsprojekts. [Fostering media literacy in general education schools: Central results of an evaluation project].
Ilmenau Universitätsverlag. https://doi.org/10.22032/dbt.34913
https://doi.org/10.3916/C64-2020-05 •Pages 47-56
