University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access

(USC Thesis Other)

Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY 1

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY IN K-5 CLASSROOMS: THREE TEACHERS’
COMMITMENT TO EQUITY AND ACCESS

by

Marisela Limon Recendez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Marisela Limon Recendez

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
2
Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents Alfredo and Benita Limon and
to my husband Anthony Recendez with admiration, love, and gratitude.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their invaluable guidance and support
throughout the dissertation process. Dr. Paula Carbone, you went above and beyond to ensure I
was creating a piece of work I would be proud of. I sincerely thank you for your expertise, time,
guidance, patience, and friendship. I would also like to thank Dr. John Pascarella and Dr. Jeff
Share, your expertise and individual perspectives helped me through the dissertation process.
Thank you for your advice and leadership I was honored to have you as part of my committee.
This study would not have been possible without the commitment and dedication of my
three participants. Kathryn, Benita, and Adriana you are three of the most amazing teachers I
have ever had the pleasure of working with. It was a pleasure to learn from you and write about
your endless commitment to social justice and student achievement. For your contributions to
my study and my development as an educator, my sincere thanks to all three of you. The work
you do in your classrooms every day is admirable and will change the world.
My gratitude to my husband Anthony Recendez who always provided me with the space
I needed to focus on completing this dissertation and most importantly for never doubting that I
could and would reach my personal goal. You celebrated my successes and were there to
support me through my challenges. I would not have completed this without your support. I
admire your strength and dedication and I feel so lucky to get to spend the rest of my life with
you.
To my parents Alfredo and Benita Limon, I thank you for everything I have and who I
am today. You two are the most selfless, amazing parents, and have been my inspiration. You
are smart, generous, and loving people who have worked tirelessly to provide my brothers and
me with everything we needed. I earned this doctorate degree for you and because of you. I
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
4
thank you for giving me the opportunity to receive an education and for working so hard so it
would be easier for me.
I thank all of my family and friends for their patience and support throughout the course
of my studies. To my nieces Samantha and Leandra Limon, I hope that through the attainment
of this degree I have taught you the importance of education and perseverance and that you never
let anything stand in the way of reaching your dreams. To my brothers Freddy and Arnaldo, I
thank you for always believing in me and telling me that I could do it. Thank you to all of my
coworkers who supported me throughout the program you made my life infinitely easier
To my GauBruJan Rebecca Williams, I would not have been able to focus on my work
without your guidance and support. Without Sabor Y Cultura, Panera, and Corner Bakery dates,
completing this degree would have been impossible. I am so thankful that I had you to work
with, laugh with, and cry with; you are amazing.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 9
Commodification of Education 10
Students as Profit 13
State and National Standards 15
Statement of the Problem 18
National Media Organizations 19
Need for CML in Elementary Schools 22
Purpose of the Study 24
Research Questions 25
Importance of the Study 25
Definition of Terms 25
Chapter Two: Literature Review 27
Literature Review of Critical Media Literacy 28
Critical Theory 28
Semiotics 30
New Social Media Literacies 31
Critical Media Literacy Pedagogies 36
Democratic Pedagogy 38
Critical Media Literacy in the Classroom 40
Examples of Best Practices 44
Impact on Elementary-Aged Students’ Empowerment 45
Educator’s Role in Teaching Critical Media Literacy 49
Effective Teaching 50
Critical Media Literacy Framework 53
Five Basic Principles and Core Concepts 53
Table 1: Core Concepts of Media Literacy 55
Summary 55
Chapter Three: Methodology 57
Review of the Problem 57
Research Questions 58
Design of the Study 58
Setting 59
Participants and Context of the Study 61
Data Collection 63
Interviews 64
Observation 67
Data Analysis Procedures 70
Limitations 71
Reliability and Validity 72
Summary 73
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
6
Chapter Four: Findings 75
Commitment to Social Justice 75
Perspectives of CML 76
Kathryn Frank 76
Benita Valenzuela 77
Adriana Gonzalez 78
Social Justice before Teaching 80
Kathryn Frank 80
Benita Valenzuela 81
Adriana Gonzalez 82
CML in the Classroom 83
Classroom Environment 84
Kathryn Frank 84
Benita Valenzuela 85
Adriana Gonzalez 85
Pedagogy 86
Kathryn Frank 87
Benita Valenzuela 88
Adriana Gonzalez 91
Few Elementary Aged Resources 94
Kathryn Frank 95
Benita Valenzuela 96
Adriana Gonzalez 98
Administrative Acknowledgement 100
Kathryn Frank 100
Benita Valenzuela 101
Adriana Gonzalez 103
Summary 105
Chapter Five: Discussion 106
Review of the Study 106
Statement of the Problem 107
Review of Methodology 107
Discussion 108
Research Question 1 108
Research Question 2 110
Promising Practices 115
Implications 117
Recommendations and Future Research 119
Conclusion 120
References 123
Appendix A-IRB Approval 132
Appendix B-Interview Protocols 134
Appendix C-Observation Protocol: Critical Media Literacy 138

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
7
Abstract
This study applied critical theory along with the critical media literacy framework to help
position and analyze this study. The framework was used as a tool to analyze data to produce
findings. The purpose of this study was to examine promising practices and construct a common
understanding of Critical Media Literacy (CML) and what it looked like in practice. This study
used a qualitative design to capture the commitment, benefits, resources, and structures that
teaching CML entailed in three elementary classrooms. Data sources in this study were
observations, formal, and informal interviews, researcher memos, and classroom documents such
as lesson plans, charts, and student work. This study focused on a problem of practice in
teaching CML in the elementary classroom. Specifically, when it is taught, what are the
constraints and how can we recognize its potential? Findings from this study indicate that
among the three participants studied, CML was a pre-established commitment to an ideology
framed as a means to achieve a social justice agenda. This study impacts the literature by
providing information on how teachers view the benefits of using CML in elementary
classrooms, what CML looks like in practice, and factors that led to their commitment in
providing their students the opportunity to be media literate and to promote social justice in their
classrooms.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”
-Nelson Mandela (2013, no. 9)
The United States has led the world in many innovations and social advances. We were
the first to put a man on the moon and have paved the way for computer and software
development, which makes it ironic that we fall behind other nations in the teaching of Media
Literacy (ML) (Kellner & Share, 2007a; Kubey, 1998). The United States relies on its own
production of media to inform and entertain its citizens. Perhaps, due to this, our students have a
very narrow understanding of the world around them and what it takes to be a global citizen
(Kubey, 1998).
Australian researcher Peter Greenaway stated that we need to step outside of a culture in
order to understand it (Kubey, 1998). As a critique, Americans rarely go outside their own
culture, which may be one of the primary causes that there is an absence of looking at media in a
critical way. Students are exposed to a narrow representation of culture and what it means to be
American on a global scale. Many other nations are very homogeneous in nature and while the
diversity in America makes it a magnificent nation it is also the cause of political debates and
disagreement over what is necessary and what is not especially in terms of education and social
norms (Kubey, 1998). The diversity in race, ethnicity, and religion is arguably one of the
nation’s greatest strengths but it could also be what inhibits the US from gaining consensus on
numerous issues, Media Literacy being one of them (Kubey, 1998). This study is positioned to
extend the topic of CML in the elementary classroom with practical information for instruction.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
9
Background of the Problem
Media in the United States has a disturbing, strong focus on aggression, crime, sexuality,
alcohol, and drug abuse and schools are not teaching children how to interpret these common
themes using a critical perspective (Giroux, 2000; Kubey, 1998). ML has yet to gain popular
support in the United States partly because more parents say they want their children to be
computer literate than media literate and there is a popular misunderstanding that ML simply
entails watching television (Kubey, 1998). Critical Media Literacy (CML) aims to integrate
multiple literacies, such as computer literacy, along with media literacy to teach children to
critically view messages presented in the media and become producers and users of media
(Share, 2009; Vasquez & VanderZanden, 2009).
Many developed nations are teaching their students to be critical users and producers of
media and it is disappointing that the USA has yet to reach this level of media instruction and
consumerism seeing that we produce so much of it (Kubey, 1998; Share, 2009). In Ontario,
Canada, ML is mandated from kindergarten to twelfth grade and in Britain it has been mandated
for grades 7-12 (Kubey, 1998). CML can be used to enact the teaching of social justice. One of
the reasons this has not been done is because the politics of race and social inequities enable the
powerful elites to stop or prevent the teaching of anything that could threaten their privilege and
power, such as CML, thus taking them away from schools or making policies that prohibit this
type of instruction from US classrooms (Giroux, 2000).
Technology and media literacy is revolutionizing the way the world operates and
conducts day-to-day activities specifically with how they are or can be used in classrooms. In
schools, these tools, technological equipment and media sources, have great potential to help
transform student learning. Students who are presented with and taught to use these
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
10
technological resources have the potential to exhibit great growth and comfort in using new
technologies within and outside the classroom (Share, 2009). However, many US teachers are
not trained to do this in their teacher education programs, school sites, and are not given the
resources necessary to use these pedagogies in their classrooms (Share, 2009). This leaves US
students behind students in other developed nations in regards to ML (Kubey, 1998) and
additionally in regards to CML.
CML has various components with the main component being to view diverse media
messages with a critical eye paying attention to power relationships exhibited in media and
society (Share, 2009). CML is something that many US teachers do not know about, even
though the US is a dominant global creator of media messages (Share, 2009). Transformative
pedagogies, such as CML, are usually left out of teacher credentialing programs because they do
not follow the “one size fits all” approach practiced in the US (Share, 2009; Vasquez, 2007).
This is unfortunate, especially because schools of education and foreign governments are seeing
its importance and establishing these pedagogies in less media saturated nations (Kubey, 1998;
Share, 2009; Vasquez, 2007). Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom house
the oldest and best examples of media education although they are not as media saturated as the
US (Share, 2009). The US falls behind partly because of the current accountability standards
and commodification of education enacted by national legislation such as No Child Left Behind
(Apple, 2000; Giroux, 2000; Kubey, 1998; Share, 2009; Vasquez, 2007).
Commodification of Education
According to Torres and Mercado (2006), No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and
policies took education back to prescribed curricula and pedagogy and took away previous
progressive measures in the standards movement. The media promoted NCLB as a great savior
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
11
to education and claimed it would help better the conditions of public education (Torres &
Mercado, 2006). The public cared about education although the national portrayal of NCLB
gave a false sense of hope that indicated that this new policy would be the answer that the US
was looking for to improve the state of education and the fate of the nation (Torres & Mercado,
2006). NCLB’s reform of public education has actually facilitated its taking over by
corporations and allowed for corporate economic gain as opposed to improving the education
system in America (Apple, 2000).
The reform NCLB facilitated allowed for corporate economic gain and assisted in
promoting a neoliberal agenda. The current neoliberal agenda places an extreme emphasis on an
accountability system (standardized test score) that is one-dimensional without the proper [i.e.
administrative support, professional development, and coaching] support systems in place
(Share, 2009). This conservative mindset places economic rationality above other forms of
rationality including those that relate to what is best for children (Apple, 2000). Neoliberalism
blames the decisions of those in power to those who are poor and come from lower
socioeconomic statuses (Apple, 2000). This relates to NCLB in education because it positions
students to be viewed as objects of human capital that must be given skills to perform efficiently
and effectively in a global economy without placing any emphasis on teaching and learning that
promote critical thinking and student growth (Apple, 2000). Educational policies are set in place
with a deficit-thinking model so that those who fail are punished instead of helped (Giroux,
2000; Share, 2009). Deficit thinking refers to the notion that students from a low socioeconomic
status achieve less academically due to their backgrounds and the challenges they face outside of
school (Valencia, 1997).
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
12
The educational push toward privatization, in terms of moving schools from the public
domain and putting them in the hands of a few (for profit test and textbook companies) has
resulted in improving education for a selected few, usually those from higher socioeconomic
status, rather than improving education for all (Torres & Mercado, 2006). The privatization of
education is said to be the most powerful educational reform movement since Sputnik (Giroux,
2000). Various conservative institutions fund this educational reform movement. They place
blame in schools for the country’s economic problems, low-test scores, and watering down of
curriculum. This blame is put on schools in order to legitimize the ideology of privatization and
its use of vouchers, charter schools, and the placing of public schools entirely under the control
of corporate contractors for profit (Giroux, 2000).
The corporate model of teaching values mandated curriculum, top-down teaching
practices, and national tests to measure educational standards without paying attention to other
holistic approaches (Giroux, 2000). This has caused the relationship between the government
and its people to change from a political to an economic relationship. This relationship lies in
the emergence of a culture of accountability that has resulted in tight systems of inspection and
control and even more prescribed educational protocols (Biesta, 2006). The focus that schools
and the government place on standardized tests moves education back to teaching and learning
the basics. This makes CML implementation more difficult and fills class time with test
preparation and drills. Schools usually teach in this manner to prevent being placed on stringent
federal improvement plans as dictated by NCLB (Share, 2009). Share (2009) conducted research
on a school in Los Angeles and found NCLB dictated various improvement plans that did not
allow the school site much room to adjust their curriculum to include progressive measures such
as CML. Most of the time spent teaching addressed subjects such as math and English Language
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
13
Arts because these subjects are tested (Share, 2009). This has harmed children, especially those
from low socioeconomic statuses because they do not receive a well-rounded education and are
subjected to profit making curriculum.
Students as Profit
Nationally, schools have access to Channel One subscriptions, which consists of a
twelve-minute daily program that includes 10 minutes of “current events” and two minutes of
advertisements that target adolescents. The contract stipulates that they show it 90% of school
days to 85% of the student population. Profits, in the millions, go to Alloy Media + Marketing
(Miller, 2007) and the school receives a monitor in each classroom, a satellite dish, and a control
console (Apple, 2000). This Channel one subscription, of which 40% of all middle school and
high school students in the nation are subject to make US one of the first nations in the world to
allow their students to be sold as commodities. The US allows corporations to pay the high price
of advertising to be included in Channel One Communications (Apple, 2000; Giroux, 2000).
They provide schools with $50,000 in “free” equipment to broadcast a 10-minute program with
American students as their target consumers. Most of these schools serve students of low
socioeconomic status and gladly receive these “free” resources without providing their students
with media education (Giroux, 2000). This is problematic because institutions that are in place
to educate children are subjecting them to be commodities without teaching them the skills
necessary to be critical consumers and creators of media (Giroux, 2000; Share, 2009).
Many corporations want to capitalize on cash-poor schools that usually do not have
enough resources and believe it is a generous offer (Giroux, 2000). This leads to schools being
transformed into commercial rather than public spaces and students becoming subject to
marketers whose agenda has nothing to do with critical learning or thinking and everything to do
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
14
with restructuring civic life in order to gain profit regardless of the cost to our students (Giroux,
2000). Share (2009) notes that fewer restrictions are mandated when merging corporate interests
with educational institutions than with censorship; although it is more harmful to our students
who become commodities shaped to fit into the market economy as consumers and workers
instead of productive citizens and active participants of democracy. The market economy is
hurting students because rather than teaching them how a market economy works, it is
reproducing the systemic inequities that leave the elites in power and counter the achievement of
social justice that progressive pedagogies aim to achieve (Giroux, 2000).
Giroux (2000) stated that those who advocate for corporate culture do not view public
education in terms of its civic function. They believe the only form of citizenship is
consumerism which reduces public education to serve corporate interest and works against the
critical social demands of educating citizens to sustain and develop democratic identities,
relations, and public spheres that are inclusive to all students and citizens. It is assumed that the
struggle to reclaim public schools can be seen as a broader battle over the defense of children’s
culture and the public good. Corporatizing public education has taken a distinct approach since
the 21st century, especially with the introduction of NCLB. Corporate culture has adapted a
radical agenda in which it attempts to transform education from a public good that benefits all
students to a private good designed to expand the profits of investors and those in power
(Giroux, 2000). Giroux (2000) notes how influential educational consultants teach their clients
to act in the name of efficiency. They are advised to adopt strategies to meet the challenges of
the new world economic order and are told to treat schools as major companies and students as
customers. This positions students and learning as measurable outcomes from which
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
15
corporations may profit. The profiting is done mostly by a group of six media conglomerates in
the US.
In the United States 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to comes from the control of
six media giants (Frugal Dad, 2013). These media conglomerates are GE, News-Corp, Disney,
Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS (Frugal Dad, 2013). Ferguson (2001) stated our relationships
with the media are not autonomous and depend on taking positions related to social contexts.
Because the commercial media rest in the hands of these conglomerates, it leaves the American
public with a conflict of interest because it leaves the people (citizens) unprotected and revokes
their right to be truly informed. We see the world through the interpretation and corporate
interest of these conglomerates and do not teach our students to understand how this media is
constructed (Ferguson, 2001). The power these conglomerates hold allows them to manipulate
and control the public airways by media corporations for their own benefit (Torres & Mercado,
2006). CML can help counter this by teaching children how to critically read these media
messages and become critical users and producers of advertisements and propaganda (Share,
2009).
State and National Standards
Accountability at large, in the United States, places a strong emphasis on the learning of
core subjects such as English language arts and mathematics. A factor in this is that these are the
subjects that are tested in grades 2-12 in order to find the achievement levels of American
students (California Department of Education, CDE, 1997). National legislations such as NCLB
make the testing of these subjects the basis for success leaving other subjects on the sidelines.
Although ML is included in state standards, in California it is not a tested set of standards and
teachers often do not have time to focus on these standards (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Noguera,
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
16
2009). California media standards include “Analysis of Evaluation of Oral and Media
Communications” as standards for grades 3-12th (CDE, 1997). These standards are expected to
be taught but not much has been done to train and support teachers, provide resources, or create
curriculum-surrounding media education or the teaching of these standards. If this change is to
happen, then it is often both a grassroots and top down process (Kellner & Share, 2007a;
Noguera, 2009).
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS, CDE, 2010) may hold potential for the
solution to this necessary change. The CCSS were developed with research and media skills
embedded into the standards as a whole (CDE, 2010). In the design considerations for the K-12
standards, it states that students should be ready for college, workforce training, and life in a
technological society. In order to do this, students need the ability to gather, comprehend,
evaluate, synthesize, and report on information and ideas, to conduct original research in order to
answer questions or solve problems, and to analyze and create a high volume and extensive
range of print and non-print texts in old and new media forms (CDE, 2010). From an initial
review, they appear to take into account that producing and consuming media is embedded into
every aspect of today’s society and should be included in the curriculum as it is in the standards.
Rogow (2011) argued that it would be difficult to achieve the new CCSS without implementing
ML into standard coursework or without teachers who are trained in the media literacy
pedagogies required to teach ML. Rogow (2011) noted that ML addresses various educational
needs that are embedded into the CCSS such as: 21
st
century skills, higher-order thinking skills,
media technologies, and the expansion of the definition of literacy that students need to be
successful citizens.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
17
In the previous California State Standards, media skills were a separate set of standards.
The CCSS (CDE, 2010) have an understanding of research and media skills embedded
throughout the standards making it something that be taught in order to be successful on the new
standardized computer based assessment. The CCSS have a set of Anchor Standards that are
created for vertical use in grades K-12. Each of the four strands of English language arts
standards, reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language, explicitly include media
literacy. Since they are vertically aligned, this may hold teachers more accountable for covering
such standards since they will be revisited in grades to follow. Rogow (2013) presented the
CCSS Anchor Standards and the ML standards side by side for a comparison on how the two
intersect with each other. With the standards side by side, she highlighted the common language
found amongst them and how they mirror each other.
The CCSS (CDE, 2010) mention various new media literacies and move away from an
almost sole focus on traditional print-based sources. Although these standards will serve as a
catalyst for education reform by requiring states to alter the way they test students, these
standards can also be a step toward the nationalization and one-size-fits-all approach to
education, which would in turn violate core principles of our democracy and progressive
education (Tienken & Canton, 2009). With a one-size-fits-all approach to education, it would
become more difficult for teachers to have autonomy of their classrooms, therefore, violating the
core principles of democracy that Tienken and Canton (2009) mention. “Common core
[standards], . . . developed by the National Governors’ Association and the Council of Chief
State School Officers” (NGA/CCSSO as cited in Mathis, 2010, Executive Summary, para. 1)
were designed to make American students “College and career ready,” but with no empirical
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
18
testing or proven success, it is hard to predict what the results will be or how teachers will
theorize and put them into practice.
Statement of the Problem
There are emerging and multiple definitions of critical media literacy along with a
misunderstanding of what people think CML is which causes a struggle when teachers try to
navigate its use in the classroom. This ambiguity makes it difficult for educators to find ways to
implement its instruction in the K-5 classroom. This study identified elements that were present
in the instruction of CML at the elementary level. In addition to trying to identify the elements
present in effective instruction of CML, another problem that teachers face when confronted with
CML is that education schools turn out teachers not well equipped to teach CML (Share, 2009;
Torres & Mercado, 2006). Schools of education prepare teachers to teach in a test-centered
political climate that is hard to combat because of school and district sanctions (Share, 2009;
Kubey, 1998). In the current United States’ political and educational climate, teaching CML is a
struggle because students need to learn to read and write first and that is a hard point to argue
(Kubey, 1998). The teachings of media literacy, reading, and writing are not always seen as
interdependent. Because many do not see the relationship between these content areas and
traditional schools of education preparing our future teaching force do not usually require media
literacy as a part of their curriculum, this can be a reason why teachers do not choose to teach
these skills (Share, 2009).
The teaching of ML entails a student-centered approach that requires taking away
authority and teacher-led instruction and replacing it with student-centered pedagogies (Kubey,
1998). Teacher attitude can be particularly critical when adopting a student-centered approach
because it is something not easily done by traditional teachers. Kubey (1998) found that teachers
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
19
who become involved in ML midcareer, report an enormous burst of new energy and a rebirth of
excitement, precisely because teaching about and through the media can be especially exciting
and engaging for students (Gainer, Valdez-Gainer, & Kinard, 2009), resulting in the
revitalization of teachers. The pressures teachers face in terms of accountability and narrowing
of curriculum to focus on standards that are state tested sometimes causes teachers to steer away
from these methods even if they believe they are best for students and their own professional
development (Share, 2009). The fact that the definition of CML remains ambiguous and that our
society is becoming more saturated by the media makes the teaching of CML essential to help
youth navigate both the media and the world they live in. Teachers may begin exploring CML
by joining one of the national media organizations to solidify their own understanding of CML.
National Media Organizations
There are two national media literacy organizations that hold national conferences
(Kellner & Share, 2005). These two organizations are the National Association for Media
Literacy Education (NAMLE, 2013), formerly known as the Alliance for a Media Literate
America (AMLA), and the Action Coalition for Media Education (ACME, 2013). The NAMLE
core principles states that:
As the field of media literacy education has matured over the past 25 years, its focus has
evolved from WHAT is taught to HOW we teach. The Core Principles of Media
Literacy Education is a NAMLE project to expand the boundaries of the field and
encompass the opportunities and possibilities of 21st century learning technologies to
transform both learning and teaching – from kindergarten to college. (2013, para. 1)
NAMLE (2013) aims to help individuals of all ages develop habits of inquiry and skills
of expression so that they may be critical thinkers and know how to communicate effectively.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
20
Part of their mission is to bring together a broad-based coalition of media literacy practitioners,
educators, scholars, students, health care professionals, K-12 teachers, community activists, and
media business professionals from diverse fields, professions, and perspectives in a national,
non-profit membership organization to act as a key force in bringing high quality media literacy
education to all students kindergarten through college (NAMLE, 2013). While NAMLE aims to
establish this mission, they have less than 500 members, which is unlike other major national
organization in the US (J. Share, personal communication, April 27, 2013). Without strength in
numbers, their message is less likely to reach the number of educators necessary to create change
in the instruction of media literacy let alone CML.
The other national literacy organization, ACME prides itself in being free of any funding
from Big Media (ACME, 2013). ACME is an emerging global coalition run by and for media
educators that aims to achieve a three-part mission:
1. Teaching media education knowledge and skills – through keynotes, workshops,
trainings, and institutes – to children and adults so that they can become more critical
media consumers and more active participants in our democracy;
2. Supporting media reform – No matter what one's cause, media reform is crucial for
the success of that cause, and since only those who are media-educated support media
reform, media education must be a top priority for all citizens and activists;
3. Democratizing our media system through education and activism. (ACME, 2013,
p. 1)
While NAMLE hopes to unite commercial media makers, ACME rejects any ties to
corporate media and supports an activist position when it comes to media regulation and
ownership (Kellner & Share, 2005). A problem is that they reject possible collaboration with
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
21
each other mainly due to the fact that NAMLE takes a more liberal educational approach while
ACME holds a more radical position that rejects corporate ties and instead of joining forces they
create a division (Share, 2009). Although both organizations are national, they have a very low
number of members. Unfortunately this division causes more tension in the field of media
literacy and the division between the two holds back many advances and changes that could be
made in the area of media literacy since they have not come to a consensus (Share, 2009). This
adds to the problem of teachers navigating its use in the classroom in large part because there are
no clear definitions or common understandings even amongst the national organizations that are
in place to promote its use.
Children are exposed to multiple media messages each day and knowing how to critically
interpret what the media portray from multiple perspectives can prove to be a resource for
learning and being an active participant in our democratic society. The low number of members
and the division between the national organizations attempting to support this interpretation is
essential to the solution of this problem. Students in other developed nations are using ML to
expand their ideas and perceptions of society and it is unfortunate that the US has yet to do this.
This study identified elements that are present in the instruction of critical media literacy at the
elementary level. In the US, as opposed to other countries such as Australia, New Zealand,
Canada, and Great Britain (Kubey, 1998; Share, 2009; Torres & Mercado, 2006; Vasquez,
2007), one is more likely to find a critical media class in a school of communication than an
education school (Share, 2009). CML is a fairly new subject and the aforementioned
background and problem shows that educators continue to have little awareness of what it is or
how to teach it. There is very little action research available to elementary teachers connecting
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
22
the CML concepts to the state standards, which is what this study helped fill by interviewing and
observing teachers who have found ways to integrate these methods into their practice.
Need for CML in Elementary Schools
There is a dearth of literature noting the need for CML at the elementary level. Vasquez
(2007) noted that some adults do not believe in the need for Critical Literacies for elementary
aged children. They may ask, “Do young kids really talk about social issues or equity issues?”
and “Why can't we just let them be kids?” From her research, she found that some adults do not
think that preschoolers could talk, using this critical perspective; she proved this theory wrong.
In her experience, she found that working with young children has proven time and time again
that children are in fact very capable and willing to participate in hard conversations that are
meaningful to them and that impact their lives. More often it is adults that have difficulty with
this, often due to a feeling of uncertainty and deficit thinking regarding how to talk about
difficult topics or issues with children.
The media influence children who perceive who they should and should not be as well as
what they should and should not do or think based on the images seen and heard with various
types of media. Given the complex world we live in our education system cannot afford for
children not to engage in some tough conversations if they are to learn to become critical
analysts and informed decision makers as they engage in the world around them (Vasquez,
2007). Elementary aged children are usually seen as a variable instead of a tool when building
curriculum that affects them and will be taught to them (Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003a).
Issues of social justice, equity, and critical literacies tend to be looked at as very heavy
issues (Vasquez, 2007). While some adults believe that CML takes a negative stance on social
issues, it actually looks at an issue or topic in a different way and analyzes it in hopes of creating
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
23
change or improvement if necessary (Vasquez, 2007). Vasquez (2007) found that although the
issues she was teaching about were complex and the discussions she had with her preschool aged
children were very serious they were also pleasurable because they dealt with something that was
pleasurable and socially significant to all of them. They were able to make connections between
the discussions and their daily lives. These critical literacies cannot come about from prescribed
curriculum (Vasquez, 2007). One of the advantages of using popular culture and everyday print
is that the texts used can be negotiated with the children based on what is interesting and
intriguing to them and using textual materials available in their lives especially those found in
their communities (Vasquez, 2007).
Vasquez (2007) argued that there is a growing shift in what it means to be literate in the
21st century. These literacies can be addressed by creating spaces for critical literacies in the
classroom and in the curriculum in order to capitalize on student interest and previous
knowledge. By creating this space, students will begin to bring their own issues into the
classroom and educators can begin to incorporate their expertise with using digital media to
capture, develop, produce, and publish different products and projects related to CML (Vasquez,
2007). Children are already attracted to the technology of the 21st century and if educators
provide them this instruction in the classroom it is possible they will use them with the intensity
and enthusiasm needed to become interested in these new literacies. This will be both engaging
and make them agents of their own learning (Vasquez, 2007).
Children today learn more about technology outside of school than they do in school
(Gee, 2004). For students, YouTube, iPod Nanos, cell phones with still, video, and audio
capabilities, and other digital devices are not new (Vasquez, 2007) Most use them every day to
communicate with or navigate their worlds (Vasquez &Wong-Kam 2003b; Vasquez, 2007).
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
24
Even with this social transition, older practices such as writing legibly, spelling, and writing have
a stronger power in the development of curriculum and instruction at the school level because the
educators have not transitioned into this mindset (Vasquez, 2007). Although these skills are
important, it cannot be assumed they are not the skills with which students come to school, and
educators have to find a way to bridge these older essential skills with the new technologies our
students often navigate everyday (Albers, Vasquez, & Harste, 2008; Torres & Mercado, 2006;
Vasquez, 2007).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine and learn how teachers of Critical Media
Literacy perceived its effects in the K-5 classroom. This study also reports what resources and
trainings teachers perceived as effective and necessary in order to implement critical media
literacy and their thoughts on their motivation to use it in their classroom. This includes the
systems and structures put into place by teachers and/or administrators at the school site. With
the emerging and multiple definitions of CML available, this study negotiated definitions that
will allow practitioners a tool with which to navigate its use in the classroom.
This study looked at CML through the lens of critical theory to provide educators with
useful information with which to begin the implementation and action research CML requires.
This in-depth look into CML will impact the literature by providing information on how teachers
view the benefits of using CML in elementary classrooms, what CML looks like in practice, and
factors that led to their commitment in providing their students the opportunity to be media
literate and to promote social justice in their classrooms.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
25
Research Questions
Methods that promote teacher use of CML were examined in this study from a qualitative
perspective. Through the following research questions, strategies that directly impacted the
implementation of Critical Media Literacy in a K-5 classroom were discovered. The following
questions were answered:
1. What specific classroom practices and resources do elementary teachers use to integrate
Critical Media Literacy?
2. To what do teachers attribute their commitment to implement CML in their instruction?
Importance of the Study
With many schools of education not training teachers in the use of CML (Share, 2009;
Kubey, 1998), it is important for practitioners to conduct research projects, such as this one, to
fill the gaps in the literature and to access multiple avenues and models of promising practices.
This study contributed a practical practitioner approach to CML for elementary teachers to use in
their classroom by observing and interviewing teachers who used CML in their classrooms.
Definition of Terms
Though Critical Media Literacy (CML) and Media Literacy (ML) will be used
interchangeably throughout the study it is important to understand the distinctions inferred within
them. CML is a fairly new body of knowledge that uses the foundation of ML and extends it
using a critical, social justice perspective. Because more research has been completed on ML,
these studies are used as proxies to understand and extend on.
The following working definitions will be used throughout this study:
• Critical Media Literacy (CML): A concept of literacy that includes various forms of
mass communication and popular culture as well as various print and non-print sources.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
26
It addresses issues of class, sexuality, and power and intersects with cultural studies and
critical pedagogies to promote action (Share, 2009). It is an extension of Media Literacy.
• Media Literacy (ML): A concept of literacy that includes various forms of mass
communication and popular culture as well as various print and non-print sources. It
does not do an adequate job of addressing issues of class, sexuality, and power. There
are no intersections with cultural studies and critical pedagogies that promote action.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
27
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
“Literacy requirements have changed and will continue to change as new technologies come
on the marketplace and quickly blend into our everyday private and work lives. And unless
educators take a lead in developing appropriate pedagogies for these new electronic media
and forms of communication, corporate experts will be the ones to determine how people
will learn, what they learn, and what constitutes literacy.”

-Carmen Luke (1997b, Introduction, para. 8)

The literature on critical media literacy has several recurring themes. Among these
themes are the importance of Critical Media Literacy (CML) and the consensus that it is not
uniformly taught in schools. Promising practices in the field have not been clearly established
and educators, as well as national organizations, do not agree on what teaching Media Literacy
(ML) entails (ACME, 2013; NAMLE, 2013). The ambiguity surrounding various measures
dealing with critical media literacy makes it difficult for teachers nationwide to prepare their
students to be media literate citizens. A common theme across the literature is that the 21st
century is a media saturated; technologically dependent era and it is important for students to
know how to navigate these new literacies (Kellner & Share, 2007b).
This chapter presents a review of literature relevant to this study. The areas of literature
that will be addressed include: Critical Theory to inform the theoretical framework behind the
development of CML; semiotics to represent the use of cultural symbols in understanding CML
and multiple perspectives; New Media Literacies to represent literacy as a social practice; CML
Pedagogies to determine how thinking skills are used to make CML applicable across content
areas and how these inform promising practices; democratic pedagogy to inform promising
classroom practices; CML in the classroom to review existing promising practices and strategies
used in the instruction of CML; the impact of CML on elementary aged students to relate the
importance of having critical curriculum in areas of high need; educators’ role in teaching CML,
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
28
to illustrate the importance of an educators’ role in implementation; effective teaching practices,
to pinpoint common components found in classrooms considered effective; and the Media
Literacy Framework that helps shape the analyzing of critical media literacy. Reviewing this
literature will aid in completing the purpose of this study which is to examine and learn how
teachers of CML perceive its effects in the K-5 classroom and report what resources and
trainings teachers perceive as effective and necessary in order to implement critical media
literacy in their own classrooms.
Literature Review of Critical Media Literacy
This literature review of Critical Media Literacy surveys the existing literature regarding
the effects of CML in order to determine the extent to which this topic has been studied. The
review begins with an introduction to critical theory followed by an in-depth discussion of CML
in elementary school and end with the critical media literacy framework that informs the study.
Critical Theory
Critical theory refers to a theoretical tradition whose main purpose is to stress the
reflection and critique of society and culture (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011). It was developed at
the University of Frankfurt by a group that referred to themselves as, The Frankfurt School in
Germany (Jay, 1996). While other traditional theories attempt to understand or explain a
phenomenon in society, critical theory aims to change society. It aims to uncover assumptions
and stereotypes so that society will have a true understanding of how the world works. Held
(1980) discussed Jürgen Habermas who introduced a distinction in critical theory that referred to
knowledge via interpretation to understand the meaning of human texts and expressions. This
could include implicitly or explicitly to the interpretation of other texts. Critical theory also aims
to be a form of self-reflective knowledge that involves explaining and understanding
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
29
emancipatory interest and autonomy, and reducing domination or power of a dominant group
(Held, 1980). During its foundation, critical theorists focused their attention on the changing
nature of capitalism and the changing forms of domination that went along with this change
(Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011).
Max Horkheimer (1937 as cited in Held, 1980), the director of the Frankfurt school,
stated that critical theory must meet three criteria. It must be simultaneously explanatory,
practical, and normative. This would involve an explanation for what is wrong with society,
identify actors to change it, and set goals for social transformation. Horkheimer oriented critical
theory as something that would critique and change society. Critical Media Literacy has
embedded aspects of critical theory. “Critical” in the title, refers to critiquing and transforming
what is wrong with society. Horkheimer stressed that there was a necessity for interdisciplinary
study in which philosophers, sociologists, economists, historians, and psychologists united in a
working partnership to pursue the great philosophical questions using refined methods.
Horkheimer (as cited in Held, 1980) also noted that the institute’s members should explore the
interconnections between the economic life of society, the psychic development of the
individual, and transformations in the realm of culture. This included the disciplines of science,
art, religion, law, ethics, fashion, public opinion, sport, amusement, and life style etc. (Held,
1980). The interconnections that exist in social groups are considered definite and could be used
to determine the changes needed in society (Held, 1980). One of the political tasks found in
critical theory is to set the individual free from material conditions found in society (Held, 1980).
Setting the individual free from society would require them to be able to think independently and
believe that change is possible. Horkheimer and the Frankfurt school (1937) hoped that their
work would help establish a critical social consciousness that would have the ability to diffuse
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
30
existing ideology, sustain independent judgment, and be capable of maintaining its freedom to
think things could be different in society (Held, 1980).
Critical theory aims to analyze and critique society by exposing ideas and systems that
prohibit social change (Held, 1980). Similar concepts are transferred to CML. CML aims to do
these things by teaching students how to be active participants, readers, users, and creators of
media; and acting upon injustices, they discover by setting individuals free from material
conditions found in society and allowing them to be critical users (Held, 1980; Kincheloe &
McLaren, 2011; Share, 2009). Critical educators like Giroux (1988) maintained that schools can
become institutions where forms of knowledge, values, and social relations are taught for the
purpose of educating youth and for critical empowerment, not subjugation. The reflective nature
of critical theory, as it relates to CML, is that it gives students the knowledge necessary to
produce enlightenment and emancipation and views reflection as a valid knowledge that could be
used to establish social justice (Geuss, 1981; Kellner & Share, 2007b). A critique of critical
theory is that by disrupting and challenging the status quo it elicits highly charged emotions that
make it hard to achieve progressive actions (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002). It establishes loyalty
by those that support it and hostility from its detractors (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002). Similar
challenges are found in the implementation of ML (Kubey, 1998). Even with its critiques,
critical theory strengthens the implementation of CML by teaching students to become critical
consumers who create social change (Giroux, 2000).
Semiotics
When attempting to understand CML instruction in the classroom, it is important to
understand the field of semiotics. Semiotics refers to the study of signs and sign processes and
how everything that is presented to us in the media and in society is a symbol representing
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
31
something else (Chandler, 2007). It became a prominent approach to cultural studies in the late
1960s when Barthes (1957) declared that semiotics aims to include any system of signs: images,
gestures, musical sounds, objects, and the complex associations of all of these. It involves the
study not only of what we refer to as signs, but also of anything that can stand for something else
(Eco, 1979).
Semiotics is important in the study and understanding of CML because CML addresses
various aspects of culture and cultural symbols that students need to understand in order to
interpret and apply their understanding of multiple perspectives (Chandler, 2013; Geuss, 1981;
Kellner & Share, 2007a). Through the study of CML and semiotics, students can begin to see
the various interpretations that exist in a single symbol. These various interpretations can be
altered when viewing them through different lenses, and is an essential aspect of the study of
semiotics and CML (Chandler, 2013).
New Social Media Literacies
Students across the world have access and knowledge to multiple literacies. The
literacies that will be explored in this research are new literacies focusing on media literacy.
New literacies are new forms of literacies based on new digital electronic technologies and new
ways of understanding literacy (The New London Group, 1996). New literacies such as CML
were developed to help inform media users. Followers of CML are concerned with the use and
abuse of power and the ability of media to influence masses of people, especially children
(Giroux, 2000; Janks, 2000; Share, 2009). This study acknowledges that literacy is a social
practice. Sociocultural theory would argue that even when you are alone, literacy continues to
be a social practice (Prior, 1998). For example, when we use inner dialogue, or draw from past
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
32
knowledge and experiences in order to engage in multiple literacy practices, we are socially
engaged.
The New London Group’s (1996) work in multiliteracies stressed that students have to be
taught how to use and select from all the available semiotic resources for representation in order
to make meaning (Janks, 2000). The New London Group refers to a group of international
educators who proposed that the changes in technology and society call for a broader approach to
literacy (The New London Group, 1996). They stated that in order to address different types of
representation, “multiliteracies” and literacy as a social practice must be presented early on in the
education of children in addition to traditional print-based text, which continue to be the
prevalent medium in the classroom. While print-based text is used in the classroom, new media
are the focus of students’ participation outside of the classroom. Media literacy is one of the
literacies they suggest students need in order to participate in the democratic process in the 21st
century (Kellner & Share, 2007b; The New London Group, 1996).
Children can be taught to participate in the democratic process in a critical way if they are
taught to use and select from multiple literacies. It is important for them to know how to
combine these resources to create possibilities for transformation and reconstruction (Cope &
Kalantzis, 1997; Kellner & Share, 2007b; The New London Group, 1996). The project to
develop multiliteracies was influenced by developments in media technologies and information
literacy in a context of globalization (Janks, 2000). Together these technologies and literacies
are revolutionizing students’ literacy practices and the nature of work (Janks, 2000; The New
London Group, 1996). While critical literacy that focuses on the domination and power in texts
usually emphasizes critical reading and deconstruction across a range of modalities, the work on
design emphasizes multimodal production and reconstruction using a range of media (Janks,
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
33
2000; Vasquez, 2005a). CML can be used as a tool to help marginalized students see and
understand the structures of oppression, analyze the role of hegemony in hiding those structures,
and find agency in becoming citizens that will be able to express themselves and have a voice in
challenging racism, sexism, classism, and all forms of oppression (Share, 2009).
CML is a tool that educators can use to teach children how to be productive members of
society who challenge the power structures present in society. Americans too often see and
believe what the big six media conglomerates want them to see and believe and it is important
that elementary school students understand the perspectives that are being represented. Without
challenging what we see students will take much of what they see presented in media as fact.
Literacy is a social practice and students would benefit from being taught to see the distinction
between what is fact and fiction in the images we see. With the big six media conglomerates and
the commodification of education, educators in the US may choose to follow the footsteps of
educators in other developed nations so that our students are not used for profit (Ferguson, 2001;
Frugal Dad, 2013).
CML emerges from a tradition of critical theory and new media literacies such as those
previously discussed with The New London Group (Held, 1980; The New London Group, 1996).
(For a discussion of CML in elementary education see the section entitled Critical Media
Literacy in the Classroom). CML adds a different dimension to the study of media literacy and
involves the politics of representation in which the form and content of media messages are
questioned in order to identify the ideology, bias, and the connotations explicit and implicit in
the representations shown through different types of media (Giroux, 2000; Janks, 2000; Kellner
& Share, 2005). These representations may include class, gender, race, sexuality, or religion
(Kellner & Share, 2007b; Kubey, 1998). A criticism of ML is that we need more research and to
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
34
further study the efficacy of media evaluation or the transfer of ML's analytic skills to other
realms of critical thinking coursework (Kubey, 1998). If educators could see the transfer that the
critical thinking skills teachers who implement CML discuss as an outcome, there might be more
willingness by teachers using traditional methods to use it.
Kellner and Share (2007b) noted that media literacy needs to be reframed to include
popular culture and critical analysis so that children will be able to read media texts critically and
aim to be productive citizens in a socially just world. This reframing and teaching of media
literacy skills could be done within the school system. Although there has been increased
attention on the amount of time young people spend engaging with multiple forms of literacy,
this hasn’t translated into a wide scale pedagogical change in the way literacy is taught in schools
or in the way teachers are taught to teach literacy in their credential programs (Gainer et al.,
2009; Share, 2009). Discussion around these new pedagogical approaches have begun and have
made substantial progress with literacy and media scholars but have not transferred into schools
of education or the school system (Gainer et al., 2009; Share, 2009; The New London Group,
1996). The current neoliberal agenda makes it difficult for educators to transfer progressive
measures like CML into their classrooms (Apple, 2000; Giroux, 2000). CML has potential to
improve the achievement and learning of traditional literacies as well as the multiple literacies
used in what Jenkins, Purushotma, Clinton, Weigel, and Robinson (2006) call the “participatory
culture” of the new media. The concepts of ML have yet to gain popular support partly because
there is a popular misunderstanding that ML simply entails watching television (Kubey, 1998),
adding to the challenge of finding wide-scale support and adoption of CML in the classroom.
Literacies and cultural studies researchers Muspratt, Luke, and Freebody (1997) noted
that effective literacy requires four basic roles that allow learners to “break the code,”
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
35
“participate in understanding and composing,” “use texts functionally” and “critically analyze
and transform texts by acting on knowledge that texts are not ideologically natural or
neutral”(pp. 5-8). These same skills can be transferred into the teaching and learning of CML
since it is “literacy.” CML can be used as a tool to promote cultural studies in the classroom.
Engaging in the understanding of cultures and subcultures can help students in understanding the
global and multicultural world they live in and engage in (Cortés, 2000). Engaging students in
the social construction of meaning by teaching them to understand diversity offers the students a
new breadth of knowledge that they most likely could not have received otherwise and access to
resources they would not otherwise have or know of (Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003c). Because
CML is a form of teaching literacy that uses learning as inquiry it is important for students to
have the knowledge, vocabulary, and critical thinking skills to be able to engage in this form of
communication with both other students and adults in society (Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003b)
This global world may begin to seem smaller and more accessible if students are taught to
engage in critical discussions about why things are the way they are in our society and what they
can do to change them.
In the social practice of literacy, there are not only aspects of culture but of power
structures (Street, 1993; Street, 1984). These power structures can be better understood when
interpreting them through the lens of critical theory as previously discussed. Janks (2000)
argued that all of these orientations to literacy education are important and, moreover, that they
are crucially interdependent. They should not be seen as separate enterprises; instead they
should be used together (Street, 1984). Critical literacy addresses the ways in which meaning
systems are involved in reproducing domination and can provide access to dominant languages
(English), literacies and genres while continuing to use diversity as a resource for redesigning
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
36
future possibilities for students. Janks (2000) argued that we need to find ways of holding all of
these elements in a productive tension to achieve what is a shared goal of all critical literacy
work: equity and social justice (Janks, 2000; Kellner & Share, 2007b). Achieving equity and
justice with the use of critical pedagogies is essential in the work CML aims to establish.
Critical Media Literacy Pedagogies
Critical Media Literacy addresses issues of race, gender, class, sexuality, and power
while intersecting with cultural studies and critical pedagogies (Janks, 2000; Kellner & Share,
2005; Vasquez, Tate, & Harste, 2013). The literature shows that because of these multiple
intersections, CML is a challenge to teach because it is not a traditional pedagogy. Traditional
pedagogy entails that it does not have established principles or strategies that have been proven
effective by nationally recognized sources such as What Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2013).
The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences runs the What Works
Clearinghouse and it was created to be “a central and trusted source of scientific evidence for
what works in education” (WWC, 2013, About Us, para. 3). Although CML is not recognized as
a traditional pedagogy, it does, however, use a democratic pedagogy that requires teachers to
share the power with students as they unveil myths and challenge hegemony together (Kellner,
1998; Luke, C., 1997b). This can be a problem because of the ambiguity surrounding its practice
in the classroom and the lack of research to prove its effectiveness in teaching these skills
(WWC, 2013).
CML embodies the idea that teaching children through “normal myths” the appearance of
normality protects those myths from the scrutiny of their sociohistorical formation, origins,
maintenance, and change, and therefore, continues to reinforce stereotypes seen in society and
reinforced through popular media (Giroux, 2000). Torres and Mercado (2006) conducted a study
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
37
that allowed students to examine cartoons, news, and other media products for “normal myths.”
What they found were concepts such as ideological diversity, which allowed the students to
realize that although there are slight variations in different forms of media they give the same
message. Unfortunately for students of color these messages are almost always negative and
reinforce stereotypes that challenge their perceptions of themselves.
Kellner and Share (2007a) provided various strategies for teachers to implement the CML
framework in their classrooms. They noted that teaching CML should be a participatory and
collaborative project amongst teacher and students in a classroom. A way to engage productive
discussions could be to watch various forms of media together. While doing this, it is important
for an emphasis on soliciting student voices in the classroom and countering traditional,
transmission approaches to learning. In order to fully participate in CML the basic principles of
interpretation and critiquing can be taught to students. With participation in this interpretation
and critique they cannot be passive recipients of information. Kellner and Share further
suggested that guiding students in debates and inquiry processes deepen their exploration of
issues that affect them and society. While teaching, it is important for there to be a critical focus
to analyze and challenge how media culture can sometimes advance sexism, racism,
ethnocentrism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudices as well as misinformation,
problematic ideologies, and questionable values (Kellner & Share 2007a). From this focus,
critical conversations can emerge and promote student growth.
These critical pedagogies are necessary because our schools are becoming more and more
swamped with the commodification of educational practices (Giroux, 2000; Luke, C., 1997b).
US education focuses on accountability and opposes critical approaches mostly because these
approaches cannot be standardized, routinized, and reduced to prepackaged curriculum that is
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
38
used to score well on standardized tests (Giroux, 2000). What this corporate, neoliberal
education agenda creates is actually the opposite of a critical and transformative educational
practice (Apple, 2000; Giroux, 2000). It takes away the abilities of teachers to theorize,
contextualize, and honor their students’ diverse lives seriously and create a curriculum based on
student interest (Dewey, 1897; Giroux, 2000). In order for this to happen, Giroux (2000) noted
that educators should aim to create political coalitions that have the power and resources to
produce legislation that limits corporate powers’ dominance over the institutions and
mechanisms of civil society (Giroux, 2000). Educators of CML in the US can focus on building
these spaces themselves because ML is not taught in schools of education as it is in other
developed nations (Kubey, 1998; Share, 2009; Vasquez, 2007).
Democratic Pedagogy
Critical Media Literacy pedagogy embraces a democratic pedagogy. A democratic
pedagogy is one in which students have choices and decisions about their learning (Giroux,
2000). This is necessary in a classroom that enforces critical media literacy (Giroux, 2000;
Janks, 2000; Share, 2009). CML is contradicting to traditional pedagogies that are teacher
centered and controlling of knowledge with more democratic student centered pedagogies. More
is at stake in addition to the commodification of education discussed in Chapter One. It is also
the issue of how individual achievement is weighed against issues of equity and the social good,
how teaching and learning are defined, and what sort of identities are produced when the
histories, experiences, values, and desires of students are defined through corporate rather than
democratic ideals (Giroux, 2000). Too many textbook companies view American students as
part of their profit margins rather than as the future leaders and creators of our nation. This is a
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
39
political problem because educators and students can begin to recognize the power relations in
politics and in education.
In order to make the political more pedagogical, Giroux (2000) believed that it requires
that educators address how agency unfolds within power-infused relations. An example of this is
how the process of learning political mechanisms can take on different forms and meanings in
which identities are produced and desires are mobilized (Giroux, 2000). Educators and other
adults need to recognize that the political, economic, and social forces that represent the youth in
a negative light and reduce funding to the public services youth rely on also affect public schools
and universities and therefore affect the future of our democratic societies (Giroux, 2000).
In schools today there is a large emphasis on standards, measurement outcomes, and holding
teachers and students more accountable to standardized tests (Giroux, 2000; Apple, 2000).
According to Giroux (2000,) schools are an important indicator of the well-being of a democratic
society, they remind us of the civic values that can be passed on to young people in order for
them to think critically, to participate in power relations and policy decisions that affect their
lives, and to transform the racial, social, and economic inequities that limit democracy in society
(Giroux, 2000; Janks, 2000; Kellner & Share, 2007b). It is this transformation and reflection on
the inequities of society that students would benefit from when taught through the medium of
CML to be participants in a democratic classroom and democratic society (Kellner & Share,
2007b; Share, 2009). This connects to this study by identifying the importance of CML in
American education. If the civic values of our democracy are to be passed on to young people, a
transformative approach such as ML may work as it has in other developed nations (Kubey,
1998).
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
40
Today, the media is pervaded with sexism, racism, and ethnocentrism (Giroux, 2000).
This media culture along with homophobia can influence the minds of children and it is
important for a skill be taught in order for our students to grow to appreciate themselves and
their culture without taking these “ism’s” into consideration when determining their self-worth
(Giroux, 2000). Students in communities of color would benefit from this instruction even more.
Poor kids and children of color have historically been associated with participating in a culture of
crime, drug use, and rampant sexuality as well as being considered to be beyond the boundaries
of childhood (Giroux, 2000). Critical educators need to address what it means to exercise
authority from their own academic locations and experiences while assuming the challenge of
putting knowledge in the service of a more realized democracy (Giroux, 2000). Educators need
to redefine the relationship between theory and practice to do this.
Critical Media Literacy in the Classroom
There has been much debate about how to teach media literacy (ACME, 2013; NAMLE,
2013). Media literacy was developed as a tool to empower students and citizens to read and
produce media messages themselves. In order to be critical, as defined in critical theory, active
participants in a democratic society, our students can be taught to know how to take in and
interpret the media images that surround them (Kellner, 1995; Kellner & Share 2005). Critical
theory refers to critiquing and transforming what is wrong with society (Held, 1980). Kellner
and Share (2005) wrote that educators often begin teaching critical media literacy by using
decoding media activities or media arts activities that engage students in identifying who and
how the message was constructed. While this is the beginning for teaching students to be media
literate, it only engages students in recognizing the tip of the “iceberg;” it doesn’t address the
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
41
complexities that are usually understood when using the term critical media literacy (Ferguson,
1998).
Teachers tend to only teach their students to analyze the tip of the iceberg when the most
harmful aspects of the iceberg are not visible and could be the most damaging if not analyzed
through the lens of CML. Researchers Kellner and Share (2005) recommend that CML be
looked at more in depth by creating activities such as project-based media production, rewriting
texts, drawing pictures, and critiquing social conditions in texts that they are reading as part of
the assigned curriculum. The goal of CML is to move towards critical media literacies by
understanding that literacy is a social process that involves multiple dimensions and interactions
with multiple forms of technologies and texts (Kellner & Share, 2005).
The new technologies of communication are powerful tools that can liberate or dominate,
manipulate or enlighten, and it is imperative that educators teach their students how to
use and critically analyze these media as well as the technology and resources that make
them applicable and accessible (Kellner, 2004). (Kellner, 2004 as cited in Share, 2009,
p. 12)
In successful classroom implementation, CML deals with more than just technical production
skills. CML is based in cultural studies and addresses issues of gender, race, class, and power;
these issues hold incredible transformative potential when teaching CML (Kellner & Share,
2005). If CML is to offset the current social reproductive function of education, it is important
that it includes cultural studies, transformative pedagogies, and radical democracy (Kellner &
Share, 2005). Traditionally, students in working class schools are taught rote behaviors with
very little decision-making or critical engagement of any kind (Anyon, 1980). Even 30 years
since Anyon’s (1980) study, this situation continues to occur. Any transformative method of
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
42
teaching would go against the norm in America. Another way to possibly connect CML in the
classroom would be to relate it with genre criticisms and how particular genres follow certain
patterns and conventions just as different media follow conventions (Kellner & Share, 2005).
Torres and Mercado (2006) recommend looking at socially responsive textbooks that are
culturally relevant. Torres and Mercado also recommend that teachers look at The Center Public
Integrity’s (n.d.) website in the well-connected databases to see who owns the media 40 miles
from their house, learn about their owners, prime interest, and political orientation so that they
can make more informed choices on what they decide to bring into their classrooms.
Researchers Share (2009) and Vasquez and Wong-Kam (2003b) suggest that teachers
should teach students to “read between the lines” and question the interest behind why the media
was created. Reading between the lines refers to reading critically and not taking things at face
value. It is also important to learn how to look for alternative ways to be informed and/or
entertained (Share, 2009; Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003b). Today’s adolescents spend a large
amount of time watching television and interacting with various forms of media representation
such as the Internet, magazines, radio, and various propaganda. Children’s entertainment
programming may teach children about market values, stereotypes, prejudices, etc. This does
not imply that they cannot learn about human value through media but the probability of children
learning these values through television and media is lower because these values are usually not
marketable (Torres & Mercado, 2006).
CML could be an extraordinary literary tool that not only promotes learning from the
media but also how to resist media manipulation and use it in constructive ways. Kellner and
Share (2005) stated that it develops skills that students need to be good citizens and be more
motivated and competent participants in society. CML allows students to have power over their
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
43
culture and enable them to create their own meaning and identity, which can allow them to
transform the material and social conditions of their culture and society (Kellner & Share, 2005).
By teaching CML, educators can teach students to be independent and interdependent critical
thinkers that do not need to depend on the media to frame their representations of the world
(Kellner & Share, 2005). Overall, CML offers the tools and framework to help students analyze
injustices and express their own voice and struggle to create a better society without being
dependent on the media's representations of them and of the world.
The teaching of CML is seldom implemented in the classroom. Many programs that
teach media arts are found as stand-alone classes or community based after school programs.
One program was SmartArt LA (Kellner & Share, 2007a). When programs, such as SmartArt
LA, are designed as stand-alone programs, connections are not made across the content areas and
they lose their transformative potential. In order for people in marginalized positions to have
opportunities to collectively struggle against oppression, to voice their concerns, and to create
their own representation spaces would benefit from being opened. Through the critical
understandings and viewpoints CML presents, this collective struggle and opportunity can be
given to students in marginalized positions. They believe that it is these issues that hold
tremendous potential for transformative critical media literacy (Kellner & Share 2007b).
Transformative pedagogies refer to those pedagogies that transform the structural and cultural
aspects of education that maintain subordinate and dominant racial positions in and out of the
classroom (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002).
There are different orientations on how to best teach CML but they are all interdependent
on each other and the outcome always relates to changing society and challenging the status quo
(Janks, 2000; Giroux, 2000; Share, 2009). It is important to teach students how to critically
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
44
analyze the discourse the media portrays because this discourse is powerful in maintaining and
reproducing power relations of power and control (Janks, 2000). Teachers can create these
spaces for students to engage in social action by using a recurring process of exploring
problematic ways of being as social constructions, deconstructing those, and then reconstructing
particular social practices to contribute to change (Vasquez & VanderZanden, 2009). CML
requires teachers to theorize, contextualize, and honor their students’ diverse lives by creating a
curriculum based on their interest (Dewey, 1917; Giroux, 2000). While this is what makes CML
meaningful it is also what is most ambiguous and could be a reason why some teachers choose
not to engage in CML instruction. There is literature on how to use CML in classrooms and how
to begin the discussion and planning around CML instruction; however, there is not enough to
gain a comprehensive understanding of what it entails (Albers et al., 2008; Gainer et al., 2009;
Kubey, 1998; Luke, C., 1997a; Vasquez et al., 2013).
Examples of Best Practices
Gainer et al.’s (2009) study on a fourth-grade classroom using CML required the fourth
graders to “read between the lines” and “talk back” to the text. Activities that were used during
this CML unit included gallery walks to view and discuss the work of their peers and critical
conversations involving media. The activities allowed students to explore multiple forms of
media and incorporate as much technology as possible into their final assignments (Gainer et al.,
2009). The unit also challenged preconceived notions that CML simply involved finding fault in
mass media texts. Some activities that the students engaged in were creating speech bubbles for
well-known ads. The teachers had students question commercialism in their environment
including popular culture. CML is compelling for critical dialogic curriculum and critically
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
45
reading advertisements. The teachers who participated in the study noted the high level of
student engagement and participation throughout the unit.
Another way teachers could use CML in the classroom is through VoiceThread, a digital
communication tool that includes a multimedia slide show that holds images, documents, and
videos (Vasquez et al., 2013). VoiceThread allows students to create their own media messages
or interpret those they see and share them with others. Other ideas for using CML include using
a podcast to listen to or create one that can be used for social action (Vasquez et al., 2013). In
addition to these methods, photography can be used to continue the CML inquiry process. CML
holds transformational power because children who learn using curriculum that is based on what
matters to them are more likely to feel that what they are learning is important to their lives
(Vasquez et al., 2013). Conversations take place in which students want to take action and
produce something that will help the situation they questioned (Vasquez et al., 2013). These
tools turn into the social action that critical theory and CML aim to achieve. CML has been
implemented in classrooms as young as preschool. One preschool project that was created was
making “Travel Trunks” to talk and learn about an endangered animal. To instill action, the
students of this class sent them to different schools to get the word out on what they could do to
help the endangered species (Vasquez et al., 2013).
Impact on Elementary-Aged Students’ Empowerment
Critical media literacy could provide a platform for students and teachers to have critical
conversations where teaching and learning is occurring amongst them (Kellner & Share, 2005).
Kellner and Share (2005) wrote about how the same student can interpret the same message
differently. This supports multicultural education in that it teaches students not just to tolerate
differences but to value differences (Kellner & Share, 2005). Students can also learn to interpret
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
46
the same situation from a different perspective and subject position. Teaching students to
embrace multiple perspectives can help to promote critical thinking and strengthen democracy
(Kellner & Share, 2005).
When students and teachers work together to critically analyze media and texts, a course
is opened for democratic pedagogy (Gainer et al., 2009). Texts that can be used to promote
CML may include texts that are spoken or written as part of everyday life. These texts may
include, but are not limited to, newspaper, magazine ads, food wrappers, or television
advertisements (Share, 2009; Vasquez & VanderZanden, 2009). To some adults these texts can
be so common that they do not carefully take notice of them or the messages they convey but
they are molding the opinions of children (Vasquez & VanderZanden, 2009). Something that
can be done with these texts is redesigning them for students to understand their purpose and
why they were constructed (Janks, 2002; Janks, 1997). Teachers can use these texts as a social
tool to reconstruct undemocratic texts to favor our students (Luke, A., 1998). Educators can
begin to recognize that children are not entirely passive and can actually imitate adult behavior.
This is not to say that there are things that are not developmentally appropriate. Using these
critical conversations to help children understand difference and promote critical thinking
empowers students and helps create CML products that lead to social action (Gainer et al., 2009;
Giroux, 2000).
Aspects of CML such as media literacy and production can be made central to students’
needs and interest. They can use digital media to form supportive communities around their
interest, like schools can make media literacy and media production central to the learning
process for young people (Giroux, 2000). According to C. Luke (1997b), although children are
not direct income earners, they employ significant power over what their parents purchase. The
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
47
fact that children do employ significant purchasing power makes it even more important for
educators to find ways to negotiate the use of everyday texts in the classroom. This refers back
to the corporate interest found in the commodification of education and viewing our students in
terms of money to benefit the elite. Giroux (2000) noted that when it is recognized that children
are not entirely passive and immune, and can actually imitate adult behavior, much action can
begin to evolve. The teachings of CML aim to teach the public how the media aims to persuade
people on what they listen to, read, think, believe, taste, dress, look like, speak, and how they
perceive themselves. This is a main component of why CML needs active involvement.
Understanding how to interpret the media is important because the goal of propaganda is to
influence behavior (Torres & Mercado, 2006).
This study uncovered the importance and the necessary tools of having a lived CML
curriculum in urban elementary schools. It is imperative that a critical literacy curriculum is
lived and that it arises from the social and political conditions that unfold in the communities in
which the students live (Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003c). This entails a curriculum that is not
traditionally taught. This would necessitate teachers to incorporate their critical perspectives, as
well as that of their students, into the daily curriculum in order to help students better understand
the world around them (Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003c). Incorporating student interest steers
away from the one-size-fits-all approach and may be a difficult task to do for many teachers and
administrators when constructing curriculum (Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003c). This negotiation
involves constantly listening to what children are talking about, their passions, their interests, and
using these to build curriculum that best fits their interest (Vasquez & VanderZanden, 2009).
Vasquez and Wong-Kam (2003c) stated schools being threatened by lack of funding
leads them into following federal mandates that threaten to fill schools with a “one size fits all”
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
48
curriculum. If students are expected to become lifelong learners, effective communicators, and
active citizens in an equitable and socially just world, then it is essential that critical pedagogies
such as CML be taught in schools (Share, 2009; Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003c). Vasquez and
Wong-Kam (2003c) noted that critical literacy is needed to exercise power, to enhance everyday
life in schools and communities, and to question practices of privilege and injustice found
throughout society. The spaces where the official curriculum and the unofficial work overlap are
particularly important for those attempting to engage in critical literacies but who feel the
pressures of being accountable for 'covering' the mandated curriculum (Vasquez &
VanderZanden, 2009).
Schools in urban areas tend to serve a large number of minority students (Darling-
Hammond, 2010). In many media messages, images of working class Latinos and Black
children are cited as a media display (Giroux, 2000). The behavior of students in these
communities is attributed to the irresponsibility of working mothers, drug abuse, and other
supposed corruptions within working-class culture (Giroux, 2000). Giroux (2000) noted these
assumptions made by the mainstream media and acknowledged that, “Little is mentioned about
the violence perpetrated by those middle-class values and social formations–such as conspicuous
consumption, conformity, snobbery, and ostracism–that reproduce racial, class, and gender
exclusions” (p. 77). Students in these areas grow up seeing a narrow representation of what it
means to be a minority in America and this is a reason why CML instruction would benefit urban
schools (Vasquez & Wong-Kam, 2003b). Schools have a responsibility to teach students how to
read popular culture critically so they can be educated consumers of popular media and
producers capable of creating texts using new technologies (Vasquez & VanderZanden, 2009).
Literacy-concerned educators, parents, and activists can begin to challenge and counter these
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
49
images, ideologies, representations, and social practices by teaching and learning from these
critical perspectives and with these digital technologies (Vasquez, 2004).
Many educators and adults in urban schools can consider redefining their own
understanding of the new technologies and the new literacies they have produced (Giroux, 2000).
The new media, including the Internet and computer culture, can be an item of analysis and
learning, especially in elementary and public schools (Giroux, 2000). Educational policy and
decisions are usually left to politicians who have little interest in the welfare of kids who are
poor and nonwhite (Giroux, 2000). If this change is to happen and be implemented, then it is
important for it to happen from the top down and the bottom up (Kellner & Share, 2007b). This
study brought this perspective to light.
Educators’ Role in Teaching Critical Media Literacy
When initially teaching CML, Kellner and Share (2007a) recommended creating a
PowerPoint, to introduce student’s to the concepts of CML and brainstorm a list of places where
media grabs our attention with products we don’t need. In mainstream media, issues that remain
sheltered are issues of class, race, gender, and ethnicity. These are the issues that are essential in
CML instruction.
Dutiful educators have a crucial role in supporting and developing nonprofit alternative
media that aims to inform the public with an alternative perspective (Torres & Mercado, 2006).
This has been done through instruction of CML in the classroom and through student creativity.
CML aims to encourage students to ask questions of why and where messages are sent from and
come from so that they understand that the role of media is more than just entertain and inform.
Teachers can aim to be guiding students in an inquiry process that allows them to be critical
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
50
thinkers when exploring themes that affect them, their community, and society as a whole
(Kellner & Share, 2005). This exploration and creation is Critical Media Literacy.
Research showed a problem that exists in the teaching and learning of CML is to train
and empower teachers to use their creativity more than scripted curricula (Kellner & Share,
2007a). This would involve teacher autonomy and a curriculum taught from kindergarten to
high school and continuing in higher education. Kellner and Share (2007a) suggested CML be
taught from preschool to university and be linked with information literacy, technological
literacy and social studies. Parent organizations can help enforce it by knowing that the goal of
CML is to help students become socially active citizens and transform society into a less
oppressive more egalitarian democracy (Kellner & Share, 2007a).
Some books considered critical have a stronger focus on historical issues like slavery or
the industrial revolution and show how large groups of people were marginalized and stripped of
their human rights. Others are more contemporary and encourage readers to question the current
practices that are accepted as "what we have always done.” CML aims to break away from these
practices and encourage learners to take an active part in their learning (Kellner & Share, 2007a).
Effective Teaching
In order to fully address the components of the research questions, this study answered,
“The following will provide a context to what this study considers effective teaching.”
Important variables examined in this case study were the role of the teacher, the role of
classroom resources, and the role of instruction as they relate to CML. These variables interact
with each other in order for teachers to integrate CML into their everyday instruction.
Pedagogies, resources, promising practices, and the impact of having a critical curriculum have
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
51
already been discussed and this section will to add to the discussion in support of the perceived
effectiveness of integrating CML into the classroom.
The quality of teachers determines the success a child will have throughout their years of
schooling. Teacher quality is the single most important factor in determining student
achievement (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Teacher quality and
effectiveness can be measured through their academic knowledge and skills, which are most
often measured by performance assessments. The formative and summative assessments, which
are part of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), could be a predictor of
teacher effectiveness (Pecheone & Chung, 2006). Their effectiveness can also be measured by
the mastery of their content as seen in California by passing performance measures such as
Beginning Teachers Support and Assessment (BTSA), their experience and time in the
classroom, and a less measurable factor which is pedagogical skill (Peske & Haycock, 2006).
Gordon, Kane, and Staiger (2006) stated that, “without the right people standing in front of the
classroom, school reform is a futile exercise” (p. 5).
Researchers (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003) have studied the relationships between
school resources, instruction, and teachers in an attempt to understand what constitutes effective
teaching. Their findings included the understanding that effective teaching does not depend on
resources alone. They found that schools and teachers with the same resources have different
outcomes in terms of student achievement. They concluded that it is not the access to the
resources but how the teacher chooses to use the resource that makes the resource effective.
There are assumptions that the resources teachers are provided produce the learning, but Cohen
et al. (2003) found that the accessibility of resources had a weak correlation to student
performance. They found that there was a stronger relationship between parents’ educational
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
52
and social backgrounds than resources in regards to student achievement. Those schools that
were found as more effective looked at collective characteristic and student performance as well
as instructional strategies (Ancess, 2000).
The staff at these schools shared a vision of the purpose of instruction and had a stronger
commitment to the academic success of students. They also had administrators that helped
establish and maintain these commitments (Cohen et al., 2003). Teachers at effective schools
also shared the belief that they needed to help students learn and succeed. These variables have
been studied and they inform this study by understanding how teachers integrate CML into their
classroom. There is a common misperception that teaching CML requires technological
resources. According to Cohen et al. (2003), the effects of having instructional resources has
more to do with how the teacher incorporates the resources with effective instructional strategies
than with the resources themselves. Instruction has to do with interaction and how it is defined
as a collection of practices that include pedagogy, learning, instructional design, and maintain
organization within the classroom (Cohen et al., 2003).
Another factor to consider is the content knowledge of the teacher when thinking about
effective instruction. It is important for teachers to know their subject well enough to explain it
to students and to teach not only through resources but also through their own knowledge (Cohen
et al., 2003). Lampert and Graziani (2009) examined ambitious teaching, which aims to have
students across ethnic, racial, class, and gender categories to understand and use knowledge to
solve authentic problems. It is both the teacher and the students that shape the classroom
atmosphere and determine how the resources and students interact in order to maximize learning
and solve authentic problems (Cohen et al., 2003).
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
53
Cohen et al. (2003) noted that challenging students with classroom activities/assignments
creates more friction in the classroom environment, which may be a reason why teachers accept
modest results on mediocre tasks in order to avoid conflict. If school leaders encourage this
challenging instruction, perhaps teachers and students would too (Cohen et al., 2003). Teachers
and students shape the environments in which they learn and unless school leaders place this as
highly important these changes will not happen (Cohen et al., 2003). Teachers who adjust both
content and methods to what they observe in their students are more likely to help their learners
succeed in producing high quality work (Lampert & Graziani, 2009). Within these
environments, the teachers’ effectiveness depends on how well they can use the students’ ideas
in their instruction (Cohen et al., 2003). It is important for the choosing of a set of instructional
activities to be done carefully and teachers can collaborate with each other to learn from their
implementation with content such as CML (Lampert & Graziani, 2009).
Critical Media Literacy Framework
Along with critical theory, the critical media literacy framework will be used to help
position and analyze this study. The framework will be used as a tool to analyze data to produce
findings.
Five Basic Principles and Core Concepts
While critical theory is crucial to approaching CML in the classroom, the CML
framework addresses CML in a practical, usable way. CML was seen as more of a framework of
conceptual understanding than a set of knowledge and skills when it was first introduced
(Kellner & Share, 2005). CML begins with an understanding that all education is political and
can be taught through a democratic pedagogy that respects and promotes issues of civil rights
and social justice (Share, 2011). Although definitions and beliefs of critical media literacy have
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
54
been ambiguous and debated, the Center for Media Literacy (2013) developed a list of Five Core
Concepts:
1. All media messages are ‘constructed’
2. Media messages are constructed using a creative language with its own rules
3. Different people experience the same media message differently
4. Media have embedded values and points of view
5. Most media are organized to gain profit and/or power. (p. 1)
Share (2011) added a sixth that states that,
the foreground of identity markers of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. as a way to
question and challenge the role media texts play in perpetuating racist, sexist,
homophobic and other socially unjust ideas, practices and institutions, as well as the
valorization of representations that present non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic and
other positive representations of subordinate groups that are often represented in
stereotyped or offensive ways. (p. 1)
This framework also coincides with the core concepts and key questions developed by
the Center for Media Literacy (2013). For the purpose of this study, the presence of the sixth
core concept is the distinguishing factor between Media Literacy and Critical Media Literacy.
The Center for Media Literacy (2013) developed these five core concepts of Media
Literacy along with five key questions that teachers can use to implement its use in the
classroom. The questions are shown in Table 1. These concepts, questions and framework will
be used as a tool for analysis of the data collection and through the data analysis process. I will
explain CML by looking at classroom activities through the lens of critical theory and the
application of these terms and concepts.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
55
Table 1
Core Concepts and Key Questions
Core Concepts Key Questions
1. All media messages are “constructed” Who created this message?
2. Media messages are constructed using a
creative language with its own rules
.
What creative techniques are used to attract
my attention?
3. Different people experience the same
media message differently.

How might different people understand this
message differently than me?
4. Media have embedded values and points
of view

What values, lifestyles and points of view are
represented in, or omitted from, this message?
5. Most media messages are organized to
gain profit and/or power.

Why is this message being sent?
6. Media shape and influence identity
formation through repetition of dominant
discourses. Media culture is a terrain of
struggle that perpetuates or challenges
positive and/or negative ideas about people
and groups, it is never neutral.
Who or what group is benefiting and who or
what group is not benefiting and/or is being
harmed by this text?
Note: Source for nos. 1-5: Center for Media Literacy, 2013, p. 1); Source for no. 6: Share, J.,
2011, p. 1)

Summary
This literature review explored the general controversies, questions, and problems that
the research found. Most dealt with the fact that CML is not uniformly taught in schools.
Promising practices in the field have not been clearly established and educators, as well as
national organizations, do not agree what teaching CML entails. The ambiguity surrounding
various measures dealing with CML make it difficult for teachers nationwide to prepare their
students to be media literate citizens. An area of agreement and common theme across the
literature is that the 21st century is a media saturated, technologically dependent era, and is
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
56
important for students to know how to navigate these new literacies (Kellner & Share, 2007b).
In order for this to happen, Giroux (2000) noted that educators can create political coalitions that
have the power and resources to produce legislation that limits corporate powers’ ascendancy
over the institutions and mechanisms of civil society. These coalitions do not yet exist and there
is no research that shows how teachers can begin to establish these coalitions.
This literature review also touched on the existing best practices in the field of CML.
CML requires teachers to theorize, contextualize, and honor their students’ diverse lives
seriously and create a curriculum based on their interest (Giroux, 2000, Dewey & Small, 1897).
This study uncovered the importance and the necessary tools of having a lived CML curriculum
in urban elementary schools. This study was needed because elementary teachers need resources
to aid them in the implementation of CML in the K-5 classroom. The critical conversations that
are necessary for teachers to learn from each other and implement these democratic pedagogies
do not exist and more research is needed to inform their practice. By researching what
successful implementation of CML looks like, other critical elementary teachers will be able to
implement the best practices found to promote social justice and equity in their classrooms

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
“The teacher is of course an artist, but being an artist does not mean that he or she
can make the profile, can shape the students. What the educator does in
teaching is to make it possible for the students to become themselves.”
-Paulo Freire (n.d., para. 1.)
The purpose of this study was to examine promising practices and perceptions of teachers
in using Critical Media Literacy (CML) and gain insight into its perceived effects of engaging
students in critical thinking processes, personal reflections, and democratic participation. This
study identified elements such as: high levels of inquiry, personal and social change, and
democratic pedagogies that were present in the instruction of CML at the elementary level in
order to define promising practices in the field. This chapter will provide a description of how
the study was developed, the research design, the context and setting of the study, the
participants, how data was collected, how data was analyzed, and how data was reported.
Review of the Problem
There are emerging and multiple definitions of ML which cause a struggle when teachers
try to navigate its use in the classroom (Kubey, 1998). This ambiguity makes it difficult for
educators to find ways to implement ML instruction in the K-5 classroom. The United States has
led the world in many innovations and social advances. We were the first to put a man on the
moon and have paved the way for computer and software development, which makes it ironic
that we fall behind other nations in the teaching of ML (Kubey, 1998). As a nation, the United
States is isolated in the sense that we rarely see any foreign media products such as television or
news headlines (Kubey, 1998). The goal of this study was to find how the teachers who engaged
in CML to impact student achievement defined, honed, and prepared their practice for usable
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
58
information nationwide. This information can be useful for elementary school teachers who
struggle with incorporating these practices into their instruction or for teachers who would like to
begin using these practices.
Research Questions
This study answered the following research questions:
1. What specific classroom practices and resources do elementary teachers use to integrate
Critical Media Literacy?
2. To what do teachers attribute their commitment to implement CML in their instruction?
These research questions allowed me to see the pedagogy as well as the theory necessary to
understand what a teacher perceived as effective in teaching CML.
Design of the Study
This study used a qualitative design to capture the commitment, benefits, resources, and
structures that teaching CML entailed in three elementary classrooms. Qualitative research takes
an inductive approach that focuses on specific situations or people and emphasizes rich
descriptions (Maxwell, 2013). This study best lent itself to a qualitative study because it was my
goal for educators to connect with my research and be able to make it a reality in their classroom
through direct application of the findings. Capturing the complexity of teaching CML is
something that only qualitative research could achieve (Maxwell, 2013). There are multiple
interpretations of a single event, or multiple realities that can be analyzed closely (Merriam,
2009). In this study I, as the primary research instrument, sought to understand how people
make sense of their world and their experiences within this world in the context of CML
(Merriam, 2009).
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
59
Using qualitative methods, my study was labeled as an observational case study. A case
study is, “an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40).
This case study was particularistic, meaning that I only focused on a particular aspect of
teaching, which is CML in one social context and three classrooms (Merriam, 2009). A case
study approach worked well with my research because I described a vivid portrait of a model that
can be used for teachers to understand what CML looks like in the classroom (Merriam, 2009). I
gathered data by observing my participants and triangulating the data received from
observations, formal and informal interviews, and documents to study a particular aspect of their
sites (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003, p. 60). With rich description through observations and interviews
my study offers an understanding of CML instruction in three elementary classrooms and will
allow my readers to contextualize, interpret, and apply my findings and information to their own
classroom and professional practice.
My purpose in conducting the study was to achieve my personal, professional, and
intellectual goals. I am a lifelong learner who fights for a socially just educational system where
all students have the necessary skills and traits to succeed in life. CML is a transformative
approach to education (Kellner & Share, 2007b) and I gained the expertise I needed to ensure
that I become a practitioner of the promising practices identified through my study and become a
teacher leader that is ready to share promising approaches to use CML. The findings of this
study were complex as were the unique experiences participants brought to this study (Merriam,
2009).
Setting
The settings of this study were three public elementary schools in urban areas of southern
California. Two of the three schools received Title 1 funds and all predominantly served English
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
60
Language Learners. One school housed kindergarten through eighth grade and the other two
served kindergarten through fifth grade. Merriam (2009) noted that any inquiry into a case
requires the researcher’s attempt to understand the context. As a teacher at a school similar to
the schools being studied, I was able to have an emic perspective into the setting (Merriam,
2009). This perspective gave me critical insight into the work teachers put in to achieve CML
but it also constrained my perspective as a researcher because I held preconceived notions about
what it entailed. Teaching at a school with similar demographics was a bias that I noted and
actively attempted to overcome by being aware of it and looking for disconfirming evidence
when I began analysis (Erickson, 1984). I also collected data from several sources and
triangulated during analysis to further address any possible bias (see the section entitled Data
Collection) (Merriam, 2009). The administration of the school did not have an active voice in
whether or not the staff implemented aspects of CML. They were aware that it was being taught
but did not provide professional development, resources, or guidance with its implementation.
The schools studied did not have a mandated curriculum for CML in place. I used an overt
approach in which my main research relationships were established with the teachers (Merriam,
2009).
Bogdan and Biklen (2003) described the importance of using an overt approach to gain
access to an appropriate location for the study. It is important to make the research interest
known and get cooperation from those involved. This overt, cooperative method is known as
cooperative style (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). This approach held high importance in my research
because one of the main reasons I conducted it is for professional growth and to seek promising
practices for wider application in elementary classrooms. I am a teacher who stresses the
importance of collaboration in order to gain high levels of student achievement and meaningful
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
61
professional development. In order to gain open entry and have willing participants as a
researcher, it was important to be as transparent as possible. My approach was to seek
cooperation through sympathy from my participants and play down my status as a researcher to
someone who just wanted to learn from his or her expertise and improve my own practice
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
Participants and Context of the Study
My study included willing participants who were fifth and third grade teachers who self-
identified as teachers of CML. They were selected by acknowledging their expertise in CML
and their willingness to participate in my study. I located my participants in a mixed
convenience and network sampling (Merriam, 2009). Convenience sampling refers to selecting
participants based on location and availability. Network sampling refers to selecting participants
who have established relationships with other participants in the study (Merriam, 2009). I was
looking for teachers who were possibly teaching CML or who knew others who taught it so these
forms of sampling fit my study best. I initially located my participants through professor and
colleague recommendations. I contacted all of the candidates recommended and only heard back
from two. I was able to acquire another participant through word of mouth. After I confirmed
the participation of the three teachers, I used network sampling and asked for their assistance in
gaining access to their administrators and the teacher who taught their students after they did.
After the identification of each participant, they were assigned a pseudonym for the remainder of
the study. Pseudonyms were used throughout my study due to the Institutional Review Board’s
(IRB) process that is established to protect human subjects. Because one of my research
questions focused on how teachers find the time and resources to teach CML, I wanted to ensure
that the teachers who participated were using CML already.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
62
To locate and secure my participants, I contacted a local university that offered a CML
course and was referred to many candidates by their former professor; they were contacted
through their preferred method whether it was email, phone, or school site visit. While
considering this criterion, I chose teachers that I had the potential to build a trusting relationship
with. Building relationships with my respondents was crucial while trying to establish
productive working relationships (Merriam, 2009). To aid in this process, I presented myself as
a colleague who was there to learn from their expertise and guidance. I told them that I was a
full-time teacher first and foremost and that I was conducting research to improve my practice as
a part-time endeavor and to find promising practices based on their management and
implementation of CML. This relationship approach allowed me to ethically gain the
information I needed to answer my research questions (Maxwell, 2013).
I positioned myself using an emic perspective during the length of my study. By
positioning myself within the cultural context of my study, it allowed me to organize my findings
as such. Emic refers to the insider perspective I have being a teacher (Merriam, 2009). Using
the emic perspective comes with great advantages. I was able to help establish the relationships
necessary with my participants because I am a teacher too and they viewed me as being on their
level and part of their culture with no anxiety (Merriam, 2009). If I would have been a principal,
their perspective of me might have been different because like me, they may have viewed
principals as someone who evaluates. Although I foresaw difficulties arising due to my
positionality as an insider of the study, this did not happen. I felt the ability to gain a better
insight with the emic perspective but I needed to be more conscious about checking my own
biases due to this emic perspective (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). I found myself agreeing
with most of what the teachers described as triumphs and failures and had to make sure to
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
63
question deeper and consistently be searching for disconfirming evidence in order to gain high
quality data.
Although I was not an insider to each site, I considered myself an insider to the study
because of the previous knowledge I had coming into the study and because I was in the same
career and position as the participants of my study. The relationship between my study’s
participants and me was an important component of the research methods (Merriam, 2009).
Being able to establish a productive participant-researcher relationship was why I chose to keep
my sample size small. A smaller sample size allowed me more time for an in-depth study and
analysis of using CML in the elementary classroom.
In order to analyze and have an in-depth understanding of how one goes about teaching
CML, my sample was small in quantity. As a Doctor of Education student, the time available
was not as lengthy as others earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Keeping my sample size
small allowed me to conduct an in-depth analysis while keeping a small sample size. Three
participants in a case study method was a viable sample size because case studies include,
multiple sources of information (Merriam, 2009), which in this study included interviews,
observations, and documents. These multiple sources of information allowed me to delve into
the study and use thick description to interpret my findings even with a small sample size.
Data Collection
There were multiple forms of data collected for this study. The collection of these
multiple forms of data enhanced the reliability of the study and made it possible to triangulate
my findings in order to identify the promising practices in the field (Maxwell, 2013). Initially all
participants were given an informed consent information sheet that made them aware of the
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
64
purpose of my study and ensured them that the study was confidential and would not include
their name in any way (see Appendix A).
Interviews
My main method of gathering data was to conduct interviews. Each interview was
transcribed as soon as possible. I used my notes and recordings to account for and note in my
transcriptions things like facial expression and pauses (Maxwell, 2013) in order to use these in
my thick description. Each participant was interviewed three times. Each interview addressed a
separate research question. Because data was analyzed as collected, I chose to conduct three
interviews so that data could be gathered based on the need to answer all parts of the research
questions. To aid in the reliability of my study I wrote memos to record an additional set of field
notes quickly after leaving my observation setting without speaking to anyone after (Merriam,
2009). Memos served as a tool in addition to my field notes. Maxwell (2013) stated completing
these memos immediately after every piece of data collected would help me facilitate my
reflection and analytic insight. The interviews were semi-structured which allowed me to have a
protocol to follow but also allowed me to ask the supporting questions necessary to answer my
research question. Confidentiality of participants’ names and school sites were maintained at all
times. Prior to the data collection, I assigned each participant a pseudonym that was used for all
data collected. This helped ensure the confidentiality of my participants (see Appendix A).
The first data that I collected were recordings and notes from formal interviews. These
initial interviews took place the first three weeks of September when teachers were beginning
their school year. One of the participants was not available, so her interview continued into the
last week of September and the first week of October. To allow time for transcription and initial
data analysis, there were three separate interviews to ensure that the necessary data was gathered.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
65
Three different protocols were used in order to answer the three research questions to the fullest
extent (Appendix B). Following the initial interview, a time was determined to observe the
participants once before the conclusion of the three interviews. I gained permission from the
teacher and the school site administrator to observe a 30-60 minute lesson that exemplified
CML. At this time, teachers were asked to provide me with any and all documents that could be
of interest to me and my data collection and analysis.
Participants were interviewed individually, and with their permission, the interview was
recorded. Recording the interview aided me in analyzing the process since the main instrument
in a qualitative study is the researcher (Merriam, 2009). Knowing this helped me identify my
biases so that I knew in what ways they might shape my data and interpretations. Some biases I
encountered were that if a teacher self-identified as a teacher of CML, I believed that they should
be able to teach CML specific lessons multiple times a week. I also believed that technology
was necessary in the production of CML products and construction of student work. These were
the biases I looked out for when conducting interviews so that they did not interfere with my
analysis of CML or the identification of the best practices I was looking for to address my
research questions.
Data was collected during scheduled interviews and observations with teachers and
through approval of the chosen district, administrators, and classroom teachers. Once the
participants were identified, I contacted them to determine a time and place for our interview.
Interviews took place in the participants’ classroom or a convenient public location near the
school site. The choice was made based on what was most convenient for the participant. The
main source of data was highly descriptive field notes taken throughout the observation, listening
to recorded interviews, and memos written after the interviews (Maxwell, 2013).
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
66
After reading Merriam’s (2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation, I knew that my study best lent itself to a semi-structured interview protocol
where the larger part of my interview would be guided by a list of questions. I also knew that I
wanted to take some questions from a structured interview protocol and have a list of
predetermined questions that I placed in a specific order to help the flow of the conversation.
Being prepared for a semi-structured interview allowed me the flexibility to ask my participants
to expand on their answers and ask clarifying questions of things that were unclear (Merriam,
2009). A structured interview would have placed too many restrictions on the interview
protocol; because I developed productive working relationships with my participants, they
perceived me to be learning from them, I wanted to make sure that my interviews had the option
of being somewhat open and guided by my participants.
Merriam (2009) stated that piloting your interviews are crucial for trying out your
questions. I piloted every interview prior to the data collection portion of my study in order to
ensure reliability and professionalism. I had piloted the interview protocol for my first research
question with participants similar to those who were in my study and learned that I wanted to
take some questions from a structured interview protocol and have a list of predetermined
questions that I placed in a specific order. The order of my questions had an influence on my
respondents’ answers and where they expected my interview to go. I also realized that my first
couple of questions could be answered in yes or no format which made me think of different
wording to make them more open-ended in order to be more aware of my participants’ thought
process. Discovering this knowledge and realizing how complex my questions needed to be led
me to conduct pilot interviews to test out my protocols. Pilot activities are pivotal to the success
of an interview. Having tested the questions beforehand allowed me to realize what questions
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
67
needed to be reworded or clarified so that I could add additional questions to obtain the
information I was seeking. Allowing time for clarification and editing of word choice in my
questions is why all interview protocols were piloted before any formal data was collected. See
Appendix B for interview protocol 1.
Carol Rodgers’ (2002) work on the reflective teaching cycle was also taken into
consideration when developing the interview protocols. Her work centered around working with
teachers to slow down and reflect on their classroom practices. This practice reinforces the
concept of teacher as learner so that teachers can be responsive to student needs and understand
why they choose their classroom practices (Rodgers, 2002). Rodgers (2002) noted that the most
productive starting point for teachers’ professional development is in their own classrooms and
how they reflect on their practice. This practice allowed me to analyze how the studies’
participants used their own student learning and interest to guide their teaching and the creation
of what I considered to be a learner-centered classroom. The goal of the reflective cycle
(Rodgers, 2002) is to improve teacher and student learning. Reflection can happen in action or
on action. Reflection-in-action happens in the midst of the experience, whereas reflection-on-
action takes place outside of an experience (Rodgers, 2002). Teachers in this study noted both
types of reflection when discussing their practice.
Observation
Merriam (2009) stated that there are three stages of collecting data through observation;
entry, data collection, and exit. I had a concise explanation on what the purpose of the interview
and observations were to share with the participants prior to the beginning of the interview or
observations. I thought that being provided with a purpose that was not evaluative, would ease
some of the tension that comes along with being interviewed or observed. I also was prepared to
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
68
answer many of the common questions Bogdan and Biklen (2003) suggested we have answers to
such as: Why? What are you going to do? Are you going to ask my students questions? And,
Will those who read your study know it was me? It was important to confirm that I was looking
for promising practices to share in the field and apply to my own practice; pseudonyms were
used so no one will know who the participants were, and students were not asked questions. In
an age where observation often leads to evaluation, teachers are extremely cautious of what is the
purpose for being observed. It was helpful to have these questions reinforced so that I knew the
demeanor I should have when asking for entry and when answering these questions. Multiple
forms of data, when triangulated, helped provide thick description and rich data.
Observations were a critical part of my research study. Observations are what I used to
triangulate my findings and represent a first-hand account of an experience rather than a second
hand account that I obtained from interviews (Merriam, 2009). Observations helped make it
possible to record behavior and interactions and helped me identify the context of my study.
Merriam (2009) offered a list of things to observe that I kept in mind while creating my
protocols. They were to observe the physical setting, the participants, activities and interactions
amongst those being observed; conversations; subtle factors such as informal or unplanned
activities; and my own behavior. I also took photographs, with participant permission, in order
to remember the setting in greater detail. Because the students were not part of the study, I did
not capture any student-images, only the classroom environment such as bulletin boards, student
work samples, and handouts. My field notes and observation protocol included notes on what
the teacher wrote on the board, what type of media was used, work sheets passed out, student
work put up, student organization materials such as notebooks and folders, placement of desks in
the classroom, and pictures/posters on the walls of the classroom (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). I
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
69
took them myself as a reminder of my observation and to help inform my observer comments.
Bogdan and Biklen (2003) suggested while in the classroom, be unobtrusive to get an as-close-
to-normal sample of the day-to-day customs of the case. Although I know that my presence
alone changed the dynamic of the classroom, I acknowledged that with my presence in the
classroom the teacher or students could have considered me a participant but my observation was
focused on taking field notes and collecting rich data to analyze. If students asked me questions,
I redirected their attention to the teacher, if appropriate, or told them I was there to learn from
them. By approaching my time in the classroom as a strict observer, I was able to follow my
observation protocol (see Appendix C) to ensure that I was collecting the data necessary to
answer my research questions to the fullest extent.
In the observation, I was the instrument (Merriam, 2009). An observation protocol was
also used to aid me in my documentation of my observations. The participants were observed
one time to help triangulate the information they provided in their interview. These observations
were participatory and the participants were informed that they were not evaluative in any way.
As a researcher, I took the role of full observer and was there simply to observe the promising
practices of CML. Taking into account my biases, I made sure to focus on my research
questions and collecting rich data of multiple aspects of classroom practices as to account for my
biases during data collection.
Other documents that were collected and used as data during the study were a collection
of documents, obtained from the participants, including pacing plans, student work samples,
professional development agendas, seating charts, and lesson plans. These documents aided in
triangulating interviews and observations for trustworthiness and reliability (Bogdan & Biklen,
2003). From analyzing these materials I was able to supplement my interviews and recognize
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
70
how teachers planned for and implemented CML effectively. Through analyzing these multiple
pieces of data I was able to triangulate them and ensure accuracy (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003;
Maxwell, 2013, Merriam, 2009).
Data Analysis Procedures
Along with Critical Theory, the CML framework was used to help position and analyze this
study, and serve as a priori codes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The framework was used as a tool
to view and analyze findings. The Center for Media Literacy (2013) developed five core
concepts of Media Literacy along with five key questions that teachers can use to implement its
use in the classroom. Share (2011) added a sixth, and for the purpose of this study, the presence
of the sixth core concept was the distinguishing factor between Media Literacy and Critical
Media Literacy. The questions are shown in Table 1 found in Chapter 2.
These concepts, questions, and framework were used as a tool for analysis for data
collection and through the data analysis process. I will explain CML by looking at classroom
activities through the lens of critical theory and the application of these terms and concepts.
The data was analyzed to find patterns and assign codes and categories. These codes and
categories allowed me to assign themes to the findings (Maxwell, 2013). I reviewed all data and
coded line by line until themes began to emerge. These themes were assigned codes, which were
then combined into categories. Coding as themes emerged aided me in ensuring reliability and
in checking my own biases. I continuously reviewed and combined codes as necessary. From
these emerging themes I was able to draw conclusions, relate them to theory, and base my
findings on the collected and coded data. All data was transcribed within a week of the interview
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
71
to allow time for member checking and clarification of answers. The corpus of data was
assigned codes to aid in the maintaining of confidentiality. I assigned codes as the data was
being analyzed.
From the development of these codes, I was able to begin asking questions and thinking
about my data in order to think about the range of possible answers that would allow me to better
understand the problem of defining and implementing CML from my participants’ point of view
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The coding process allowed me to make comparisons amongst my
participants in order to delve deeper into the data and uncover different properties and
dimensions of the code and phenomenon I was studying (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This
continual analysis of the data was inductive and allowed for follow up interviews and
observations if necessary (Merriam, 2009). A matrix was developed after the collection of data
and codes were assigned along with thick description.
For the duration of this study, the data was stored in my home office to ensure its
protection. I also kept a private, password-protected version with pseudonyms on Google Drive.
Having a paper copy and a digital copy in two separate locations aided me in case of
technological difficulties. I also scanned copies of written materials such as interview and field
notes.
Limitations
The initial limitation and perceived problem was locating teachers who used CML.
Viewing diverse media messages with a critical eye is the main component of CML and it is
something that is foreign to many US teachers (Kubey, 1998). Locating teachers of CML was a
limitation partly because it is unknown and partly because it is something not covered in teacher
credentialing programs. My study was positioned to be a qualitative case study. As a qualitative
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
72
case study, it is up to the reader to determine whether or not the case is applicable to their
situation (Merriam, 2009). Elementary teachers are guided by the California State Standards that
do include a media literacy component. Although California has media standards that are
expected to be taught, little has been done to train teachers, provide resources, or create
curriculum-surrounding CML. If this change is to happen, it is important for it to happen from
the top down and the bottom up (Kellner & Share, 2007b) which is what this study explored.
With the intersections between the new Common Core State Standards (CDE, 2010) and the
Media Literacy Standards, CML has the potential to become a more common practice (Rogow,
2013).
Findings of my study were based on the perceptions of teachers and the assumption that
teachers responded honestly to the questions asked. If the data collected was not honest data,
then the findings may not adequately represent the sample. The data was triangulated with
literature and observations to better look for disconfirming evidence (Erickson, 1984).
Reliability and Validity
To aid in the reliability of this study, I wrote memos to record an additional set of field
notes quickly after leaving my observation setting without speaking to anyone after (Merriam,
2009). Comparing notes and listening to audio from the interview ensured that all precautions
for accurate data were taken into account.
Merriam (2009) discussed credibility, consistency, and transferability as constructs to aid
in explaining the rigor of a case study. Credibility was established through triangulation
(Merriam, 2009). Triangulation aided me while I gathered data and analyzed findings from
multiple data sources (Merriam, 2009). In my case study, the data that was triangulated were
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
73
observations, interviews, researcher memos, and documents. Because my biases have been
stated, this also allowed my readers to understand why I interpreted the data in the way that I did.
Consistency is the extent to which my findings can be replicated (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009). To ensure that my findings were consistent, I used many of the same methods
to ensure credibility. Transferability is the extent to which findings from one study can be
applied to other studies, this is also known as generalizability (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
My goal as a researcher was that elementary educators will be able to take my findings and
transfer them into their own setting. I presented my data using rich description of my
participants, setting, and findings so that they may applicable to many who will read the study.
Summary
This chapter detailed how this study used a qualitative design to capture the struggle,
benefits, resources, and structures that the teaching of CML entails. Qualitative research takes
an inductive approach that focuses on specific situations or people and emphasizes rich
descriptions which is why it compliments this study well (Maxwell, 2013). It is my goal for
educators to connect with my research and be able to make it a reality in their classroom.
Capturing the struggles, benefits, resources, and structures of teaching CML is something that
only qualitative research can achieve which is why it was chosen as the design for this study
(Maxwell, 2013). Data was gathered by observing my participants and triangulating the data
received from observations to the data received from formal and informal interviews (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003, p. 60). With rich description through observations and interviews, my study offers
an understanding of CML in an elementary classroom and allows my readers to contextualize,
interpret, and apply my findings and information to their own classroom and professional
practice.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
74
The setting of this study was three public elementary schools in urban areas of southern
California. My study included willing participants who were fifth grade teachers who self-
identified as teachers of CML. Overall, I was the main instrument in data collection (Merriam,
2009). The data was analyzed inductively to find patterns and assign codes and categories.
These codes and categories allowed me to assign themes to my findings (Maxwell, 2013). I did
this by presenting my data using rich description of my participants, setting, and findings so that
they may be applicable to many who will read the study.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
75
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
“Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the
the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. . . . The function
of education, therefore, is to teach one to think intensively and to think
critically. . . . Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr. (1947, paras. 4, 5, 7)
The purpose of this study was to examine promising practices and construct a common
understanding of Critical Media Literacy (CML) and what it looks like in practice. As the data
were collected and analyzed, findings pointed to CML being a pre-established commitment to an
ideology framed as a means to achieve a social justice agenda. Additionally, the three teachers
all provided CML as content rather than as an add-on or special unit, and all saw CML as being a
vehicle for promotion of a social justice agenda. Pedagogies and practices will be embedded in
the reporting of data, and discussed as promising approaches in Chapter Five. Data is reported in
this chapter using the following themes found through data analysis: commitment to social
justice, CML in the classroom, elementary aged resources, and administrative acknowledgement.
Commitment to Social Justice
All three participants showed an extreme commitment to social justice related issues prior
to their use of CML in their classrooms. They all mentioned holding social justice agendas prior
to their induction into teaching due to their firm belief in equity and access. As mentioned in
Chapter One, teaching is political (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011), and the stance that the
participants of this study embraced was one that exemplified equity and access in education. The
corporate model of teaching values mandated curriculum, top-down teaching practices, and
national tests to measure educational standards without paying attention to other holistic
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
76
approaches (Giroux, 2000), such as CML. CML counters this corporate model by creating a
community of respect in the classroom that these teachers exhibited during their observations.
These teachers spoke passionately about their practice and their belief that their students would
one day be the future leaders of our world. There is not an agreement on definition in the
literature on social justice. For the purpose of this study, the participants will describe how they
interpret CML as a social justice agenda.
Perspectives of CML
Kathryn Frank
Kathryn (pseudonym) is a passionate educator. During her interviews and observation,
she was expressive, using many gestures to illustrate her ideas and spoke with a sense of urgency
and importance when she discussed teaching. She stated that she tells her students,
When I die, when your parents die, when we’re all gone and you're in charge, you get to
make the decisions and you get to make a difference and if you don’t like what you see,
then change it, do something about it. (Kathryn Frank, September, 2013)
She spoke with this urgency because she wanted her students to understand that they
would one day be in charge of running the world and making the decisions. She wanted them to
understand that if they do not like what they see, they have the power to change it.
Over the course of her interviews, she referred a total of seven times that she held her
students to high expectations because she wanted them to become well-rounded human beings.
For example, on one occasion she said,
I think it’s beneficial for all students to develop critical thinking skills to help them
analyze past and present events that are happening . . . not just academically but also to
gain empathy, to see other people’s perspectives, to become well-rounded human beings
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
77
that treat each other with respect and with dignity because they’ve seen the struggles and
the hardships that have gone on in the past and that continue to go on. (Kathryn Frank,
September, 2013)
This was one of the many instances where Kathryn demonstrated her commitment to
teaching beyond skill – acquisition and ability to do well on tests. She also discussed her belief
that her students would be the future leaders of the world and she spoke about her commitment
to teach them how to navigate some of the struggles they would face as students of color.
Kathryn stated, “I want them to be able to see themselves as united with a common past,
common struggles, and the need for them to work together for a common goal in the future”
(September, 2013). The desire for her to push her students to see the power of collaboration
illustrated her commitment to social justice and her aspiration to help them reach that point.
Kathryn perceived CML as a means to both meet those struggles while also helping
others overcome the struggles they will face. This was suggested in her definition of CML: she
saw it as a tool to teach students how to pick their resources wisely in order to gain the best
information about various topics. Kathryn’s definition of CML put her students at the center of
her discussion. She wanted to not only teach them concepts but also equip them with tools they
could use to be responsible actors in their own learning.
Benita Valenzuela
Benita’s (pseudonym) classroom had a similar feeling to Kathryn’s. Benita was vested in
preparing her students to be productive citizen. She defined CML in the following way,
Critical Media Literacy for me has been prepping our students for something that so far,
no one has been able to figure out as to how to protect our students from the media that’s
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
78
very invasive with their lives and our own adult lives as well. (Benita Valenzuela,
September, 2013)
She strongly believed in preparing students for the world they live in. She spoke of
instructing her students with CML pedagogies as a necessity in preparing them for life, not just
for academic success. While observing her classroom, I noticed the passion and the excitement
she used to teach her students and to get this message across to them.
Benita aimed to build a community of mutual respect in which students prepare
themselves to be media literate citizens. She stated, “It has to do with my personality. They feel
the respect and positive attitude and they reciprocate it right back” (September, 2013). Her
students influenced what she taught in the classroom and she believed that, “Their experiences
make meaning” (Benita Valenzuela, September, 2013). She used their lived experiences and
interest in order to plan her lessons, which she believed helped establish the community of
respect in her classroom. Piper Kershaw (pseudonym), her administrator stated,
She also taught them to have an opinion, know why you have that opinion, and how to
give that opinion a voice even if it was an unconventional voice. When you step back
and look at this, you see this is true democracy in action. (Piper Kershaw, January, 2014)
This democracy in action illustrated the social justice perspective that Benita brought into her
classroom by using CML.
Adriana Gonzalez
Adriana (pseudonym) had an interesting situation in this study. Her passion for CML led
her to teach it as an independent class within her school for the first time during the year of the
study. She was able to teach this class four days a week to a group of 30 third, fourth, and fifth
graders for thirty minutes. Her all-day third grade class was also presented with these topics
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
79
integrated with the curriculum throughout the remainder of the day. Adriana was the only
participant who defined CML with a clear distinction between ML and CML. She stated that to
her, Media Literacy is to Critical Media Literacy what decoding is to comprehension. “It’s not
only their [students’] understanding of what messages are behind everything or everything that
they’re being exposed to, but also understanding that it’s a choice whether they choose to accept
the message” (Adriana Gonzalez, (October, 2013). She ensured that they understood this and
strove to teach them to use this decoding during her classroom discussions. Having a specific
CML class allowed her to go in depth with the topics she was studying and if she were able to
continue the class she would have the same students for multiple years. She felt that her students
would benefit from studying CML both with her in the third grade and in the years after as fourth
and fifth graders.
Like Kathryn and Benita, Adriana’s students guided her classroom. She described herself
as a coach and facilitator. She wanted her students to feel that they have power over their own
learning and for them to realize that they could be agents of change in their community and in
the world. During the interviews, she spoke about her students being agents of change three
times and during the classroom observation she asked students how they would be agents of
change four times throughout her 30-minute lesson. She spoke about social justice issues with
noticeable passion that seemed to transfer to her students and the way they spoke about the issues
she raised. Her students discussed how to inform the public about an issue affecting them and
people in their community. Her students responded quickly to questions she asked to further
their knowledge for example, “How can we use what we learned to spread the message?
(Unknown student, October, 2013).” When asked, Adriana said this was a typical class
discussion. Based on the student writing seen in the classroom, this was evidenced.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
80
Social Justice before Teaching
Kathryn, Benita, and Adriana had prior experiences and an interest in working with
diverse populations in urban settings before they chose to become teachers. From the
experiences and motivations they shared, they showed a strong commitment to social justice and
promoting equity prior to becoming teachers. CML was the way they established this in their
classrooms. They all shared college experiences in which they majored or participated in
cultural or gender studies majors and/or social justice oriented groups on campus. It was through
their involvement in these social groups that they eventually committed themselves to these
social justice oriented pedagogies in their classrooms. To them, CML was the name they gave to
what they had in mind prior to knowing what it was called.
Kathryn Frank
Kathryn was actively involved in social justice oriented groups in college, which aided
her decision to become a teacher, and to seek out teacher-centered groups for professional
development. Kathryn became a teacher although it was a profession not highly admired by her
family. When she informed her family of her desire to be an educator, she reported that they
said, “Well, why don’t you be a doctor, a lawyer? That’s a much better career. You’re too smart
to be a teacher” (Kathryn Frank, September, 2013). Despite recommendations from her family,
she felt that she could influence societal change within education and chose teaching as a
profession. To further what she had learned in college and to improve her practice, she
continued once she was a teacher to look for outside organizations with like-minded critical
educators like herself. She stated,
I was looking for a space to connect to because I was really actively involved at San
Diego State with different orgs so when I came back, I’m like, I want something teacher-
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
81
centered and I want to work with people of color that are also working in communities of
color. (Kathryn Frank, September, 2013)
Kathryn noted that if you don’t have CML in mind in the first place it might not be
something that would cross your mind. She noted CML would probably not be presented in a
credentialing program to pre-service teachers. She discussed CML as something that was innate
and developed, not something that was presented and adapted. Her dedication to social justice
was evident both in her decision to become an educator and in her commitment to becoming a
stronger teacher of CML through participation in professional development outside of her
classroom.
Benita Valenzuela
Benita expressed that she had a calling to education and she adjusted her life in order to
pursue that calling. When she began her college career, she was a radio and broadcasting major
with no desire to go into teaching. She decided to not only switch her major but transfer to a
college she felt could better prepare her to become a teacher. She noted that she had, “A fire
inside, something was in me” (September, 2013), and she knew that in order to live a fulfilling
life she would “have to teach” (January, 2014). She felt that, “I had so much love to give; it was
selfish to keep it all inside” (January, 2014). She felt that, “teaching, she felt that she could
spread that love and help improve the lives of others. She consciously chose a teacher education
program that had a social justice focus. It was through a course she took in her credentialing
program that she found a name for what she wanted to do,
When I sat in Anthony’s [professor] class, it was all theorized for me. What I had
imagined, what I wanted and what I had planned always to do was now actually theorized
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
82
by Anthony and what he presented to me. It organized and really brought more meaning
into what I wanted to do. (Benita Valenzuela, January, 2014)
This course in her credentialing program brought meaning to what she wanted to do and what
she felt was the right thing to do. This was what and how she would teach in order to spread her
love.
Adriana Gonzalez
Adriana’s life experiences aided her decision to become a teacher and become committed
to a social justice agenda. She shared that she was, “the poor kid in the poor city” and she was
very aware of the inequities that existed in society. She had teachers who gave her a voice and
she wanted to give others a voice. She mentioned that as an undergraduate, “I took a gender and
cultural literacy class in education and I became very interested in the cultural messages and
gender messages that we get that are so ingrained and normalized that we don’t question them”
(January, 2014). She knew what she wanted to do and after explaining her idea to a mentor she
was put in contact with the same professor with whom Benita studied. Adriana also faced
disapproval from her family with her decision to become a teacher. She said her father told her,
“But you’re so smart” and hoped she would choose a different profession, perhaps one that was
higher paying. Because of her life experiences, her contact with both exceptionally supportive
and denigrating teachers, she chose to pursue teaching despite her family’s objections. She felt
that through teaching she could use CML to help her students feel they had a voice not only in
her classroom but also in their community and the world.
The commitment these teachers had to social justice influenced their decisions to become
teachers. Through teaching, they felt that they would be able to positively change the world and
this commitment led to why they chose to implement CML in their classrooms. This
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
83
commitment was evident in the ways in which they spoke of their prior experiences and the
pedagogies they aimed to use in their classrooms. All three participants adjusted their lives to
pursue their dream of becoming teachers and help create positive change.
CML in the Classroom
All three teachers commented on how their students guided their teaching. None of the
three participants used the mandated, scripted curriculum enforced in their districts or charter
organization. While they did integrate standards into their planning and teaching, students
influenced the content selected with which to meet and exceed the standards, in this study this is
referred to as a democratic pedagogy, one in which students have choices and decisions about
their learning (Giroux, 2000). When looking at the data, it was found that all three teachers
viewed themselves as a facilitator/coach instead of the one authority in the classroom. Their
pedagogies were student centered in the sense that the concepts around which the lessons
centered stemmed from student discussions and questioning. All teachers had a nurturing,
positive classroom environment, extensive pedagogical knowledge, and their lesson ideas
reflected the interest of their students. The classroom environments and the specific approaches
that led to a student-centered pedagogy grounded in CML is discussed. For the purpose of this
study, the classroom environment refers to the way in which a teacher “promotes respectful,
caring relationships, cooperation, and emotional safety (i.e., an environment where individuals
express themselves and are not subjected to taunting or slighting remarks” (Matsamura, Slater, &
Crosson, 2008, p. 295).

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
84
Classroom Environment
Kathryn Frank. The data showed that Kathryn’s focus in the classroom was to relay the
importance of making a difference in the world to her students. During a classroom discussion,
she told her students,
When I die, when your parents die, when we’re all gone and you're in charge, you get to
make the decisions and you get to make a difference and if you don’t like what you see,
then change it, do something about it. (Kathryn Frank, September, 2013).
She spoke of CML and other content knowledge as a means to achieve this. She also said,
So I want them to see each other as allies as opposed to the other, so I want them to be
able to see themselves as united with a common past, common struggles, and the need for
them to work together for a common goal in the future. (Kathryn Frank, September,
2013).
In her classroom she aimed to illustrate the common struggles that people of color have
had to face and overcome. While in her classroom, I saw this represented by the relics she
displayed for her students to see. She had multiple Native American posters, cultural genocide
posters, social justice leader portraits, her sarape (Mexican pattern) graduation sash, and quotes
written by people of color as decor. In one lesson, she showed her students the events that
happened on September 11th. She told them, “We saw empathy, selflessness, and people risking
their lives to save others. Positive things that show us how to handle difficult situations.
(September, 2013). This is one example of her continuous modeling of how she creates a
collaborative, caring classroom. Her classroom décor supports this collaborative atmosphere by
displaying items that her students may make a connection with.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
85
Benita Valenzuela. Benita shared that her objective in facilitating the classroom
environment was to give her students love and respect. She knew that in order to do this she had
to take risks. Although it is a difficult thing to note, the love she had for her students could be
felt in the way that she led her classroom. In the classroom, a student suggested an alternative
view of what she was presenting and she responded with, “That is mind blowing, mind blowing”
(October, 2013). While this may seem evaluative, Benita was acknowledging the students
response as expanding or extending the learning, evidenced by her expressive hand movements
and strong emotional tenor. She later told me she had not thought of the perspective that student
shared. She attributed her ability to establish a community of care and culture of respect to her
personality and said, “They feel the love and respect and reciprocate it right back” (December,
2013). When asked to describe her classroom, Benita stated that it was autonomous. She said
her students refer to her as an “autonomous teacher” who pushes them to grow and question
everything.
Her classroom was set up to validate students’ language and culture. While in Benita’s
classroom, I noticed that all of her English posters were translated. She placed index cards with
translations over all of her English only purchased materials. If the materials had been made by
her, she translated them. The love and dedication she had could be evidenced in the goals that
she shared with her students and had them create. Her classroom motto was for her students to
exhibit success, will power, attitude, and goals which she called, “S.W.A.G.” Like Kathryn,
Benita also displayed cultural related posters, graduation sashes, and college pennants.
Adriana Gonzalez. In Adriana’s classroom the data showed that one of her objectives as
a teacher was to empower her students to be agents of change. Throughout her interviews, she
used the word empower five times and called her students agents of change three times. She
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
86
stated, “I’m trying to get them to feel empowered and feel like they have a voice” (September,
2013). She mentioned that the teachers who gave her a sense of empowerment were the ones
who allowed her to have a voice. “They gave me a voice and I wanted to give other people a
voice” (September, 2013). While observing her teaching, I noticed that students challenged her
thinking and I observed one student disagree with what she said. Adriana mentioned that,
“Sometimes teachers forget how much power they have in that room and I wanted to use it for
good” (September, 2013). She noted that one of her students said that he liked the class and
hated the class at the same time because she made him think. She emphasized that this was the
social justice aspect of her teaching. After seeing her teach, I could see the statements she had
made during the interviews brought to life in her classroom. She strove to provide an
environment in which students felt valued and respected.
Like Kathryn and Benita, Adriana also displayed cultural artifacts and social justice
related items in her classroom. On a board in the front of her classroom she had the question
“How can we be agents of change?” Around the question, on the white-board, students had
written their answers. Most of her posters were student created and centered on social justice
related themes. Like Benita, she also translated many of her classroom posters and had English
materials translated into Spanish. College related posters and posters of empowering social
justice leaders were also observed.
Pedagogy
The three participants’ pedagogy was concept driven, centering on “big ideas.” Unlike
most traditional classrooms, the concepts emerged mostly from students’ interests rather than
teacher choice. The concepts covered integrated the standards but stemmed from student
discussion rather than mandated curriculum. While all participants adhered to their institutions’
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
87
pacing plans, they were flexible in how they allowed spaces for students’ voices. One
commonality that was palpable amongst all three participants was their commitment to prepare
their students for the real world.
Kathryn Frank. Kathryn was driven to plan her instruction by appealing to her
students’ interest and current world events. “It’s mostly geared by them, you know, it’s all what
they want to know and what they’re curious about and their questions, they blow my mind. So
it’s really about them and they really motivate me” (September, 2013). Kathryn plans instruction
with learning objectives and standards in mind, but often allows her student to direct content
based on their needs. She explained,
Especially depending on current events that are happening, I’ll try to incorporate those
things, even if it doesn’t exactly mesh with my pacing. I’ll pause the unit and we talked
last year about the Chicago teachers or the year that Occupy Wall Street happened and I
took a break from my unit then to talk to them about what was happening or when
Treyvon Martin was shot or when Oscar Grant was shot and these things come up that are
important that need to be discussed, that need to be evaluated and analyzed I will take a
break from the curriculum, from the pacing that I’m on to bring that in because I think
it’s so important, especially when they’re not getting the full story of these events and
they’re just seeing these bits and pieces on like Fox News or NBC and they have this
skewed perspective or negative view on what really . . . who the people were, what
they’re up to, what’s going on, I think it’s important to clarify those things for them
because they’re seeing it. (August, 2013).
Kathryn’s description of how she planned and implemented her instruction illustrated not only
how her students guided her instruction but also her social justice perspective.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
88
Kathryn was an empowering educator with a critical perspective. For example she said,
If we’re expecting these kids to be the future, to be the change, to make a difference in
this world, then we need to start them off young and having this Critical Media Literacy
embedded beginning kindergarten so by the time they’re in my class in fifth grade, we’re
going above and beyond the things that I’m doing now and taking it to another level
because these are the future leaders. (August, 2013).
In her classroom, she implemented lessons that attempted to achieve this goal of using
CML to prepare her students for the future. A lesson she taught about the events of September
11, 2001 focused on breaking down hysteria that could lead to damaging stereotypes. She used
varied media such as: video, photographs, print text, and radio in order to present multiple
perspectives on a single event. She led them through a discussion to explore their own
perspectives on the events and to see the empathy for the victims extended to members of the
Arab community who may have been victimized through racial stereotyping. By critically
examining the multiple perspectives illustrated in the media, Kathryn prepared her students for
empathetic and complex responses for real world tragedy.
Even when teaching grade level content standards, Kathryn aimed to bring in the
concepts of CML into her lessons. Like Benita and Adriana, Kathryn wants her students to be
prepared for the real world and have a critical perspective. She used the “history triangle” to
teach her students about historical events. She noted that, “So the history triangle is how we
explain motivations behind events so the three main motivators are money, power, and religion”
(August, 2013).
Benita Valenzuela. Benita also obtained inspiration and ideas for her lessons from
student interest. In addition to incorporating student voice into her planning, she addressed
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
89
critical issues she noticed in her community. She firmly believed that she could pull her CML
instruction from anywhere and what was important was paying attention to her student needs.
She mentioned,
I use their interests as a way to keep going, like what are the things that they’re so into?
What are the sites they are visiting every day? What are they reading? I try to take that
in all the time, because it would be completely pointless of a lesson if they had no clue
what I was talking about. (September, 2013).
When planning and adjusting lessons, she wanted to make sure to have a connection with
students’ prior knowledge in order to best serve them, their interest, and their needs. Benita
recognized the challenge this presented and said,
And that’s what makes it difficult to teach because it’s not something that you can plan,
you plan as much as you can but what makes it a challenge is that you need to understand
that your plans might now be appropriate whatsoever because your class might not be
mature enough, perspective might be different, and their experiences might be different.
(January, 2014).
This was illustrated when she described teaching Wringer by Jerry Spinelli (1997) to two
different classes. One class focused on their identified theme of bullying, which she highlighted
in her instruction, and the other focused on the animal rights issues in which they were
interested. She noted that although students in both classes read the same novel, the focus and
themes the students grasped in each were completely different. In order to appeal to her
students’ interest, Benita was unable to use the lesson plans and materials she had from the
previous year with her current class. With CML, Benita did not follow the school’s mandated
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
90
scripted program; while integrating standards, the inspiration for her lessons stemmed from her
students.
Benita strove to meet her students’ needs with democratic pedagogies and she credited
the CML curriculum she implemented as crucial in attaining this goal. For example, one way
she implemented student voice in her planning was by allowing students to plan an activity. She
shared an occasion when the class was walking to the local planetarium on a field trip. They
noticed a pull-tab flyer on the walk, and this spurred their interest in applying that to a public-
service announcement project on which they were working. The project emerged from a
community issue on bilingual education, for which the students had planned and produced a
video presentation on the topic. The students followed up on their idea by designing a pull-tab
flyer for the project, copying them, and posting them in the vicinity of the school to promote an
upcoming school sponsored event on bilingual education. This community-based project
incorporated literacy standards and promoted academic skills and concepts while taking a CML
structured approach, which, unlike a media literacy approach, allowed the students the power to
decide how to interpret the issue and respond with positive action by both creating and
interpreting a perspective.
Other ways Benita incorporated CML into her classroom was by using various media
sources. She spoke about the importance of showing the students various ways that corporations
market to young students. “One real eye-opener was we looked at one product and we saw how
different the commercial was in a Spanish network for that same product and how different it
was for an English network for that same product” (Benita Valenzuela, September, 2013).
It was interesting how the kids were able to pick out all the different persuasive strategies
and the different stereotypes and how they are able to track different audiences.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
91
Adriana Gonzalez. In common with Kathryn and Benita, Adriana also used students’
interests and concerns to guide her planning and attempted to bring in issues of concern in their
community. An example that illustrated this was her reporting of a student-suggested unit. One
of her students was concerned about a family at his church. He thought they were not getting
enough to eat and this sparked a unit on food insecurity in America. Her students wanted to do
something to help this family as well as the 20% of Americans
1
who do not know where their
next meal will come from. Their first suggestion, to use leftover cafeteria food for those in the
community without enough to eat; did not meet with institutional approval due to food safety
laws. However, they did not give up and organized a canned food drive, which had not taken
place at the end of data collection for this study. While addressing poverty in the US, Adriana
created learning activities to keep “educational integrity.” By this she meant, creating and
extending learning activities to address content standards. Adriana, by giving the students a
voice and the power to select their curricular focus, showed instruction that aligned with the
social justice aspect of CML.
From these lessons, she stressed that her students could be agents of change, as Kathryn
and Benita have also done in their classrooms. Adriana wanted her students to know that, “It
doesn’t matter that you are children you have a voice and it matters” (October, 2013). From
learning the techniques of persuasion, her students developed messages to use the techniques for
the public good. She wanted to equip her students to be able to share critical analysis, using an
understanding of persuasion, with their family and community so they are not “tricked” into
being manipulated. She demonstrated this when she said,

1

This statistic was not checked for accuracy. Adriana, the participant, gave it.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
92
We were researching information that they [corporate messages in the form of ads, etc.]
were giving to us. We said, ‘Yes, they’re giving you logos. They’re showing you bar
graphs. They’re doing this. Let’s see if this is true.’ Once we started researching this,
we started saying, ‘Now that we know how persuasion techniques are used on us, let’s
use them [persuasive techniques] on them [corporate messages] for good. Let’s use them
to change. Who do we contact? Who do we get this message across to? Who do we
write letters to?’ (Adriana Gonzalez, October, 2013)
Adriana’s description of this lesson with her class illustrated how she taught her students
to challenge persuasion techniques used on them and how to use the same techniques for the
public good. She leads her students to be agents of change within their communities and
established that although they are children, they can still distribute positive messages across in
their community.
Adriana acknowledged that teaching CML lessons in elementary could be difficult
because of their young age. Adriana used to be a sixth grade teacher and admitted that it was
difficult to cover these concepts with elementary aged children at first because she thought they
were too young. She was also the teacher that had the youngest students in this study. She
served third through fifth graders in her class while the other two teachers had fifth graders.
Aside from this Adriana, noted that although she was sometimes hesitant to touch upon these
topics she noticed that her students were more engaged during this time. They are participating
and she knew that it was empowering to them. She said,
The fact that they started believing in themselves and seeing themselves as people with a
voice makes me really excited. It's about the kids and what they're learning. I, myself,
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
93
feel more empowered as a teacher through them and through their participation. (October,
2013)
Although Samantha Velasquez (pseudonym), who taught Adriana’s students the
following year did not adapt CML strategies, she noted that since Adriana had been teaching
CML the students that come from her class understand a lot more than students from other
classes. They’re always making connections to things and bringing awareness to issues that
perhaps she wouldn’t have acknowledged in the class. Her students are the focus and their
empowerment is her empowerment. Although she acknowledged that it is difficult to touch upon
controversial topics, she knew that it was her own deficit thinking and worried about how she
would explain that to a parent if they had an issue with it. So far she noted that there have not
been any issues.
Adriana and her students have connected CML to multiple facets of the school day.
Again, the man who was selling chocolates was talking to the kids about how you’re going to
help your school and help support and how valuable you are, some of the kids in other classes
were looking at me like, “I know what techniques he’s using.” That was just interesting. I was,
like, “Okay, they’re making the connections now.”
Benita also noted that when teaching students using a student-centered curriculum it had
been difficult to talk with students about sensitive, controversial topics. Although Benita felt that
she could teach them anything regardless of their age, she acknowledged the difficulty of this
when she said,
They are still 11 years old. When they get home, they might put words in my mouth that
I necessarily didn’t put. I think that’s just the chance you have to take. It’s seriously
being a risk taker as a fighter. I do see that. (Benita Valenzuela, September, 2013)
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
94
Chapter Two noted the difficulties teachers of CML encounter especially with colleagues
that come from a deficit thinking mindset. When dealing with students who are younger in age,
their interest and what they have questions about may seem developmentally advanced to some
teachers, which might explain reluctance to use CML. Ms. Sharron Becerra (pseudonym), who
taught Ms. Valenzuela’s students the next year acknowledged that her students were, “very
aware. They constantly gave their opinion. They were very open about it and they shared and
because they were aware, they looked for those things” (September, 2013). Kathryn, too,
mentioned controversial issues saying that she did not worry about bringing them into the
classroom due to their importance to her students. The year in which the study was conducted
Kathryn had a student in her class with two fathers. She felt it was important to address
critiqued, normed understandings of what constitutes family. In the 21st century, it can be
difficult to assign age appropriateness since media is so invasive, yet the three participants, by
implementing CML, addressed the tensions this might cause in their classrooms and amongst
other colleagues in order to plan powerful CML lessons.
Few Elementary Aged Resources
All three participants concurred that there was a lack of elementary-aged resources to
teach CML. Kathryn and Adriana felt that it was the most challenging part of teaching CML in
the elementary grades. Benita acknowledged the lack of resources but said she could modify and
adapt any form of media as a resource, and did not note it as the most challenging aspect.
Acquiring resources was difficult and there was a consensus amongst participants that they used
CML because they believed it was important and transformational, which connected back to their
social justice orientation, despite the effort involved in identifying and creating appropriate
resources.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
95
Kathryn Frank. Kathryn noted that the most challenging part of teaching CML was
acquiring age appropriate resources. In order to have these resources, Kathryn conducted a lot of
work outside of her school site researching and developing them on her own. She stated, “I have
to do everything from scratch myself, so I find the lack of resources to be the most challenging
part for elementary” (September, 2013). She noted the struggle of taking adult resources and
breaking them down to fit her student’s needs. If there are texts that she feels are important for
her students, she spends the time to deconstruct the resource with her students in the classroom
regardless of the reading level for which they were developed. She spent time modifying
resources for her students so that they could access various materials. She aimed to provide her
students with the best possible information, related to social studies and world issues, by
bringing in diverse media resources and teaching her students to identify bias in the various
perspectives she presented to them. Her lesson on September 11th, which was one I observed,
she used varied resources. She showed three separate newspaper headlines, three video clips,
and then pushed her students to view the messages through various perspectives. The video clips
were from videos that were not created for fifth graders, but she did prior work to only choose
age appropriate scenes that she would be able to deconstruct with them. Before she began, she
explained that what they were going to see was sensitive and that if they did not feel comfortable
they had a choice to leave the classroom. A student chose to leave and the class did not make
any comments on her decision. Although Kathryn noted that the work was challenging, she
committed herself to doing whatever was necessary to obtain the necessary materials to
effectively teach CML. This commitment illustrated her devotion and belief in CML and social
justice.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
96
Kathryn described the dedication needed to successfully teach CML and noted that most
teachers of CML felt isolated within their school sites, especially those who taught elementary
school. Kathryn was the only teacher at her school site that instructed using CML so she had to
go outside of her school site to find resources. She explained that, “So the biggest resource is
having access to other critical educators and having discussions with them” (September,
2013). Since she was unable to have these discussions at her school site, she sought them out on
her own time. Kathryn was part of a group of critical educators who met on a monthly basis.
Most of the teachers she met with, that used CML, were high school teachers. She noted that
finding the resources and modifying them might be why teachers chose to not use CML. “I think
more people would do it but it’s something . . . you have to be really willing and dedicated to
take the time to do it” (September, 2013). Kathryn attended her critical educator group a
minimum of once a month in order to share and discover critical resources and have the
discussions she felt were necessary to continue her instruction. Although she felt isolated and
knew she was the only one at her school site using CML, she was dedicated to instructing using
CML to benefit her students and made time to attend her critical educator group for professional
development.
Benita Valenzuela. Benita was the one participant who seemed less focused on the
resources necessary to instruct CML because she felt that teachers could acquire resources
anywhere. She felt very lucky to have certain technological resources available to her to ease her
use of CML, but felt that she could teach without them. She said that she could use anything
around her as a resource because she wanted to teach her students to read the world critically.
She said, “Really it’s just, as a teacher yourself, as an educator yourself, start looking around you
and see how are you influenced by media and bringing it into your classroom” (October,
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
97
2013). She brought in local newspapers, screen shot advertisements from her computer, and
invited the students to bring different forms of media into the classroom to analyze. Benita used
various websites and felt that everything should be considered age appropriate because
regardless of their age, her students are exposed to it. This was evident when she said, “if
they’re still able to read about how Miley Cyrus showed half of her bare ass, the kids should be
able to know that in Syria, there’s a chemical weapon that was dropped on them, too” (October,
2013). By mentioning this, Benita was emphasizing that although some media may appear too
violent or too sexual for elementary students, she felt that the inundation of these messages made
issues of political importance equally as valid to bring in to the elementary classroom. She felt
that teachers of CML could use any form of media available in their community and address
events occurring in popular culture and the world, making finding resources a simpler task for
her.
Benita wanted her students to know how they were being influenced and how they in turn
could influence using the media. She highlighted a lesson where she brought in various sources
that were trying to spread the same or opposing messages about President Obama, and she used
them as a starting point.
The kids, on their own, without me taking a standpoint, which I feel is very important,
were able to detect so much as the . . . what words were emphasized, what the different
images of President Obama were and what made it negative, what made it positive.
(October, 2013)
By highlighting the various ways in which President Obama was portrayed through
different sources, Benita was able to illustrate the bias and perspectives found through media.
Three times during her interview, Benita stated and restated the importance of preparing her
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
98
students to be media literate citizens that can acknowledge the negative influence of media in
their young and adult lives. She stated that teachers should look around the world they live in to
find resources and not have to go out of their way to purchase or find things. Adults use things
readily in the world and interpret them with a critical eye and this is what she wants to teach her
students. By finding resources in the community and in the everyday world, Benita illustrated to
her students the influence the media had on their lives and wanted to prepare them to understand
that influence and to avoid the ensuing manipulation.
Adriana Gonzalez. Like Kathryn and Benita, Adriana was also the lone teacher at her
school site that used CML and also had to acquire her own age-appropriate resources. She noted
that it was sometimes difficult for her students to have the discussions needed to break down the
CML topics they chose and if resources were not appropriate for their age, she created them or
acquired them on her own. For language support in the classroom, she chose to develop sentence
frames and sentence starters to help scaffold their academic discussions, rather than use those
available on the Internet. When I observed her class, I noticed that the sentence starters were
taped to the student’s desks. I observed one student move his finger down the list of sentence
starters to help begin what he wanted to say.
Adriana acknowledged that it was difficult to do but it allowed her students, and her, to
be invested. She developed the sentence frames to assist in creating a safe space for differing
perspectives on issues. She said,
‘Some of you are taking very, very deep offense to the fact that someone is not agreeing
with you . . . let’s talk about that gray area. Let’s talk about being in that area. If you
feel safe, focus on these sentence frames.’ It was interesting, because as soon as I said
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
99
that, half the class raised their hand and said, ‘Can you pass them out before we start
having this debate?’ (October, 2013)
By giving them scaffolds, she hoped to inspire them to think they could be agents of
change regardless of their age. She was not keen on using a scripted curriculum and would
rather devote herself to more work and planning for the benefit of her students. Being the only
teacher at her school site was difficult, but she did not let that prohibit her from practicing CML
and encouraging students to argue from informed perspectives.
Adriana sought outside age-appropriate resources and professional development to meet
the needs of her students. She personally reached out to a professor at a local university to learn
more about CML and how to improve her instruction. She kept in contact with him and other
like-minded educators to get ideas and to discuss points of tension such as the appropriateness of
certain lessons. She shared that in order to professionally develop in CML, “you start asking
everybody, you just start e-mailing everyone, Hi, you don’t know me but let me tell you what
I’m doing. Please give me some advice” (October, 2013). She spoke highly of CML and the
importance for teachers to learn from others and teach others, and presented at NAMLE in 2013
as a way to be part of the CML community. She was committed to spreading the practice and
becoming stronger in the practice for the benefit of her students. From interviews with her, I
learned that she purchased many of her own resources as well as wrote to various organizations
to get the resources she needed to teach her lessons. Her contact with the university professor
allowed her to keep focused on whether or not her lessons had “educational integrity” by
incorporating standards and learning objectives to guide her CML lessons.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
100
Administrative Acknowledgements
This study found an interesting dynamic between the administrators at the three
participants’ respective school sites. The teachers in this study were all very highly regarded by
their administrators. All three teachers felt that they were supported by their administrators, but
not in CML. The administrators acknowledged that CML was important, however, none of the
administrators interviewed felt that they had taught CML overall during their time in the
classroom and none of them provided any professional development to their teachers in CML.
Although it did not appear that the administrators understood CML the way the teachers
understood it, they were open to the teaching of it not because of the content but because they
felt the three participants were effective teachers in general.
Kathryn Frank
Kathryn’s administrator, Patrick Amherst Malloy, (pseudonym) concurred that CML was
an important literacy for students to have because it taught them independence from mainstream
media and was a 21st century literacy. He stated, “I mean it's a type of literacy or they're
mediums that the students are going to be faced with every day in their whole lives and it's
important to be able to navigate that” (Patrick Amherst Malloy, September, 2013). He agreed
with the students being able to navigate these literacies and understand how to critique them
when they encounter them. Mr. Amherst’s (September, 2013) comments supported the finding
that teachers of CML have a strong social justice orientation. He believed that, “In general,
students are engaged with those types of lessons. That said, I don't think you can determine
causality like if they teach critical media literacy, students are engaged. If they don't, students
aren't engaged” (September, 2013). In his explanation he noted that although CML topics lend
themselves to more intrinsic engagement on behalf of students; he believed it had more to do
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
101
with the teacher’s planning and strategies than the topic itself. He shared that he viewed this
situation as one where the effectiveness was in the teacher’s passion, not necessarily in the use of
CML.
Kathryn was the only participant that noted that their administrator provided her with
financial support in regards to purchasing materials to teach CML. Kathryn stated that
Mr. Amherst told her, “Whatever I wanted, just tell him what it is and he’ll get it for me”
September, 2013). Mr. Amherst confirmed this by saying, “Then anytime a teacher wants to
show documentaries and things like that that relate to social justice or critical media, it's always
allowed and then I'll even purchase the DVDs or the documentaries” (Patrick Amherst Malloy,
September, 2013). Kathryn mentioned that through her administrator’s financial support, she
felt confirmation that what she was doing was benefiting students. She stated that it showed that
he believed in her. Although the support was purely financial, it still allowed the teaching of
CML to occur and it allowed Kathryn to continue to teach her lessons without having to worry as
much about accessing resources.
Benita Valenzuela
Benita’s administrator, Ms. Piper Kershaw, was a believer in CML as long as it did not
touch on highly controversial topics. This participant was the only one who stated that her
administrator had an issue with the topics being age appropriate. Benita said, “Administrators
fear that we are giving them a little bit too much information that they’re not mature enough to
handle, or it’s maybe too political” (October, 2013). One of the pieces of information Benita
noted that Ms. Kershaw was uncomfortable about was when she brought up issues of
homosexuality in her classroom even though it is a real-world issue that students, regardless of
their age, encounter. Deficit thinking in relation to students in elementary school is problematic
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
102
in terms of deciding age appropriateness of certain topics (Vasquez, 2005b). Through
conversation with Benita, who taught fifth grade, it seemed to be that Ms. Kershaw was
concerned that parents would have an issue with certain topics being covered in the classroom,
which is why she was hesitant to allow the teaching of these issues.
Ms. Kershaw thought highly of CML and saw its benefits in that it taught students to
think, develop opinions, and research facts. She noted the importance of being media literate
also because of the changes coming with the Common Core State Standards (CDE, 2010). When
interviewed, Ms. Kershaw said, “We are asking our kids to think for themselves and shed their
prompt-dependent rote answers – we are asking them to become critical thinkers and members of
society” (January, 2014). With the real-world focus of the CCSS, CML concepts take on
added importance (CDE, 2010). Although Ms. Kershaw noted the benefits of CML there was a
discrepancy between what she said and how Benita felt constrained in implementation of CML.
It is understood that it taught students to move beyond routine answers to more critical and
complex ones, but if the answers turn too political the tension between what is appropriate and
what is not arises which causes a struggle with implementation.
Despite this tension, Ms. Kershaw spoke highly of Benita as an effective teacher. She
stated that Benita knew how to hook her students with critical uses of technology. She
appreciated that Benita used traditional print methods with 21st century skills. One of the most
powerful things she said that illustrated the social justice, student centered orientation of Benita
was that, “She also taught them to have an opinion, know why you have that opinion, and how to
give that opinion a voice even if it was an unconventional voice” (Ms. Kershaw, January,
2014). In her classroom, Benita validated students’ responses and made comments such as,
“Wow, that’s amazing I never thought of it that way” (October, 2013). She allowed them to give
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
103
their opinions and she listened and responded even when the response may have been different
from what she was seeking. Ms. Kershaw noted that, “She doesn't expect to fit kids into perfect
squares – she helps them find their own shape” (January, 2014). Benita was highly regarded by
her administrator and although various “political” aspects of teaching may have inhibited her
administrator from being comfortable with her teaching of CML, Ms. Kershaw had enough trust
in her as a professional to allow her to continue her practice.
Adriana Gonzalez
Adriana’s administrator, Ms. Velasquez (pseudonym), was supportive in Adriana’s
instruction of CML. When interviewed however, Adriana stated that it had not always been the
case. She believed she gained Ms. Velasquez’ trust as her students began achieving well on
district and state tests despite Adriana’s circumventing the mandated curriculum. Ms. Velasquez
supported Adriana with her implementation and allowed her to do what she felt she needed to do
to be successful. Adriana stated that when she told her principal that keeping her current
students would help her in the implementation of her curriculum, the response was, “Just keep
the same kids,” (Ms. Velasquez, October, 2013) although this was a privilege that most other
teachers at the site did not receive. This action showed that Ms. Velasquez had faith in Adriana
and allowed her to teach CML based on her previous successes.
Adriana’s administrator acknowledged the importance of CML and the fear that she may
not be equipped to support Adriana or other teachers at the site. She mentioned supporting and
believing in what Adriana brought into her classroom with CML, but not knowing how to get the
practice to spread or whether it would be worth spreading if it would just be changed by new
policies a year or two later, since the field of education is constantly changing. Ms. Velasquez
stated, “How do we keep and continue to provide support for teachers while this is constantly
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
104
changing . . . it's very challenging, it's hard” (September, 2013). Ms. Velasquez saw challenge as
not only for administrators, but for teachers as well. She shared that she would like Adriana to
help train other teachers in the use of CML, but does not want to put that pressure on her.
However, in an interview, Adriana stated that she would like to support other teachers with this
practice because of how strongly she believed in it. It may be that Ms. Velasquez did want CML
practiced in all of the classrooms but the demands of federal and district mandates overshadowed
her will to implement them. She spoke of the importance of having these conversations at the
school site, but she also seemed to find reasons why it would not be possible. Despite Adriana’s
willingness to support others in this practice, and Ms. Velasquez’s verbal support, the
conversations about critical practices were not being planned for at the time of the study. If these
changes were to happen, school leaders and teachers have to be willing to find spaces within the
mandated policies and curriculum as Adriana did with the mandated curriculum.
The data illustrated that these principals supported the participants in teaching CML to
varying degrees. While they attributed student engagement to CML, they also acknowledged
that the teachers were using effective strategies, which could not make a strong causal
connection between CML content and student success. Even though the principals were
enforcing the mandated district or charter measures, they gave the participants the freedom to
instruct as they chose. All three participants, however, mentioned student success as being
related to their use of CML. Access to test scores was not available, but it was inferred that the
participants were successful in their practice and in achieving state standards. Principals
acknowledged and supported the use of CML in the classrooms of these teachers without
attempting to further implement it in other classrooms.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
105
Summary
In this chapter the promising practices of CML were deconstructed to attempt to come up
with a common understanding of what CML looks like in practice. The practices could not take
place without administrative support. The data were collected and analyzed and findings pointed
to CML being a pre-established commitment to an ideology framed as a means to achieve a
social justice agenda. The main finding in this research study was that the three teachers all
provided CML as content using a democratic pedagogical approach rather than as an add-on or
special unit. The findings were discussed and pedagogies and practices that emerged were
shared. The data supporting these findings were discussed using the following themes found
through data analysis: commitment to social justice, CML in the classroom, elementary-aged
resources, and administrative acknowledgement. Based on the findings from this chapter, the
next chapter will discuss these in greater detail and offer some recommendations to begin
implementing the use of CML in the classroom. Suggestions for future research will also be
discussed.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
106
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot un-educate
the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who
feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore.”
-César Chávez, (1984, para. 1)

Review of the Study
In this study, promising practices and construct a common understanding of Critical
Media Literacy (CML, 2013) and what it looked like in practice were examined. Although the
United States has led the world in many innovations, we fall behind other nations in the teaching
of Media Literacy (Kellner & Share, 2007a; Kubey, 1998). Though Critical Media Literacy
(CML) and Media Literacy (ML) have been used interchangeably throughout the study, it is
important to understand the distinctions inferred within them. CML is a fairly new body of
knowledge that uses the foundation of ML and extends it using a critical, social justice
perspective that results in taking action against the inequities found in society. Because more
research has been completed on ML, these studies are used as proxies to understand and extend
on. Our students are exposed to a narrow representation of culture and what it means to be
American on a global scale. Many other nations are very homogeneous in nature and while the
diversity in America makes it a magnificent nation, it is also the cause of political debates and
disagreement over what is necessary and what is not especially in terms of education and social
norms (Kubey, 1998). The diversity in race, ethnicity, and religion is arguably one of the
nation’s greatest strengths but it could also be what inhibits the US from gaining consensus on
numerous issues, ML being one of them (Kubey, 1998). This study was positioned to extend the
topic of CML in the elementary classroom with practical information for instruction.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
107
Statement of the Problem
There are emerging and multiple definitions of ML which cause a struggle when teachers
try to navigate its use in the classroom (Kubey, 1998). This ambiguity makes it difficult for
educators to find ways to implement its instruction in the K-5 classroom. The goal of this study
was to find how the teachers who engaged in CML (2013) to impact student achievement
defined, honed, and prepared their practice for usable information nationwide. This information
can be useful for elementary school teachers who struggle with incorporating these practices into
their classroom or for teachers who would like to begin using these practices. Many US teachers
are not trained to do this in their teacher education programs and/or school sites, and even for the
few who do use this approach or want to use CML they are rarely given the resources necessary
to use these pedagogies in their classrooms (Share, 2009). This leaves US students behind
students in other developed nations in regards to ML (Kubey, 1998) and additionally in regards
to CML. CML is something about which too many US teachers are unaware, even though the
US is a dominant global creator of media messages (Share, 2009). Transformative pedagogies,
such as CML, are usually left out of teacher credentialing programs because they do not follow
the “one-size-fits-all” approach practiced in the US (Share, 2009; Vasquez, 2007). This is
unfortunate, especially because schools of education in other countries and foreign governments
are seeing its importance and establishing these pedagogies in less media saturated nations
(Kubey, 1998; Share, 2009; Vasquez, 2007).
Review of Methodology
This study used a qualitative design to capture the commitment, benefits, resources, and
structures that teaching CML (2013) entailed in three elementary classrooms. Qualitative
research takes an inductive approach that focuses on specific situations or people and emphasizes
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
108
rich descriptions (Maxwell, 2013). Data sources in this study were observations, formal and
informal interviews, researcher memos, and classroom documents such as lesson plans, charts,
and student work. An inductive approach was used when coding data, which led to the themes
and findings of this study. This data will allow my readers to contextualize, interpret, and apply
the findings and information to their own classroom and professional practice.
Discussion
This study focused on a problem of practice in teaching CML (2013) in the elementary
classroom. Specifically, when it is taught, what are the constraints and how can we recognize its
potential? This discussion will begin with an overview of the research questions and the findings
that emerged to answer each one. It will be followed by a discussion on implementation and
promising practices.
Research Question 1
• What specific classroom practices and resources do elementary teachers use to
integrate Critical Media Literacy?
The first question sought to identify what pedagogical practices and resources teachers of
CML (2013) used to integrate CML into their curriculum. Promising practices will be discussed
below. All three participants acquired resources to teach CML through pursuing them
themselves. The participants acknowledged that many resources had to be adjusted to meet
student needs, especially when dealing with grade levels and age-appropriate content. All three
teachers attended outside professional developments and sought out other critical educators and
mentors to advance their practice of CML. While using California state standards, all
participants developed curriculum and lessons that stemmed from student interest and discussion.
All three mentioned using student led pedagogies and having classroom practices that were
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
109
discussion based. Literature shows that effective teaching does not depend on resources alone
(Cohen et al., 2003) and the teachers in this study illustrated that with their access to different
materials. Although they all had access to different resources, they taught in a similar manner.
Cohen et al. (2003) concluded that it is not the access to the resources but how the teacher
chooses to use the resource that makes the resource effective.
The participants in this study critically located their resources and used them to develop
their student’s abilities to critique and construct understanding around the concepts presented in
class. As mentioned in Chapter Four, Kathryn Frank brought in various video clips on the
September 11th tragedy to show various perspectives to her students. During this lesson, she
shed light on how good can come out of a tragedy and taught her students to relate this back to
the larger theme of social justice. On their own the resources would not have addressed the
positive or made connections back to a larger theme. Without a social justice agenda, the same
theme could have also been interpreted in a different manner. Although Kathryn Frank acquired
the resources herself she was able to teach the lesson she wanted with what was available to her
and make connections to large themes.
It was found that there were no systems or structures in place to aid these teachers in their
implementation of CML (2013), specifically. Although these structures were not present
teachers and administrators both acknowledged that they knew the instruction of CML was
taking place and they recognized the value of it. All administrators confirmed that there were no
professional developments provided to aid teachers in the instruction of CML and there were no
systems in place to spread the practice to more than one classroom at the school site. Teachers
commented on attempting to spread the practice but confirmed that they were the only teachers
at the school site instructing using CML. Professional development and collaboration with other
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
110
critical educators was their main source for acquiring resources and improving their CML
practice. Attending these events during their time outside of the work place illustrated their
belief and commitment to improving their practice and the success of their students. The
structures available at the various school sites were not systemic within the institution but the
teachers almost created their own. They found groups of like-minded educators outside of the
institution thus creating their own structures for support.
Research Question 2
• To what do teachers attribute their commitment to implement CML in their instruction?
The second question identified the main finding of this study and related to what teachers
of CML (2013) attribute their commitment. All three participants attributed their commitment to
implement CML to personal interest before they entered the teaching profession. All three
teachers saw CML as content rather than an add-on or special unit; therefore they spread the
instruction of CML throughout their day and made connections to CML across content areas.
They attributed their commitment of teaching CML with their personal commitment to social
justice. They all believed it was important to teach students about media and how to critically
read and analyze media sources so that they could be contributing, active, and informed members
of society. They believed that this would lead their students to take action against the inequities
of the world in order to make their communities a better place and be able to see what they
learned through being instructed in CML pedagogies into fruition.
While these questions were answered through data, the themes that emerged from the
study focused more on the teachers themselves and what they brought into the classroom. The
questions sought to answer what others could gain from observing CML (2013) being taught as
pedagogy. Through data analysis, it was found that although some aspects of CML could be
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
111
taught as a procedure, the most prominent aspect was what the teacher of CML brought into the
classroom. In the following discussion, pedagogies will be discussed to make visible what CML
looks like in practice, and to illustrate the benefits of this approach.
The data concluded that amongst the three participants studied, CML (2013) was a pre-
established commitment to an ideology framed as a means to achieve a social justice agenda.
The data were not conclusive in constructing a shared definition, amongst the three participants,
on what constitutes CML although they all used real world, authentic issues to teach skills and
used students’ interests to design curriculum. There was a consensus that they wanted their
students to believe they could make a change and have their voices heard. This is consistent with
the literature on CML (Kellner & Share, 2005). Giving CML a concrete definition would limit
creativity by assigning limits to a transformative pedagogy. Benita Valenzuela said, “You
cannot follow a script or a teacher guide. You can have your sources but it might have to be
adjusted, it really depends on who your class is” (October, 2013). Depending on the needs and
interests of the class, teachers of CML adapt and restructure their learning activities to meet the
needs of their current students.
Initially, one of the purposes of the study was to give a definition to what CML (2013)
looked like in practice. It is difficult to provide a concrete definition of CML without impacting
the transformative potential the participants attributed to its use in their classrooms. Adriana
Gonzalez said, “You can’t make it restrictive or standard. The results are very different”
January, 2014). She noted that other teachers have asked for her pacing and lesson plans so that
they can begin the practice in their own classrooms but she did not believe her plans could be
exactly transferred to another setting. Adriana noted, “I can’t send pacing. Once I see what
they’re interested in [students] I do go with that and I do put in those writing standards and I do
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
112
math and everything else” (January, 2014). Adriana’s perception of CML is supported by
Kellner and Share (2007a) when they note that teaching CML would be more powerful if it is a
participatory and collaborative project between the teacher and students in a classroom. It may
not be prescribed or follow a script; if it does it would be no different than any other prepackaged
curriculum.
US education focuses on accountability and opposes critical approaches mostly because
these approaches cannot be standardized, routinized, and reduced to prepackaged curriculum that
is used to score well on standardized tests (Giroux, 2000). What this corporate, neoliberal
education agenda creates is actually the opposite of a critical and transformative educational
practice, such as CML (Apple, 2000; Giroux, 2000). It takes away the abilities of teachers to
theorize, contextualize, and honor their students’ diverse lives seriously and create a curriculum
based on student interest (Giroux, 2000). CML (2013) allows teachers and students to do this in
the classroom. When Benita Valenzuela described this in her own classroom, she stated that,
“They [her students] feel that they are agents of their own learning but I still have to guide them
and keep them towards the goal” (October, 2013). By honoring their students and creating a
curriculum based on their interest, the participants in this study applied the promising practices
of CML and maintained its transformative potential.
Although the concepts behind CML do not fit into a textbook definition, there are many
aspects of CML that can be taken up and implemented in classrooms and school settings.
Teachers of CML had a pre-existing commitment to social justice, which led them to use CML
in their classrooms. The teachers observed exhibited an extreme passion and dedication to
prepare their students to take on challenges both during their present lives as well as in their
adult lives. The findings reported from Chapter Four show how dealing with the lack of
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
113
resources and controversial issues can be addressed within school sites and within teacher
education programs that could allow for the spreading of this transformative literacy.
The findings exhibited that teachers of CML (2013) used student-centered pedagogies
that could not be dictated by a predetermined definition or curriculum. Giving a definition to
CML, which is student-centered and has a social justice orientation, would limit what the
pedagogy was capable of achieving. The teachers studied prided themselves in not following a
rote, scripted curriculum during their CML instruction and, as previously stated, used their
students’ interest to develop lesson plans. This significant quality would be lost if CML were to
be given a concrete agenda or definition of practice. This was illustrated when Benita
Valenzuela said, “and that’s what makes it difficult to teach because it’s not something that you
can plan” (Janaury, 2014). What they brought to their classrooms was a shared interest in social
justice, but it played out in different ways in each local context. As Benita Valenzuela stated, the
curriculum and planning will depend on the class and local context. As reported in Chapter Four
in Benita Valenzuela’s classroom, the teaching of Wringer by Jerry Spinelli (1997) varied
depending on the needs of her class. One class focused on their identified theme of bullying,
which she highlighted in her instruction, and the other focused on the animal rights issues in
which they were interested. She noted that although students in both classes read the same
novel, the focus and themes the students grasped in each were completely different. In order to
appeal to her students’ interest, Benita Valenzuela was unwilling to use the lesson plans and
materials she had from the previous year with her current class. As the literature showed, no
situation could be replicated, which is why it is important for teachers to focus on implementing
and be comfortable using critical approaches (Giroux, 2000). I believe that teacher education
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
114
programs could begin with the theories and concepts behind Media Literacy and with teacher
dedication these concepts could further extend into Critical Media Literacy (2013).
Although ML, the foundation for CML (2013), was included in the California state
standards, it was not a tested set of standards and teachers therefore were less likely to make time
to focus on these standards (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Noguera, 2009). With the adoption of the
Common Core State Standards (CDE, 2010), Media literacy and research skills become an
embedded component instead of an isolated set of standards. Rogow (2011) argued that it would
be difficult to achieve the new CCSS (CDE, 2010) without implementing ML into standard
coursework or without teachers who are trained in the media literacy pedagogies required to
teach ML. Rogow (2011) also noted that ML addresses various educational needs that are
embedded into the CCSS such as: 21st century skills, higher-order thinking skills, media
technologies, and the expansion of the definition of literacy that students need to be successful
citizens. The teachers in this study used these skills in their instruction and attributed them to
student success. They focused on social-justice related issues to extend ML (2013) into CML
(2013).
Critical Media Literacy (2013) addresses issues of race, gender, class, sexuality, and
power while intersecting with cultural studies and critical pedagogies (Janks, 2000; Kellner &
Share, 2005; Vasquez et al., 2013). The literature showed that because of these multiple
intersections, CML (2013) is a challenge to teach because it is not a traditional pedagogy. Those
who subscribe to traditional pedagogies critique CML for not having established principles or
strategies that have been proven effective by nationally recognized sources such as the What
Works Clearinghouse (WWC, 2013; as discussed in Chapter Two). Although CML is not
recognized as a traditional pedagogy, it does however use a democratic pedagogy that requires
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
115
teachers to share power with students as shown in the findings of this study (Kellner, 1998;
Luke, C., 1997b). Giroux (2000) believed that educators are responsible in addressing how
agency unfolds within power-infused relations in their classrooms and may help to establish
democratic pedagogies in their classrooms.
The observations and interviews with the participants revealed a strong roadmap for
others to follow. The following examples illustrate possibilities to begin implementing CML
into the elementary classroom. These are meant to be a starting point for teachers and to give
ideas of what can happen in a classroom that uses CML. ML was developed as a tool to
empower students and citizens to read and produce media messages themselves. In order to be
critical, active participants in democratic society our students need to know how to take in and
interpret the media images that surround them; which extends the concept of ML into CML and
makes it important for teachers to use CML in their classrooms. (Kellner, 1995; Kellner &
Share, 2005). This criticality emerges from critical theory, which refers to critiquing and
transforming what is wrong with society (Held, 1980). By students identifying critiques in their
schools, communities, and countries they may begin participating in this process.
Promising Practices
The practices and participants’ orientations supported the literature and will be used to
illustrate how CML can be applied to elementary classrooms. To begin, teachers can establish
democratic pedagogies in which the teacher serves as a coach and facilitator and students are
given choices in their learning. Classrooms in which CML is being implemented establish that
students feel that they have power over their own learning and realize that they can be agents of
change in their community and in the world. Teachers may aim to have a nurturing, positive
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
116
classroom environment that is collaborative and caring. By establishing a community of care
and culture of respect, democratic pedagogies can be implemented.
The content and unit selection in classrooms with CML (2013) is concept driven,
centering on “big ideas.” Unlike most traditional classrooms the concepts emerge mostly from
students’ interests rather than teacher choice. The concepts covered frequently integrate the
grade level and content standards but stem from student discussion rather than mandated
curriculum. Although teachers likely adhere to their institutions’ pacing plans, they could be
flexible in how they allow spaces for students’ voices. Current events portrayed in media can be
addressed in the classroom to prepare students for the real world and to guide them in
understanding bias and multiple perspectives. Creating and extending learning activities that
address both content standards and current events are essential in empowering students and
helping them become media literate citizens. Research shows that the teaching and learning of
CML presents problems in how to train and empower teachers to use their creativity more than
scripted curricula (Kellner & Share, 2007a). Teachers can overcome this problem by seeking out
other critical educators within their school sites or in their communities to discuss the creation of
units that include student interests while aiming to keep educational integrity.
Teachers of CML (2013)
may find challenges in locating age appropriate resources. Any
media source found in the school or community can be used to address the core concepts of
media literacy. With the Internet being readily available at most schools, teachers can conduct
basic Internet searches to find materials on any topic that their class may take interest in. It is
important that teachers understand that CML does not simply entail finding fault in mass media
texts but also replicating them to illustrate multiple perspectives and to create action, this is a
defining characteristic of the difference between ML and CML. If text or mass media messages
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
117
are thought to be too complicated to understand, teachers can likely spend the time to deconstruct
the resource with their students regardless of the reading level for which it was developed.
Teachers may realize that they will spend a lot time modifying resources for their students but
the results will be empowering and perhaps life-changing. To differentiate between ML and
CML, it is important that through the unit of study teachers identify a place for their students to
take action and pursue change outside of the classroom.
Implications
The research questions addressed in this study focused on narrow concerns over what
constitutes effective teaching and learning. What they did not do was ask the broader and more
difficult question of how and why different kinds of curricular conversations in particular social
contexts shape student learning. CML (2013) moves away from traditional pedagogies and
reframes the teaching and learning process to include social justice issues and students at the
center of the discussion. This data contributes to the field and can be used to begin discussions
on what CML looks like in the elementary classroom. Teachers interested in establishing this
type of classroom can begin by taking the promising practices addressed in this study and
applying them to their own classroom. This cannot be something that is forced upon teachers
because that would take away from its transformative potential. If principals at the school sites
do not support these teachers or others in its use, then the commitment of other teachers at the
school site may waiver. If other teachers do not see it as valuable, then it is unlikely that the
practice will be spread and unlikely for other teachers to acquire this passion.
From conducting a basic Google search looking for Media Literacy and Critical Media
Literacy (2013) programs, very little was found. NAMLE (2013) provided a list of 21 schools
that offered programs in ML and most of those programs were housed in schools of
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
118
communication and not in schools of education that service future teachers. Sadly, one is more
likely to find a media literacy course in a school of communication than in a school education
and even less likely to find a mandatory media education course in a teacher credentialing
program. If a course is available, then it is often optional; and if a teacher candidate does not
have a previous interest in ML or CML (2013) then they are unlikely to take it. Schools of
education can begin to train teachers with the skills to establish a foundation for ML. In the
United States, 90% of what we read, watch, or listen to comes from the control of six media
giants (Frugal Dad, 2013), which makes it essential to address.
It is the duty of schools of education to make CML (2013) compelling to teacher
candidates. Like Adriana Gonzalez said when asked if teachers without the passion for CML
could teach the content, “How do we make them passionate about it?” (January, 2014). How do
we make teacher education candidates realize the transformative potential of CML and help them
build the passion and commitment necessary to begin implementing and upholding this
pedagogy? This could begin with reviewing how the US is lagging behind other developed
nations in implementation of Media Literacy (Kubey, 1998), or the need for ML in effectively
teaching Common Core State Standards (Rogow, 2011), or with the desire to create media
literate citizens that are able to critically analyze and produce diverse media messages (Share,
2009). The benefits of having a media literate society outweigh the amount of extra time needed
for planning and developing lessons. It is necessary for schools of education and other critical
educators to make CML compelling for pre-service and inservice teachers.
CML (2013) challenges power structures in the classroom, which counters the traditional
classroom norm. Traditionally, classrooms have been teacher directed and led by pre-assigned,
scripted curriculums. This study found that in the classrooms where CML was used the power
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
119
was redistributed and teachers and students had a shared responsibility to perform and develop
classroom tasks. With teachers committed to a social justice agenda, students were not penalized
for minute classroom procedures such as drinking water or not sitting still. Teachers and
students showed a collective dedication to producing a positive classroom environment.
Recommendations and Future Research
This study provided a detailed look into promising practices and ideologies needed to
successfully implement CML (2013) in the elementary-aged classroom. Despite the insightful
results acquired from the current study, additional questions have surfaced and paved the way for
future research. Since the study was conducted while teachers were accountable to No Child
Left Behind (NCLB, U.S. Department of Education, 2001), additional research in a post NCLB
era would be beneficial. Due to the convenience sampling and small sample size used in this
case study the results are informative but difficult to generalize to a larger population.
Additional research is needed, especially in the adaptation of Common Core State
Standards (CDE, 2010), in relation to CML (2013). The language of CCSS (CDE, 2010)
connects to the language in the Core Concepts of Media Literacy and research to show how
teachers who self-identify as teachers of CML make the connection between CML and CCSS
would pave a path to take a greater look at promising practices in the field. With the systemic
changes that CCSS brings, studies to show how teachers are addressing the change would be
beneficial to educators.
Ideally, this study should have included a span of grade levels kindergarten through fifth
grade in order to gain a better understanding of how teachers of younger students address issues
of race, sexuality, gender, and power dynamics in an age appropriate way. Due to the sample
size and the time allotment to complete this study, teachers who self-identified and responded in
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
120
a timely manner for this study taught upper elementary grades. Time did not allow the
identification of a larger sample size or teachers who work with lower elementary-aged students.
These critical literacies are often left out of lower elementary instruction and more work is
necessary, in the field, to identify promising practices addressing these critical literacies.
A longitudinal study would benefit the literature on CML (2013). Teachers of CML believed
that their teaching would impact the adult lives of their students. When, the teachers who had
the students of the teachers of CML the year after them, were interviewed they noticed that their
critical thinking skills were stronger than those of students from other teachers in some
occasions. For this statement to be validated, research following students who have had CML
instruction for multiple years would be powerful. A comparative study between perceptions of
students with CML and without CML instruction would add to the body of literature and serve to
prove or disprove the importance of CML at the elementary grades.
Conclusion
This study was of a personal nature to me because, like my participants, I also strive to
use CML (2013) in my own classroom. Like two of the three participants in this study, CML
was not something that I learned in my credential program but something that I came to while
attempting to give a name to what I considered to be social justice teaching practices. When I
compare my practices to the practices of others at my school site I, like the participants, feel
CML advances student learning not only academically but also by teaching them what it means
to live in a socially just society and feel empowered. Like them, I am also the only teacher at my
school site that teaches with a social justice agenda in mind and thinks CML is necessary based
upon my lived experiences. My lived experiences prompted me to complete this study and in
using CML, I am convinced of its value as a potentially transformative pedagogy. I think this
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
121
study addressed the value of CML, and the potential for integrating its tenets in teacher education
programs. It is my goal that this study, although it addressed a small sample size, will resonate
with educators so that they may see the importance of this pedagogy and find ways to use the
promising practices to improve the education of marginalized students.
My family, my Latino culture, and my life experiences have not only molded me into the
person that I am today but have served as the impetus for my life-long, as well as professional,
interest in education. My family has been a tremendous source of motivation for me, especially
my parents. They instilled in me the importance of education from an early age. My parents saw
education as a means to reach a better life for their children. Education was something
extremely important for me since my parents stressed that not only would it make me a better
person, but also facilitate success, and an easier life than the one they had. Seeing the daily
struggles my parents had to overcome for my brothers and me to have a better life not only made
me appreciate what I had been given, but also taught me the merits of hard work and sacrifice in
achieving one’s goals.
Identifying CML (2013) was extremely powerful for me because I felt had I been
instructed with CML pedagogies I would have had a higher sense of self-worth as a student.
Latino culture is negatively portrayed in the media, and from my struggles as an English
language learner and daughter of two Mexican immigrants, I associated myself and my
capabilities to negative stereotypes portrayed on television. If any of my teachers would have
instructed using any of the pedagogies the participants used, then I feel that it would have
validated me and culture before having reached college. I share my story as an important
narrative in how I came to this study, and as a way to frame the findings as aligning with my
anecdotal, lived experiences. For the many students who do not have the opportunity to
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
122
actualize the dream of being prepared to further their schooling after compulsory education in the
United States because of the systemic inequities that exist, CML can begin challenging these
structures and offer possibilities for change.
This study adds to a small, existing body of literature on CML (2013) in the elementary
classroom. It helped to identify promising practices as well as systems and structures necessary
to implement CML in the elementary-aged classroom. The research and data collected in this
qualitative study identify the importance of CML and can provide critical educators with a plan
to support its implementation. If CML is to become a practice used by critical educators to
empower students, families, and communities as well as counter hegemonic structures, then
teachers in the field can begin to conduct further research as well as read other like studies to
perpetuate its use in the Kindergarten through fifth grade classroom. Had I received this
instruction earlier in life, I would have known that the negative representations of my culture in
mainstream media did not determine the content of my character or the person I would become.
It might have also changed the life trajectories of many friends and family that I believe fell
victim to corporate media brainwash and internalized the images of their culture fulfilling
socially constructed stereotypes.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
123
References
Action Coalition for Media Education. (2013). ACME's mission. Retrieved from
http://www.acmecoalition.org
Albers, M., Vasquez, V., & Harste, J. (2008). A Classroom with a view: Teachers, multi-
modality and new literacies. Talking Points. Urbana, IL, National Council of Teachers of
English.
Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school
restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102 (3), 590-619.
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1),
67-92.
Apple, M. W. (2000). Between neoliberalism and neoconservatism: Education and conservatism
in a global context. In N. C. Burbules, & C. A. Torrest (Eds.) Globalization and
education: Critical perspectives (pp. 57-77). New York, NY: Routledge.
Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Translated by Annette Lavers (1957). New York, NY: Hill and
Wang.
Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Herndon, VA:
Paradigm Publishers.
Bogdan R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group.
California Department of Education. (1997). English language arts. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/
California Department of Education. (2010). Common core state standards. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
124
Center for Media Literacy. (2013). Five key questions that can change the world. Retrieved from
http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/14B_CCKQPoster+5essays.pdf
Center Public Integrity. (n.d.). Top Stories. Retrieved from www.publicintegrity.org
Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: The basics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chandler, D. (2013). Semiotics for beginners. Retrieved from
http://dominicpetrillo.com/ed/Semiotics_for_Beginners.pdf
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1997). Productive diversity: A new approach to work and
management. Sydney: Pluto Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Cortés, C. E. (2000). The children are watching: How the media teach about diversity.
multicultural education series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No
Child Left Behind.’ Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245-260.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1917). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press.
Dewey, J., & Small, A. W. (1897). My pedagogic creed (No. 25). New York, NY: E. L. Kellogg
& Company.
Eco, U. (1979). Theory of semiotics (Vol. 217). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
125
Erickson, F. (1984). What makes school ethnography ‘ethnographic’? Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 15(1), 51-66.
Ferguson, R. (2001). Media education and the development of critical solidarity. Media
Education Journal, 30, 37-43.
Ferguson, R. (1998). Representing "race": Ideology, identity and the media. London: Arnold.
Frugal Dad. (2013). The big 6 media conglomerates-how much do they really control? Retrieved
from http://www.frugaldad.com
Gainer, J. S., Valdez-Gainer, N., & Kinard, T. (2009). The elementary bubble project: Exploring
critical media literacy in a fourth-grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 62(8), 674-683.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Geuss, R. (1981). The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school. New York,
NY: University Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2000). Stealing innocence: Youth, corporate power, and the politics of culture.
New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Gordon, R., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using
performance on the job. Retrieved from
http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604hamilton_1.pdf
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of
teacher quality. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 267-271.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
126
Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas (Vol. 261). Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Horkheimer, M. (1937). Traditional and critical theory. Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell.
Retrieved from http://www.livingindiversity.org/2011/11/13/traditional-and-critical-
theory-1937/
Janks, H. (1997). Teaching language and power. In Encyclopedia of Language and Education
(pp. 241-251), Book Part Section 4, Series Volume 1. Netherlands: Springer.
Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy
education. Educational review, 52(2), 175-186.
Janks, H. (2002, November). Critical literacy methods, models and motivations. Presentation
given at the National Council of Teachers Annual Convention, Atlanta Georgia.
Jay, M. (1996). The dialectical imagination: A history of the Frankfurt School and the Institute
of Social Research, 1923-1950 (Vol. 10). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robinson, A. J. (2006). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL:
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Kellner, D. (1995). Intellectuals and new technologies. Media Culture and Society, 17, 427-427.
Kellner, D. (1998). Multiple literacies and critical pedagogy in a multicultural society.
Educational Theory, 48(1), 103-122.
Kellner D. (2004). Technological transformation, multiple literacies, and the re-visioning of
education. E-Learning, 1(1), 9-37.
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007a). Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry, 1(1),
59-69.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
127
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007b). Critical media literacy, democracy, and the reconstruction of
education. In D. P. Macedo, & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Media literacy: A reader (pp. 3-
23). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Kellner, D., & J. Share. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates,
organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3),
pp. 369-386.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In
Y. Zou, & E. T. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the
study of education (pp. 87-138). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. Key
Works in Critical Pedagogy, Bold Visions in Educational Research (32), 285-326.
Kubey, R. (1998). Obstacles to the development of media education in the United States. Journal
of Communication, 48(1), 58-69.
Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers' and teacher
educators' learning. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491-509.
Luke, A. (1998). Getting over method: Literacy teaching as work in new times. Language Arts,
75(4), 305-13.
Luke, C. (1997a). Media literacy and cultural studies. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke, & P. Freebody
(Eds.). Construction critical literacies: Teacher and learning textual practice (pp. 19-49).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Luke, C. (1997b). Technological literacy. Melbourne: National Languages and Literacy Institute,
Adult Literacy Network. Retrieved from
http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ed270/Luke/TECHLIT.html
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
128
Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” standards initiative: An effective reform tool?
Boulder, CO, and Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education
Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-
standards.
Matsamura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction
and curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary
School Journal, 108(4), pp. 293–312.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks.
CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miller, L. (2007) The New York Times. NBC news to provide content for Channel One. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/business/media/09channel.html
Muspratt, S., Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing critical literacies: Teaching
and learning textual practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
National Association for Media Literacy Education. (2013). NAMLE's Mission. Retrieved from
http://www.namle.net
New London Group. (1996, Spring). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.
Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
129
Noguera, P. A. (2009) The change we need: The achievement gap and the future of education
policy in the Obama administration. PowerPlay 1(1): A Journal of Educational Justice,
1(1), 1-19. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQF
jAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loyola.edu%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fdepartment%2Fpower
play%2Fdocuments%2Fpast%2Fvol1number1%2Fppj_vol_01_no_01_noguera.ashx&ei=
dvs0U_6GEMWC2wXk5YFo&usg=AFQjCNFofbENBlBlBDCfLBkhPBo5eSluew&bv
m=bv.63808443,d.b2I
Pecheone, R., & Chung, R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment
for California teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22-36.
Peske, H., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are
shortchanged on teacher quality. A Report and Recommendations by the Education
Trust. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494820.pdf
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the
academy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-254.
Rogow, F. (2011). Inquiring minds want to know: Media literacy education for young children.
Retrieved from:
http://faculty.rcoe.appstate.edu/goodmanjm/2300/resources/readings/LIBRARYJOURN
AL2011. pdf
Rogow, F. (2013). Ask, don’t tell: Pedagogy for media literacy education in the next decade.
Journal of Media Literacy Education, 3(1), 8.
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
130
Share, J. (2009). Media literacy is elementary: Teaching youth to critically read and create
media (Vol. 41). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Share, J. (2011). Center for media literacy: Media literacy framework. Unpublished raw data.
Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice (Vol. 9). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Street, B. V. (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (Vol. 23). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Tienken, C. H., & Canton, D. (2009). National curriculum standards: Let’s think it over. AASA
Journal of Scholarship and Practice, 6(3), 3-9.
Torres, M., & Mercado, M. (2006). The need for critical media literacy in teacher education core
curricula. Educational Studies, 39(3), 260-282.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC:
Author.
Vasquez, V. (2004). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Vasquez, V. (2005a). Resistance, power-tricky, and colorless energy: What engagement with
everyday popular culture texts can teach us about learning and literacy. In J. Marsh (Ed.)
Popular culture, media and digital literacies in early childhood (pp. 201-219). New
York, NY: Falmer Press, UK/RoutledgeFalmer Press.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
131
Vasquez, V. (2005b). Creating Spaces for Critical Literacy with Young Children: Using
Everyday Issues and Everyday Print. In J. Evans (Ed.), Reading isn’t just about books:
21st century approaches for 21st century children. UK: David Fulton Publishers.
Vasquez, V. (2007). Doing Critical literacy with young children: Using the everyday to take up
issues of social justice and equity in a pre-kindergarten setting. New England Reading
Association Journal, 43(2), 6-11.
Vasquez, V., & VanderZanden, S. (2009). Critical Moves in literacy education. In K. Cooper
(Ed.), Critical literacies in action: Social perspectives and teaching practices (pp. 117-
126). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Vasquez, V., & Wong-Kam, J. (Eds.). (2003a). A new look at early literacy. School Talk, 8(2),
pp. 1-8. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Vasquez, V. & Wong-Kam, J. (Eds.). (2003b). Information communication technologies in the
primary school classroom. School Talk, 8(3), pp. 1-8. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Vasquez, V. & Wong-Kam, J. (Eds.). (2003c). Disrupting the commonplace: Elementary
teachers researching critical literacy. School Talk, 8(4), pp. 1-8. Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Vasquez, V. M., Tate, S. L., & Harste, J. C. (2013). Negotiating critical literacies with teachers:
Theoretical foundations and pedagogical resources for pre-service and in-service
contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2013). Evidence for what works in education. Retrieved from
http://www.whatworks.ed.gov

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
132
Appendix A
IRB Approval

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
133

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
134
Appendix B
Interview Protocols
The protocol for each research question, along with observations and other documents, was used
to gain the data necessary to answer the research questions. The research questions will not be
asked during the interview.

RQ1. What specific classroom practices and resources do elementary teachers use to
integrate Critical Media Literacy?
Teacher Interview 1
1. Describe your understanding of critical media literacy.
2. What difficulties, if any, have you encountered in teaching critical media literacy?
3. Please give me an example of some critical media literacy lessons that you have taught.
4. What are some practices that you have used for teaching CML lessons?
5. Were there any assessments that you made or used to evaluate your critical media literacy
lessons?
6. What resources do you think are helpful to teaching critical media literacy?
7. Where have you acquired the resources to effectively teach critical media literacy?
8. Did you use any pedagogical framework or guiding questions to teach CML?
9. How do you use the lessons on CML? In conjunction with other subjects, or separately?
What motivated your choice to set it up this way?
10. Have you considered any other approaches? Why or why not?
11. How much do your students influence what you teach in relation to CML?
12. What do you think students’ reactions to CML are?
a. Do they like it?
CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
135
13. Do you use content standards to align your CML lessons?
14. Do your CML lessons include both analysis and production? Please explain.

RQ2. What are the systems and structures that need to be in place to allow teachers to
teach Critical Media Literacy? (CML teacher, admin, next year’s teacher)

Teacher Interview 2

1. Is CML taught school wide?
If yes, how did this process begin?
If no, do you think it should be taught school wide? Why or why not?
2. What professional developments do you participate in to better prepare you to teach CML?
a. How do you feel they better prepared you?
3. Where do you attend these PD's? School site? Former university?
4. How do you think CML is influencing your students?
a. How do you formatively assess?
b. Do you have summative assessments?
5. How often do you teach CML? What models of teaching are used? (e.g., student-centered,
etc.)
6. How long is the average CML lesson?
7. How supportive are your colleagues in your use of CML? Do they discuss with others?
8. How supportive is your administrator on your use of CML? Do they know you teach these
lessons?
9. How do you think it is influencing your student's families?
10. Do you think that what you teach in the classroom is being transferred to home or other
outside of school spaces? How do you know?
11. What do you find most difficult about implementing CML? Please explain your answer.

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
136
Admin Protocol
1. Describe your understanding of critical media literacy.
2. Tell me about your experience teaching critical media literacy?
3. Do you think that it is important to teach critical media literacy as part of the curriculum?
Why or why not?
4. What resources do you provide for teachers who want to teach CML?
5. What training do you provide for teachers who want to teach CML?
6. What do you notice in terms of student engagement levels, from teachers who teach CML
versus those who do not?
New Teacher Protocol
1. Describe your understanding of critical media literacy.
2. Do you think that it is important to teach critical media literacy as part of the curriculum?
Why or why not?
3. Tell me about your experience teaching critical media literacy?
4a. Do you notice a difference in class participation between students in Mr./Ms. ______ Class
and the students from other teachers' classes?
4b. Do you notice a difference in critical thinking abilities between students in Mr./Mrs.______
class and the students from other teachers’ classes?
5. How much CML knowledge do the students incorporate into their daily learning?

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
137
RQ3. To what do teachers attribute their commitment to implement CML in their
instruction?
Teacher Interview 3
1. Where did you first learn about CML?
2. What was it like for you when you began teaching critical media literacy? How long have
they been teaching CML?
3. Tell me about your experience using critical media literacy?
4. What is your favorite thing about critical media literacy?
5. Do you think that it is important to teach critical media literacy as part of the curriculum?
Why or why not?
6. Why do you think most teachers do not teach CML? Do you think teaching CML requires
more planning?
a. If yes, do you think this is why teachers choose not to teach it?
7. Why do you choose to teach CML?
8. How often do you re-design your lessons, or add new lessons? Why?

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
138
Appendix C
Observation Protocol: Critical Media Literacy

Name of Observed: Date: Start time:
Finish time:
Location: Grade Level:

Physical Space:

People/Participants
Who are the
participants?
How many
participated?

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
139
Demographical
Information:
-Race
-Ethnicity
-Gender
-Class

What are the
roles of those
being
observed?
How do you
know?

What were the
participants
doing? How
many were
involved in:
- Group
interaction
- Individual
actions
- Passive
participants
- Active
participants

What are the
positions of the
various
participants
involved?

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
140
What is being
discussed?

Sequence of Events
Beginning:

Observer Comments

Middle:

End:

CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY
141
Observer Role
What am I doing?
What is my role
throughout the
observation?

Describe some of my
interactions with
other participants
throughout the
observation.

How did my
interaction/presence
affect the observation
participants?

Other

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applied critical theory along with the critical media literacy framework to help position and analyze this study. The framework was used as a tool to analyze data to produce findings. The purpose of this study was to examine promising practices and construct a common understanding of Critical Media Literacy (CML) and what it looked like in practice. This study used a qualitative design to capture the commitment, benefits, resources, and structures that teaching CML entailed in three elementary classrooms. Data sources in this study were observations, formal, and informal interviews, researcher memos, and classroom documents such as lesson plans, charts, and student work. This study focused on a problem of practice in teaching CML in the elementary classroom. Specifically, when it is taught, what are the constraints and how can we recognize its potential? Findings from this study indicate that among the three participants studied, CML was a pre‐established commitment to an ideology framed as a means to achieve a social justice agenda. This study impacts the literature by providing information on how teachers view the benefits of using CML in elementary classrooms, what CML looks like in practice, and factors that led to their commitment in providing their students the opportunity to be media literate and to promote social justice in their classrooms.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Media literacy education: a qualitative inquiry into the perspectives teachers hold about teaching media literacy

PDF

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

Digital literacy: teacher pedagogy and practices among upper elementary students with growing interest in social media

PDF

Critical thinking development in the 21st century college classroom

PDF

The audacity to teach: creating access to rigor for African American and Latino high school students

PDF

Equity and access: meeting the needs of diverse learners with UDL in elementary general education

PDF

Policy and practice: United States and European Union media and technology education

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

News media literacy among communication majors at Christian University: an evaluation study

PDF

Coaching year 1 and year 2 teachers for equity and diversity using the Danielson framework

PDF

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

PDF

Ethnic studies as critical consciousness and humanization

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

PDF

Reflective journeys: African American community college STEM students' perceptions on equity and access

PDF

Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices

PDF

The role of critical literacy and the school-to-prison pipeline: what was learned from the life histories and literacy experiences of formerly incarcerated young Latino males

PDF

An investigation on the integration of science and literacy for English language learners

PDF

Implementation of restorative justice in schools from a teacher's perspective

PDF

Critical game literacies and Afrofuturist development

PDF

The #Revolution will be liked: an examination of civic expression among Hawaiian youth

Asset Metadata

Creator Limon Recendez, Marisela (author)

Core Title Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/02/2014

Defense Date 02/26/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag access,critical media literacy,elementary,equity,media literacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,Social Justice

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Pascarella, John, III (committee member), Share, Jeff (committee member)

Creator Email mariselalimon@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-411227

Unique identifier UC11295417

Identifier etd-LimonRecen-2492.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-411227 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LimonRecen-2492.pdf

Dmrecord 411227

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Limon Recendez, Marisela

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA