Media Literacy Education

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

The media education of the 1960’s - 1970s appears to me as the most interesting. This period is
characterized by the great involvement of Arts agents in rising of the audiovisual culture of the youth. We
witnessed an amazing phenomenon-junction of the pedagogy and Arts studies: teachers became art
critics, and art critics became teachers. It’s at the intersection of education and arts studies that were
developed the mutually enriching models of film education in Tver, Voronezh, Kurgan, Armavir,
Moscow and Taganrog. Provincial centres of film education were leading in the field. In Moscow and
then Petersburg these models were synthesized, and the general strategy of the development of the film
education system with joint efforts of state structures of culture and education was clarified. The Union of
Cineastes took an active part in this too.
Press of the 1960s - 1970s paid considerate attention to the system of film education, summarized the
work experience. Magazines “Cinema Art”, “People’s Education” published very interesting articles
related to this topic. Publishing houses BPSK and ‘Prosveschenije’ published series of books on film
education in different regions of the country. Actors, directors, screen writers were often guests of young
film clubs, which hosted interesting meetings.

Today, for example, in Tver, there are constant film productions, including feature films and TV
series. But one can’t even come close to the film group, not to mention arranging the meeting with school
children. Newspapers inform readers about the hotel the film crew is staying at, which sauna they go to,
what they eat, etc. but not a word of the artistic problems of modern cinema art…

Nikolai Hilko:
If we speak about the accumulated experience in media education in Russia, the following
activities are considered by us as the most valuable for the current sociocultural situation:
-establishment of contacts on film/media education between universities, colleges of Arts, schools and
pre-school institutions;
-regular national and regional conferences on urgent problems of media culture and media education,
exchange of practices;
-media centers activity, comprising traits of a movie theater and a film club, including show programs
and at the same time working in education, entertainment, and “edutainment”;
-activity of film clubs as the form of social life and social communication (incl. screenings of film
classics, propaganda of the best works of art of cinema art, etc.);
-screenings of amateur films, the movement of film fans, their collaboration with television, combining
the technical and creative training;
-polycultural classes using media in the space of the dialogue of cultures;
-film/TV/ video workshops, synthesizing education and leisure (film lyceums, arts lyceums) in the system
of the supplementary education;
-informal voluntary clubs in children radio centers at summer camps, schools, colleges;
-clubs of photography, with “exchange circles”, regular exhibitions, social- publicist collections, etc.;
-film museums and children film theaters;
-educational projects on TV channels using computer graphics, archive and new film/photo/video
documentary;
-creation of the folklore television programs engaging school pupils;
-slide-clubs, screen photography studios, festivals of this direction;
-film/video centers, providing service for kindergartens, schools and summer camps.
Tatiana Shak:
The most considerable result of the efforts of several generations of enthusiasts of media
education in Russia is the accreditation of the new minor in education - “Media education” and journal
‘Media Education’. Plus the number of books by Alexander Fedorov on media education.
Alexander Korochensky:
In my opinion most important is the experience collected by the representatives of film education
- the direction, that has successfully developed in Russia for many decades and was based on the
profound national traditions of theory of cinematography and film criticism.

51

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Valery Gura:
For me, too the film education experience seems to be very valuable, including organization of
film clubs, film forums, supported by the developed film studies.
Valery Monastyrsky:
I am of the same opinion…
Stal Penzin:
I could go into the detail account of it, but I’d rather refer the interested colleagues to monographs
by Alexander Fedorov - “Media Education: History, Theory and Methods” (2001) and by Alexander
Fedorov and Irina Chelysheva “Media Education in Russia: Brief History” (2002). They give a complete
account of media education experience, and draw conclusions that I agree with. On the whole, I would
distinguish Fedorov’s works as one of the best in the field…
Svetlana Gudilina:
And I would not like to distinguish someone. All initiatives are very important and valuable,
because they contribute to the vital movement. We are working on media education technologies, which
are used in schools, therefore for our research team and teachers who experiment with us, the standard of
integrated media education, elaborated by professor Ludmila Zaznobina, is the keystone.
Alexander Sharikov:
In general the whole experience - theoretical, practical, and historical - is important for the
development of Russian media education. It’s difficult for me to make a distinction of something special.
I think it is unique as regards other countries.
Alexander Korochensky:
In foreign experience the most interesting and valuable for Russia are the achievements of
humanistic media education, aimed at the democratic values, at the variety of resources of mass media in
order to develop a personality intellectually and spiritually, teaching of children and adults the literate and
effective perception of mass media, training the skills of independent critical analysis, interpretation and
evaluation of mass media and media texts. Valuable are in the first place those foreign media education
practices that help to enrich the spiritual world, culture of a modern person (including one’s civic and
political culture), preparing for the active life in the information saturated environment, turning into the
cognitive and critical participant of mass communication processes. These are the works of L.
Masterman, D.Buckingham, C.Bazalgette, K.Tyner, J.Gonnet and other representatives of humanistic,
democratic schools in media education.
Oleg Baranov:
Of course the experience of foreign colleagues can assist the development of Russian media
education. Besides the summarizing and systematizing of own approaches to solving the problem,
perhaps we need to study the system of state approaches to management of media education, and not
directly copy the contents, forms and methods of work. The attempt of Ministry of Education to transfer
the western model on to the Russian school leads to the loss of individuality. One can’t, as K.Ushinsky
said still back in the 19th century, to relocate the western experience on Russian realia. We need to take
into account the specifics of the people, its national peculiarities. Though of course a school teacher needs
to have access to the information about foreign curricula. Take for example, Russian TV: when the
audience watches mainly western film production and western TV shows, it leads to the low culture of
senses of a young person.
Svetlana Gudilina:
Undoubtedly the study of foreign experience is useful and essential. But I would say that Russian
media education experience can help foreign colleagues as well. There are a lot of ways of exchange of
experience - seminars, conferences, Internet workshops, video conferences. Perhaps, language problems
might occur, but they can be solved. As the most effective I’d suggest making a project, in which
different research schools, pedagogical community, teenagers and parents could take part.
Alexander Sharikov:
I agree that we need collaborative media educational researches both fundamental and applied.

52

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Nikolai Hilko:
We could organize joint festivals of media arts; integrate international media education programs,
set up exchange visits to media centers.
Tatiana Shak:
Besides I’d like to learn if there are practices in integration of media education in music education
in other countries, and which directions they are working in.
Stal Penzin:
Of course the study of the foreign media education experience can play an important role. As for
my own experience, when French exchange students from Rennes University came to Voronezh
Pedagogical University, they chose three courses to study: the Russian language, Russian literature and
History of Cinema Art. I was teaching them the latter course, including for instance the work of
A.Tarkovsky and N.Mikhalkov. This fact proves the popularity of media education in France. Therefore,
we also need to study media education experience of France, Great Britain, Canada, the USA, Germany
and other countries.
Alexander Korochensky:
I’d like to highlight the connection of media pedagogy and media criticism. Media criticism is the
form of operative cognition and evaluation of media practice and media texts, and therefore called upon
to become one of the most important components of media educational activity - as in its journalism field
(mass media criticism in press, based mainly on the direct practical cognition and the assessment of
media practices and media texts; film criticism in press), and in the form of academic criticism of mass
media, implemented through strictly academic approaches and methods. Ways of interaction of media
criticism and media education are various- from use of published articles in classroom to journalistic and
research activities of media educators, as demonstrated by Alexander Fedorov and others.
Oleg Baranov:
Integration of media criticism and media education is necessary. There is need for the mass press
agency, targeted at teachers, university instructors, where media critics together with media educators
would deeply, far and wide analyze the condition of film/video/media process, would determine the
possible approaches to teaching media texts of different types and genres in schools and universities.
Media criticism should be targeted at young audience, be comprehensible and purposeful, has a distinct
educational message. Media critics should understand and accept the standpoint of the teacher.
Nikolai Hilko:
The role of media criticism in my opinion consists in selective, differentiating and evaluating-
reflexive activity concerning any information. It is absolutely necessary in developing of the culture of
thinking. Educational media/film criticism can interact within the system of media education through the
forms of clubs, round table discussions, TV- and Internet conferences.
Alexander Sharikov:
From Greek kritikos is the art of judgment. If we accept this definition, then criticism is the
essential part of media education, one of its aims. What is the attitude of media critics to media
education? I think there is no univocal answer to that, but gradually the media critics’ community begins
to understand that media education, both as a special and as integrated field, is the indispensable element
for the valid functioning of the media sphere itself. Pragmatically, media critics should take an active part
in media education, teach, and set standards and models that media educators could use in their practice.
Valery Monastyrsky:
I’d limit myself with the example of film education. Film criticism is an ally of film education.
Talented film criticism, included into the process of film education promotes its activation, increase of its
problem accentuation, vitality and creativity, and also is one of the means to overcome “didactic” self-
righteousness.
Tatiana Shak:
I’ll try to continue by the example of music criticism, as one of the components of media
education for musicians. Its state is much to be desired, because music criticism and music journalism

53

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

focus their attention mainly on academic genres and composers (with the exception of professional jazz
critics). The following problems thus are left out:
-popular (mass) music culture (it is covered generally by journalists who don’t have music education);
-functioning of music in the structure of a media text (music video, music in ads, music in TV programs,
music in feature films or documentary);
-perception of music in a media text;
-work of composers writing for films;
-use of classical music in media texts, etc.

All of the above can become an object for study of music critics and an important component of
media education for musicians. The problem of training of a music media critic is vital also for the
Conservatory major “Music Studies”. It’s aimed at teaching mainly prospective music critics, but till now
has been focused on academic direction. Perhaps the new qualification, enriched with principles of media
education - “Musical Journalism” can solve this problem.

Valery Gura:
Media criticism is important, to my mind, for professionals, but for broad masses it exercises only
a limited effect because ordinary people including youth rarely read such publications. Although of
course media criticism can help sharpen the aims of media education and raise the effectiveness of
pedagogical technologies.
Stal Penzin:
And I think that media criticism can achieve a lot. It’s very encouraging for example that Guild of
Film Critics of Russia twice awarded prizes for work in media education - in 2001 and 2003 (to
Alexander Fedorov and me). The newspaper of the Union of cinematographers of Russia “SK-News” has
published quite a few of my articles about media education in Voronezh. But the magazine “Film Art”
pays almost no attention to the problems of film and media education… In short, there is huge potential
for fruitful alliance of media criticism and media education, but its realization is very weak so far.
Alexander Fedorov:
I’d like to point out that recently the important step toward the expansion of the interaction of
media criticism and media education has been made. Thanks to the efforts of professor Alexander
Korochensky the Internet site “Media Review” was launched, where the problems of both media criticism
and media education are combined for the first time.
Alexander Korochensky:
I’m sure that in Russia the necessity for the opening of the new university pedagogical major
“media education” (and not only the minor qualification) is imminent. This new major will be the step,
adequate to the modern social-humanities significance of media education. Training within the
framework of minor qualification lets preparing only “incomplete” specialists in the field. Maximum
immersion in theory and methodology of media education can be achieved only through the major. The
present state of media education theory and practice technically gives the opportunity to introduce the
corresponding pedagogical major – under the condition of media education growth as the academic field
and providing the readiness of mass Russian teaching community to accept such specialists.
I expect future graduates majored in media education to be employed in higher education
institutions and schools above all. Today the number of teachers able to teach media education in schools,
colleges and universities is very small compared to the objective social demand for the qualified
specialists of the kind.
Valery Gura:
I think that the launching of the new speciality “Media education” is actual and essential, parallel
with informing the public about the significance of this qualification in the epoch of the information
society.
Oleg Baranov:
And I doubt that the new specialization Media Education will solve the problem… For instance,
where will a media teacher work? In school? Will he get a full-time time job? Which institutes and

54

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

universities can prepare such specialists? I think we should consider integrated training, comprising
specializations of a teacher and of an art critic. These specialists should work in professional development
institutes, city and district teaching resource centers, providing help for schools and institutes. In my
opinion, it is essential to introduce obligatory courses and seminars on media education into the State
Standard of Higher Pedagogical Education. It will give an opportunity to a teacher of any subject to
integrate media education. But one shouldn’t connect media education with only philological or historical
specialization. Today a teacher of each subject should be ready (at least on a basic level) to work on
developing the media culture of a personality.

Tatiana Shak:
Applied to music, I see the necessity of introduction to the State Standard of Education the new
specializations, which are needed under the modern condition of music culture and music business in
Russia. It will allow to solve the problem of employment in spheres of culture - leisure activity, mass
media, news in music (for example, “Music Journalism”, “Music Editing on Radio and Television”,
“Computer Adaptation of Music”, “Teacher of the Electronic Instruments”). One shouldn’t also forget the
teachers of music schools and teachers of music in secondary schools, who also need to be media literate
and teach traditional subjects (Listening to Music, Music Literature, Music) taking into account media
technologies. I don’t exclude that in the nearest future there’s going to emerge the new speciality “Music
Media Educator”.
Stal Penzin:
The university major “Media Education” seems to me very necessary. As for the employment, I’m
sure that this qualification will be demanded - in the first place qualified media teachers could teach in
universities, colleges, schools, various out-of-school institutions. It’s not necessary to think that such
speciality should become widely spread in each university or pedagogical institute. State Institute of
Cinematography, for instance, is the only one in the country to give degrees to 20-30 graduates majoring
in “Film Studies” annually. However no one doubts the right of existence of this speciality.
Natalya Kirillova:
For me the introduction of departments “Cross Cultural (mass) Communications” with main
specializations: “Theory and History of Media Culture” and “Management in Media Sphere” into
universities and pedagogical institutes looks as one of the most promising directions. This qualification
will let the graduates to join the system of media education in both research and practice directions: to
teach “Foundations of Media Culture” in schools and colleges, engage in media criticism and sociology,
work as consultants, experts or analysts in executive and legislative authorities bodies, TV/radio
companies, information agencies, press, etc.
This major will fill media education with new contents and will enable to vary its forms. But most
importantly, it will unite efforts of those, who are connected with problems of media in this form or
another – Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Culture of Russia, Union of
Cineastes, Union of Journalists, and others.
Nikolai Hilko:
Being a consistent proponent of the launching of the new university major “Media Education”, I’ll
focus of the following employment opportunities for qualified media educators:
-media educator in cultural studies (teacher in colleges or universities);
-programmer (teacher of computer design/instructional design);
-director of the center of film/photo/video children’s production (out-of-school centers);
-supervisor of the children’s film club;
-recreation media teacher;
-librarian;
-editor, journalist;
-TV programs director;
-designer (Art schools);
-media teacher-rehabilitator (rehab centers, psycho neurological centers).

55

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Svetlana Gudilina:
As for the development of media education naturally we need to start thinking about the training
of specialists. Schools need qualified media teachers. Many schools would be happy to hire a specialist
for setting up a journalist’s club or school television, but it’s not easy to find a teacher who knows the
specifics of media education.
Since media education is more than a stand alone subject, we need to consider its integrated nature.
Therefore besides the new university major ‘Media Education’, we need to raise the question about the
integration of media education objectives into the courses in Methods of Teaching for all subjects. One
may argue about which school subjects can be loaded with media educational aspects. But the
experiments which are already being conducted and leading to interesting results, will be very useful for
future teachers.
Alexander Sharikov:
I think that today qualified media educators are in great demand, and especially in higher
education. Recently there occurred many new specializations, somehow connected to the sphere of mass
communications. “Advertisement” and “Public Relations” are among of them. The common set of
courses for such specializations includes “Theory of Mass Communications”, “Sociology of Mass
Communications”. Due to the fact that no one trains specialists in these subjects so far (at least I haven’t
heard of it), there’s a lacuna.
Media education could become a specialization within somewhat broader circle of majors,
specifically, in communications. Therefore I suppose that it is appropriate to open departments of
communications, including following specializations:
-communications studies (general theory of communications);
-media education;
-journalism (with minors in press, photography, TV, radio, Internet);
-advertisement;
-public relations;
-management in the sphere of mass communications.
Perhaps it should also include training of specialists in rhetoric that in this context is understood as
the theory and practice of speech communication. Maybe other minors will add to it too, film studies
among other.
All these specializations can have a common basis, and then the employment problem would be easier
solved since students could quite quickly accommodate and get re-education within the range of above
mentioned specializations. Judging by the tendencies in development, soon Russia will experience deficit
of specialists in these fields.

Alexander Fedorov:
The idea of professor Alexander Sharikov to create the Departments of Communications at big
universities seems to me very promising and convincing. Moreover that European and American
universities have long replaced the traditional departments of journalism with such departments,
comprising of course all functions of training future professionals in the sphere of press, radio, television
and Internet. I think another option is to open the departments of “Information Technologies in
Education” at pedagogical institutes. These departments could offer education in following:
-computer sciences;
-information security;
-media education;
-management in educational IT s;
-supervision of leisure activities with media; etc.

These departments would perhaps be suitable in universities of Culture and Arts. Then the set of
specializations could be the following:
-cultural studies;
-media education;

56

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

-arts studies (including theatre and film studies);
-management in sphere of culture, media and education, etc.

Today we have prepared the complete package of documents (draft of the educational standard,
curriculum, syllabus, etc.) for the university/institute’s major “Media Education”, that is currently under
the review at the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia.

Tatiana Shak:
We need propaganda and advertisement of media education among general public and
“authorities” as far as its necessity concerns, and the need for the specialization. The Association for Film
and Media Education should promote the exchange of experience between media educators working in
different fields; hold regular conferences (including via Internet ) on media education problems; set up
workshops of the best teachers; organize contests of students’ creative media works. In general, I’m
optimistic about the future development of media education in Russia, as life itself necessitates it. Our
work shows that students of music institutes are ready to adapt to new forms of learning with media
technologies. But are teachers and institutes ready for that? The application of principles of media
education in teaching is possible only under the condition of breaking down the outdated stereotypes in
the consciousness of the faculty.
Alexander Korochensky:
First we need to “enlighten” the “enlighteners”- i.e. to effectively and widely integrate the pioneer
ideas and concepts of media education into the academic and education environment, in order to turn
media education into the acknowledged and obligatory component of the educational process on different
levels of system of education, and the obligatory element of public-informing activity, targeted at various
age and social groups. The role of Russian Association for Film and Media Education can be the leading
one. It is aimed at becoming the nucleus of the intellectual and executive consolidation of representatives
of different directions and schools in national media education. The first thing to be initiated and
implemented by the Association is the series of national and international conferences.
Valery Monastyrsky:
Main aims are to continue patiently developing the public opinion about the need for media education
as an integral part of the personality’s culture, provision of its information freedom and means of
psychological defense against manipulative impacts of media; educational activity and other measures
aimed at raising the awareness and media culture level of people, together with above mentioned state
and public institutions; exchange of practices between the effective centers of media education, its
generalization and promotion.
Valery Gura:
In my opinion, the main task of Russian Association for Film and Media Education is the
coordination of the efforts of media education activists, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Education and
Science, Russian Academy of Education, Russian Union of Cineastes, aimed at the development of a
modern media literate citizen, able to use media for personal growth and effective work. To do that the
Russian Association for Film and Media Education has to possess sufficient financial resources and
empowerment, for example, to be able to assign age ratings to media production and write
recommendations for possible target audience. Although it is difficult to achieve today.
In the first place media education itself needs to be developed, filled with specific courses, syllabi,
contents.
Oleg Baranov:
The principal task of the Russian Association for Film and Media Education is to succeed in
building the interaction of all organizations involved in education and upbringing of young generations,
to summarize and systematize the experience of media educators, to determine the strategy and tactics of
the development of film and media education, to create teaching manuals.
Stal Penzin:
Here are my suggestions:
a) we need a film/video anthology. As soon as I got the VCR, I immediately started compiling video

57

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

sequences for classes: TV programs about cinema, documentaries about directors/ actors/etc., film
episodes. And now the film center named after V.Shukshin, which I run, has a rich collection of
valuable audiovisual material. Because if we talk about cinema - same as with music or art - we need
illustrations, you can’t do without them. Or imagine a literature teacher, whose students don’t have an
access to a library… However the majority of Russian schools, institutes and even city libraries don’t
have media centers. Maybe the Ministry of Culture could encourage Russian Institute of
Cinematography’s faculty and staff prepare such teaching aids - either on tapes or DVDs.
b) we need to catch the attention of those businessmen who are interested in media education ideas. For
example, there’s a businessman in my native Voronezh funding the video club in a state library, and
another one, who finances the Shukshin film center: provides funds for video purchases, publications.
Another entrepreneur has collected a big set of art house films.

I consider these points as basic condition for promotion of mass media education in this country…
Natalya Kirillova:
One of the main tasks of the Russian Association for Film and Media Education is to enhance the
integration work, including holding conferences and forums, publications, expertise of curricula, research
grants, academic exchanges, etc…
Nikolai Hilko:
One of the most important tasks of the Russian Association for Film and Media Education
(provided the support of Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Education and Science, Russian Academy of
Education, and other interested organizations) are the following:
-promotion of propaganda of screen culture as a form of aesthetical, artistic and creative development;
-activation of efforts to saturate the media education centers with ethnic-cultural content;
-creation of the database of these media texts in order to develop creative resources of folk art;
-development of the audience’s culture, depth of the perception of screen works of art by the audience of
difference ages;
-setting up children-youth festivals of media creativeness.
Perspectives of the development of media education in Russia in the nearest future consist in
overcoming destructive orientations in viewers’ culture and in educating young people about spiritual,
ethnic, ethnic-cultural and aesthetical values through media, enhancing of the patriotic and civic
education in the sphere of screen culture.
The following means are necessary for that:
1) to include media culture in the structure of education standard for all levels of general education;
2) to organize training of media educators of different specializations within the frameworks of the new
specialization “Media Education” and the specializations “Cultural Studies”, “Social-cultural
Performance”, “Social Pedagogy”, “Information Security”, “Library and Bibliography” as well.
3) to organize regular screenings of Russian films with following discussions in educational institutions
and out-of-school leisure centers;
4) to widen the broadcast and raise the prestige of the television channel “Culture”, distinguishing three
directions: Arts, Leisure, Folk Art;
5) to add to the programming of federal and state TV channels educational, entertainment, scientific,
sport, culture and analytical programs for children and adults, and also the best samples of Russian
cinematography (at the expense of some reduction of the share of foreign film production and of course
ceasing broadcast of programs and films loaded with violence, debauch, befogging human ethics.
Leonid Usenko:
By mutual efforts we need to launch the wide integration of curricula and media education courses
for pre-service and in-service teachers (seminars, summer schools, conferences, publications, etc.). The
main aim of media education should become the opposition to “mass culture”. The only TV channel that
tries to do this difficult job is “Culture”.
Svetlana Gudilina:
Certainly the problem should be solved on the level of Ministry of Education of Russia, and

58

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

specialists of the Russian Academy of Education, Association for Film and Media Education, Ministry of
Culture, Union of Cineastes can help in working out foundational documents. Only then it will be
possible to see the results of work of institutes training media educators, and the results of work in
schools that can realize the ideas of media education through these media educators, develop children’s
and teenagers’ knowledge and skills necessary for this challenging and information saturated world.

Alexander Sharikov:
As any association uniting its members according to their professional activity, Russian Association
for Film and Media Education should work in at least the following directions:
-interchange of experience that in particular presupposes: publications (including our journal ‘Media
Education’; Internet site (http://www.edu.of.ru/mediaeducation - Russian and English versions) with such
materials, current news in the field; holding seminars, conferences; festivals of children’s creativeness;
-defense of the field’s interests: interaction with state federal and regional structures - Ministry of
Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Culture and Mass Communications,
Federation Council, State Duma, Administration of the President, administrations and legislative bodies
of the Russian Federation areas, etc.;
-incorporation of media education ideas in public opinion: interaction with press; with other social
organizations (Union of Cineastes, Union of Journalists, etc.); international cooperation with media
education associations.
But perhaps the most important direction of work is the establishment of departments or at least the
media education major. It is critical to start systematical training of specialists and prepare the complete
infrastructure (textbooks, teaching manuals, etc.).
Alexander Fedorov:
The Russian Association for Film and Media Education undoubtedly has a lot of objectives. Most of
them require of course the effective collaboration (and mutual understanding) with Ministries and other
organizations. And most significantly - substantial financing.
I’d like to remind that the Association annually holds media education festival for school children
(run by Gennady Polichko). The members of the Association have an opportunity to learn about their
colleagues’ experience and to share their own through the journal ‘Media Education’ and site of
Association located at the federal portal of Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation
(http://www.edu.of.ru/mediaeducation). I invite everyone who’s interested to contribute their articles.
Media educational topics (many of which are full-text copies) - monographs, textbooks, articles,
curricula - may be read at the following sites
http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8, http://www.mediagram.ru,
http://www.mediaeducation.ru , and others.
Alexander Korochensky:
The development of media education till recently was implemented with elaborating of its
theoretical-conceptual foundations and methods of teaching questions on the agenda. For many years the
scientific-conceptual research in the field has been realized by the representatives of various academic
fields and scholarly-pedagogical schools, working discretely. In my opinion, further field narrowing of
scientific approaches and concepts of media education essence and aims, inherent trait of some projects,
can lead to failures. One cannot work with smaller problems while problems of general theory, concept-
related remain unsolved. Field limitation is the main, although quite solvable problem of the current stage
of Russian media education; it’s it “infant illness”.
Today with a considerable scientific material available, we need the quality breakthrough. There
comes the stage of conceptual consolidation of knowledge about media education, complex scientific
criticism and systematizing of research, done by representatives of various directions and approaches in
theory and methods of media education and film education, media education on the material of press, TV,
video, advertisement, Internet, representatives of journalism schools and communication studies. Success
of such consolidation is the prerequisite of further development of Russian media education required to
infuse the achievements of the past years - both Russian and foreign.

59

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Series of cross discipline, cross field scientific forums, uniting representatives of all main directions
in media education and promoting the exchange of theoretical and practical experience, interaction of
different approaches, could contribute to such consolidation. The vital necessity for large-scale academic
activities of the kind is obvious today - otherwise media education efforts will be stuck in 1st or 2nd gear.
We need to brainstorm the key problems of media education through the discussion process of the leading
representatives of different directions in media education. Of course we cannot hope that it will lead to
theoretical-conceptual consensus of opinion among media educators. However better understanding and
convergence of standpoints (for example, through improving, unification of key concepts of media
education) can be achieved.

Oleg Baranov:
To talk about the perspectives of the development of media education in Russia means to talk about
the problem of training qualified media teachers, able to determine the direction of own work. We need to
clearly resolve aims and objectives of this training, provide all the necessary facilities. It needs to be done
not on the enthusiasts’ level, but on the State level.
Natalya Kirillova:
Perspectives of the media education development in Russia are directly connected to the process of
socialization of the personality in the XXI century, problems of developing the foundations of the civic
society that is especially vital and significant.
Alexander Fedorov:
So, media education today maybe divided into the following directions: 1) media education of
future professionals in media sphere-journalists (press, radio, TV, Internet), cinematographers, editors,
producers, etc.; 2) media education of pre-service teachers in universities, pedagogical institutes, training
for in-service teachers at professional development courses; 3) media education as part of the general
education of school pupils and students in schools, colleges, institutes (that in its turn can be integrated
with traditional subjects or autonomous (clubs, optional subjects); 4) media education in leisure centers
(Palaces of Culture, out-of-school centers, children clubs); 5) distance media education of children and
adults through television, radio, Internet (media criticism plays a very important role here); 6)
self/independent/continuous media education (theoretically lifelong).
Media education is closely connected not only to pedagogics and art education, but with such
academic fields as Arts studies (including film studies, literature, and theatre studies), cultural studies,
history (history of world art culture), psychology (art psychology, creativity) and others. Responding to
the needs of modern pedagogy in development of a personality, media education broadens the spectrum
of methods and forms of classes. And comprehensive study of press, cinema, television, video, Internet,
virtual computer world (synthesizing traits of almost all traditional mass media) helps to correct for
example such significant drawbacks of traditional aesthetical education as the isolated, one-sided study of
literature, music or art, separate study of the form (so-called “imagery”) and contents while analyzing a
specific work.
Media education involves heuristic methods of teaching based on problem solving, role-plays and
other productive forms of teaching, developing the individuality of a student, his/her independence of
thinking, stimulating creative abilities through the direct involvement in creative activities, perception,
interpretation and analysis of the structure of a media text, learning about media culture. Media education
combines lectures and practical classes to involve students in the process of media text production,
merges the audience into the inner laboratory of main media occupations, which is possible both at the
autonomous option and during the process of integration into traditional subjects.
I think that media education should be and partially is of high priority in Russia today, as shown by
our discussion…

60

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Media Education around the World: Brief History

The Genesis (1920s-1940s)

The first leader of European media education movement was no doubt, the motherland of the film
art - France. In the early 1920s in Paris the cinema club movement emerged, with the distinct media
education aims. As early as in 1922 the first national conference of the regional departments of film
education (Offices regionaux du cinema educateur) was held in France. At one of the congresses on
education it was suggested to prepare the cinema educators in universities (Martineau, 1988: 28). At the
same time a lot of educational institutions were actively promoting the movement of young journalists.
Thanks to C.Freinet’s good graces school, lyceum and university newspapers were published (Freinet,
1927).

In 1936 the French League of Education initiated the creation of the movement for “Cinema and
Youth” (Cine-Jeunes), which united children, participating in film discussions, developing their critical
thinking and artistic taste, creative skills (Chevallier, 1980, p. 9).

Nazi occupation interrupted the intensive development of media education in France; however,
after 1945 it got another impulse. The Federation of cinema clubs of France was formed (Federation
francaise des cine-clubs). On the whole, the “practical”, “aesthetical” and “protectionist” theories of
media education dominated in France at that time.

The history of media education in Great Britain is also a few decades old. Similar to many other
countries, this movement began from film education, and then embraced a wider spectrum (press, radio,
television, video, advertisement, Internet).

There are several organizations in the UK that deal with various problems of media education.
The British Film Institute (BFI), founded by the government in 1933 stands out among them. The
educational department has conducted conferences and seminars, workshops for teachers, accomplished
amplitudinous research, published books, textbooks, and teaching manuals for many years.
In the 1930s British media education (although this term was not used at the time, here it denotes
integration of mass media in education) was developing mainly according the inoculative paradigm,
aimed at opposing harmful media influences.

The history of Russian Media Education goes back to the 1920s. The first attempts to instruct in
media education (on the press and film materials, with the vigorous emphasis on the communist ideology)
appeared in the 1920s but were stopped by Stalin’s repressions. The end of the 1950s - the beginning of
the 1960s was the time of the revival of media education in secondary schools, universities, after-school
children centers (Moscow, Petersburg, Voronezh, Samara, Kurgan, Tver, Rostov, Taganrog, Novosibirsk,
Ekaterinburg, etc.), the revival of media education seminars and conferences for the teachers.

Dominance of the “aesthetic concept” in the 1950s-1960s

France maintained its status of a leader in the world media education process of that period. Since
1952 the courses of audiovisual education for teachers have been taught. Due to the rapid development of
radio and television the French Union of the Regional Film Education Departments (Union francaise des
offices du cinema educateur laique – U.F.O.C.E.L.) was renamed into the French Union of Audiovisual
Education in 1953 (Union francaise des oeuvre laiques d’education par image et par le son –
U.F.O.I.E.I.S.). In 1966 the Association “Press-Information-Youth” (Association Press – Information –
Jeunesse) was founded.

In 1963 the ideas of aesthetical theory of media education were reflected in the documents of the
Ministry of Education of France. Teachers were encouraged (including the money reward) to educate
their students in cinema literacy (study of the history, language, genres of the film art, technology of the
film shooting, appreciation of the aesthetical quality of a film). One of the founders of media education –
C.Freinet joined the discussion and emphasized that cinema and photography are not only the

61

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

entertainment and teaching aid, not only the art, but the new form of thinking and self-expression
(Freinet, 1963, p.12). He believed that schoolchildren must be taught the language of audiovisual media
(Freinet, 1963, p.4) the similar way they are practically taught basics of art. According to him, a person
who himself can draw can appreciate the work of art of a painter better than a person who can’t paint
(Freinet, 1963, p.13).

Since the beginning of the 1960s the school and university audiovisual education (courses on film
education were taught in 23 universities) was developing under the influence of the breakthrough of
European “author’s cinema”, especially the French “new wave” (nouvelle vague). In the cineclubs of the
1960s left-wing radical ideas enjoyed popularity, that led to the numerous conflicts with the authorities.

And though courses on film art and journalism were taught in almost all French universities,
media education in schools has been optional for a long time. One of the first attempts to introduce media
studies into the school curriculum was undertaken in France in the middle of the 1960s.

In 1950 in Britain the concept of “screen education” was first formed, when school teachers
founded the Society for Education in Film and Television (SEFT). The term “screen education” came into
sight internationally in the beginning of the 1960s. Before that the term “film education” was wider
spread, but with the development of television many started to believe that these two screen media should
be united for the educational purposes (Moore, 1969, p.10). Under the influence of the theory of “author’s
cinematography”, British media education of that time was connected with the study of media as popular
culture through its best examples (popular arts paradigm). At the same time ideas of M.McLuhan had a
certain impact on the development of media education in Britain. And though in 1964 only a dozen out of
235 colleges of education in England and Wales offered special courses on screen arts (Marcussen, 1964,
p.73), media culture in this or that form was being studied in the majority of British universities.

The main problem was to find time in the school curriculum. Screen education was successfully
taught autonomously in several English schools. But still British media educators considered that it
would make more sense to integrate screen education into the language arts (Higgins, 1964, p.51).

The distinct orientation of the British educators of the 1960s onto the aesthetical theory of media
education might be traced in the curriculum, developed by A.Hodgkinson, with the following objectives:
to increase the understanding and pleasure of school pupils they get from television and cinema; to
promote learning about the human society and recognition of individual uniqueness; to provide the self
defense from commercial and other exploitation; to encourage the self expression not only through the
traditional forms (speech, writing, drawing, etc.) but through the language of the screen (making films)
(Hodgkinson, 1964, p.26).

Mass media education on the American continent was in its rudimentary stage until the 1950s.
Canada is the home country of the famous media theorist - Marshall McLuhan. And it was he who
developed the first in the country special course on media culture in the 1950s. The history of Canadian
media education commenced with the film studies courses. Film education became a common
phenomenon in Canadian secondary schools (Andersen, Duncan and Pungente, 1999, p.140). This
movement was called Screen Education. In 1968 the first organization united Canadian media educators –
Canadian Association for Screen Education: CASE, a year later it held the first big national conference in
Toronto. Like their British colleagues, Canadian media educators of that period relied mainly upon the
aesthetic (discriminatory) theory of media education (Moore, 1969, p.9; Stewart and Nuttall, 1969, p. 5).

Still in 1911 in the USA, when the National Council of Teachers of English was established,
teachers discussed the topic of the educational value of films (Costanzo, 1992, p. 73). Thus, media
education in the USA has to some extent existed in the form of separate directions since the 1920s (film
education, media education on the material of press and radio). For instance, professor E.Dale of Ohio
University promoted media education through press in the late 1930s. However such training was offered
essentially at the selected departments (journalism, film) of few universities and was not widely spread.
Since 1958 the program Newspaper in Classroom was introduced in secondary schools, which was
sponsored by press through the American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA). 95000 teachers
from 34000 schools joined it, involving more than 5 million students (Sim, 1977, p.75).

62

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

While by the end of the 1940s only 5 American universities offered film electives, at the
beginning of 1950s this number doubled. And by the mid 1960s courses on radio and television were
taught in 200 colleges, and the number of such courses exceeded two thousands (Marcussen, 1964, p.74).

In the 1960s media education in the USA like in many other countries (France, Canada, the UK)
was centered around film education. Specifically practical, “hands-on” film education became popular,
that presupposed that schoolchildren and students guided and supervised by a teacher made short
documentaries and future films on the 8mm film. This activity became possible due to the fact that
comparatively inexpensive, compact amateur film cameras, corresponding film, and chemicals for its
developing came on the market, followed by the rapid growth of the net of laboratories (including the
school and university labs) for developing and printing films. At that time the first Association for Screen
Education was organized. In 1969 Utah and Ohio universities supported the development of the series of
materials for ‘critical viewing’ for integration in Oregon, Syracuse, NY, Nevada and Florida (Tyner,
1999). Thus, film education became the first step for modern media education.

However in most cases screen education focused on media technology (e.g., students acquired
skills to use video equipment) and not media culture. That is, they shot film sequences with the help of
audiovisual devices, or media materials served in the classroom as an illustration for group discussions on
burning social issues (for example, Vietnam war, civil rights movement, etc.). Still, even back then a lot
of teachers dedicated their classes to the studies of the film language, aesthetics of a film.

Certainly, school media education was not obligatory in the USA. But teachers-enthusiasts tried
to broaden the horizons of media preferences of their students, lead them out of the “vicious circle” of
pop culture, and get them interested in art house production. They believed that thus the artistic
perception of the audience might develop up to the degree of an adequate understanding of O.Wells’ and
S.Kubrick’s media texts. This aesthetical approach, media as popular art in its localized choice of media
spectrum had something in common with the so-called inoculative approach and civil defense approach,
that had appeared in the 1930s, 1940s and was criticized by many researchers (L.Masterman, C.Worsnop
and others).

The truth is, from the gamut of media, media educators were choosing exclusively art media texts
hoping to teach the audience to appreciate “art” and disapprove “trash”. ‘Inoculative’ approach
concentrated on the adverse influence of media texts, containing violence scenes and representation of
other negative phenomena in society. Teachers wanted to protect their students from media’s harmful
impact on their moral values and behaviour.

The 1960s became ‘the Golden Age’ for the aesthetic approach to media education in the USA,
however principally in the higher education domain. Many universities added film studies into their
curricula, with contents based on the visual language, film history and works of outstanding directors.
Such courses were as a rule analogues to the literature courses. But it was difficult to define the
difference between a ‘good’ and a ‘bad’ film due to the ambiguity of concept of ‘good aesthetic
perception and taste’ and a lack of criteria rubrics for the artistic value of a media text. Moreover,
approaches of artistic media education, in fact, left out the information sphere of media – press, radio and
TV-news. Advocates of the ‘pure’ art media education dispensed with such aspects as the production,
distribution, regulation and consumption of media texts. But we should bear in mind, that in practice, a
media educator may have integrated several directions of media education (for example, inoculative,
ethics and art, - to develop the aesthetic perception and simultaneously discuss the issues of media
education texts production and audience).

The first Russian Council for Film Education in School and Universities was created as the
subdivision of the Russian Union of Filmmakers (Moscow) in 1967. As in most European countries and
the USA, Russian media education of the 1960s was developing with the clear dominance of the
aesthetical theory (although the Communist authorities undoubtedly tried to impose the ideological
approach on them). The analysis of the artistic quality of films came up to the foreground of media
classes at schools and universities. The study of media culture was to a large extent integrated with
Literature courses.

63

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

From Press and Film – to Media (1970s – 1980s)

The development of media and ICT education at all its stages of existence was significantly
promoted by UNESCO. In the mid 1970s UNESCO proclaimed not only its support of media and ICT
education, but included media education in its list of priority directions for the next decades. The
powerful theoretical impact on media education all over the world was executed by the studies of
H.Lasswel and M.McLuhan. It was M.McLuhan who among the first supported the argument for
importance of media literacy in the ‘global village’ (McLuhan, 1967, p.31-36), into which according to
him, our planet would turn after the unbound distribution and mass consumption of a wide spectrum of
media texts in all parts of the world.

In 1972 media education aspects were included into the program documents of the Ministry of
Education in France. In 1975 the Institute of Training for Film Culture Development (L’Institute de
formation aux activites de la culture cinematographique – IFACC) was established. It revived the process
of media education in universities, now to a great extent, semiotics oriented. In 1976 media education
was officially part of the national curriculum of secondary schools. Schools were recommended to spend
up to 10% of the time on realization of this objective. In the Ministry’s document of 1978 one can trace
the synthesis of the aesthetic and practical concepts of media education (Chevallier, 1980, p.14).

Since 1979 media education (education aux medias) in France has been maintained by several
French Ministries. For instance, until 1983 the Ministries of Education, Entertainment and Sports carried
out the project ‘An Active Young TV-viewer’ (Le Telespectateur actif). It affected masses of population
– parents, teachers, youth clubs supervisors, etc. At the same time, researchers on the television impact on
adolescent audience were conducted. The organization that this project gave birth to was called APTE
(Audiovisuell pour tous dans l’education – Audiovisual Media in Education for All).

An exemplary project in media education in France is the Week of Press in School that has been
conducted annually since 1976. Significantly, the term ‘press’ if not limited to print media only, but
includes also radio and TV (particularly, regional TV networks). The Week of Press is aimed at the
cooperative work of students and professional journalists. As a rule, a method of ‘learning by doing’ is
used, when students themselves must inquire into the ways media function (e.g. through the activities
imitating the process of the creation of media texts of different genres and types). About 7000 French
schools usually participate in the event.

In 1982 the famous French media educator and researcher J.Gonnet made a suggestion to the
Ministry of Education of France to create the national media education centre, which could assist teachers
of various educational institutions to integrate effectively mass media into the process of education.
Together with P.Vandevoorde he distinguished the following aims of the center:
- to develop critical thinking by comparison of different sources of information and to contribute to
educating more active and responsible citizens;
- to develop tolerance, ability to listen to the arguments of each other, understanding of the pluralism of
ideas, their relativity;
- to integrate dynamic pedagogic innovations at educational institutions of all levels;
- to overcome the isolation of school from media, i.e. to establish tight connections with life realities;
- to take advantage of the specific forms of print and audiovisual culture in our society (CLEMI, 1996,
p.12).

J.Gonnet’s plan was not only approved, but also financially supported by the French Ministry of
Education - in April, 1983 in Paris the Center of Contact Between Education and Media (Centre de liason
de l’insegnement et des moyens d’information – CLEMI) was open. Professor J.Gonnet was appointed its
director. CLEMI has productively worked for more then 2 decades not only in Paris but almost in all
French provinces and French-speaking overseas territories as well. Since the time of its establishment
CLEMI has promoted the integration of media in teaching and learning, conducted regular courses for
teachers, collected the archive of resources on media culture and media and ICT education.

64

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

In the 1970s - 1980s media education in the UK grew with the emergence of new film education
courses for secondary schools and later media courses that were included into the list of examinations for
16-18-years-old pupils. Due to the development of semiotic theories in the 1970s media education headed
towards the structuralist interpretation of media texts as sign systems (semiotic/representation paradigm).
The publications ‘Screen’ (and later ‘Screen Education’) addressed the ‘ideological’ theory of media
education and reflected debates of specialists in higher education on media integration.

The opportunity to use video equipment and the growing impact of television highlighted the
work of the TV-materials in British model of media education. However up until the 1980s it was carried
out in those schools only where there were genuinely engaged teachers-enthusiasts, willing that their
pupils develop competence in mass media.

Further changes initiated by the BFI (British film Institute) happened in 1988-1989, when media
education for the first time in history became a component of the National curriculum in England and
Wales. Media studies were to be handled in the English Language subject (mainly at the age of 11-16),
though could be seen as cross-curricula too (within Foreign language, history, Geography, Art, Sciences,
and other subjects).

C.Bazalgette – the coordinator of media education work in BFI and one of the leading architects
of media education policy of the UK during the last 20 years – thought that media education should be
aimed at educating more active, critical, literate, demanding media consumers, who could contribute to
the development of a wider range of media production (Bazalgette, 1989). Besides, the integrated
approach was recognized as the most effective way of media education development.

Across the ocean at that time media education was suffering privation. In the 1970s media
educators in Canada were deprived of the state sponsorship and support. Despite that in April, 1978 the
Association for Media Literacy (AML) was formed in Toronto, headed by Barry Duncan. By the way,
today this organization numbers more than a thousand members.

However, since the 1980s, the situation has drastically changed. In 1986 owing to the mutual
effort of the Association for Media Literacy and Ministry of Education of Ontario province, the
fundamental text book on media education ‘Media Literacy Resource Guide’ was published and soon
translated into French, Spanish, Italian and Japanese. AML organized workshops for teachers, held
conferences on a regular basis. Since 1987 media education has become an integral part of the secondary
education in Ontario province, where one third of the 30-million population of Canada lives.

By the 1970s television surpassed cinema in the degree of influence on the audience. During these
years the number of TV channels in the U.S. cities exceeded several dozens. In this connection the status
of advertisement grew, commercials had a distinct impact on the market demand. American educators
could not ignore these changes. In the 1970s film education was gradually transformed into media
education (i.e. education about all existing mass media of the time; press, TV, cinema, radio.). By the
middle of the 1970s nearly 35 per cent to 40 per cent of all secondary schools offered their students units
or courses described as Media or Mass Communication (Sim, 1977, p.86), substantially, television-
oriented. In the 1970s the movement for ‘critical viewing’ emerged in the USA, that combined political
and research reasoning. The stimulus was a complex of social and cultural factors, connected with the
more graphic, as, for example, in the 1950s – ‘60s, representation of violence on the American screens
(Tyner, 1998).

During the 1980s media education in the USA continued to widen the sphere of its influence. One
after another, pedagogic and research associations were set up in various states, with an agenda to
integrate some aspects of media education and media culture in schools and universities. In the majority
of universities media courses became a common phenomenon in the 1980s. However, media education
did not gain the status of an academic compulsory subject in primary and secondary school. Certainly, the
USA is a country embracing huge territories and populations, compared to Norway or Finland for
instance. Still, the American researcher R.Kubey suggests that not only geographic and demographic
factors hindered the development of media education (Kubey, 1998, p.59). A certain obstacle in the way
of consolidation of media educators’ efforts was the American system of education on the whole, where

65

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

each of the 50 states has its own policy in education and every educational institution – its own
curriculum and programs. Moreover, unlike other English-speaking countries (for example, Canada or the
UK), the leading media education communities in the USA are located outside the system of academic
education. Besides, the pace of the media education development in the USA was slowed down by the
relative cultural isolation of Americans from the rest of the world. It is known that Americans
traditionally prefer watching, listening to or reading American media.

During the time when the intensive rethinking of media education approaches was on the upgrade
in the Western hemisphere, in Russia of the 1970s–1980s media education was still developing within
the aesthetic concept. Among the important achievements of these years one can recall the first official
programs of film education, published by Ministry of Education, increasing interest of Ph.D. candidates
to media education, experimental theoretic and practical work on media education by O.Baranov (Tver),
S.Penzin (Voronezh), G.Polichko, U.Rabinovich (Kurgan), Y.Usov (Moscow) and others.

Search for the New Landmarks (the 1990s – early 2000s)

Along with Britain, France still remains one of the most active European countries to develop the
media education. In France, the cradle of the cinema, the film education is still standing its ground.
However a film is studied among other cultural and language means of expression. The theory and
practice of audiovisual education (film education, in the first place) in France was first systematized and
analyzed by the group of researchers headed by M.Martineau and published in the late 1980s and early
1990s (Martineau, 1998; 1991). A little later, UNESCO, CLEMI (Bazalgette, Bevort, and Savino, 1992)
and the European Council (Masterman and Mariet, 1994) published several fundamental researches, this
time dedicated to media education on the whole. The considerable part of these works was devoted to the
analysis of the French experience in the field.

CLEMI works nowadays not only with teachers, students and pupils, but also with the instructors
in clubs, journalists, and librarians. CLEMI considers the work with information as a priority, due to its
understanding of media education as primarily civic education. The CLEMI staff believes that media and
ICT education can be integrated with any school subject.

In 1995, already at an international level, a CLEMI team launched the program ‘FAX’. The
pupils issued school-newspapers that were then sent by fax to partner schools in different countries. Now
this program takes advantage of the Internet technology logically, because recently CLEMI has paid
much attention to the educational potential of the World Wide Web (Bevort and Breda, 2001).
Particularly, in the early 2000 the program ‘Educanet’ was developed, with the mission to develop the
critical, autonomous thinking related to Internet information; the responsibility and safety of students.

As it has already been mentioned, media education in France is by and large integrated into the
required school subjects (for example, French, History, Geography), though there are optional courses on
media culture as well. Autonomous courses on film, television journalism and media culture are offered
in numerous specialized lyceums and universities. In higher education institutions of Paris, Lyle,
Strasbourg and some other cities the special media studies courses are taught for pre-service teachers.
Still, J.Gonnet reasonably notes that ‘the development of the single approach to media education is
nothing but illusion’ (Gonnet, 2001, p. 9).

Since the late 1990s a new program of the ICT integration has begun in France. According to it,
for instance, each class should have an access to Internet and its own e-mail address. The project is
sponsored by regional administrations and the Ministry of Education. New ICT promotes the connection
between the smaller schools in remote rural areas, so that they can exchange information and research
results, communicate and use computers in teaching and learning. Teachers have access to the database
CNDP (Centre National de Recherche Pedagogique) and download necessary materials from there.

The key concept of media education in France is the word combination l’education critique aux
medias (or le jugement critique) – critical thinking development. Evidently, one can draw a clear parallel
with the concept of the critical thinking by the British L.Masterman. The view is that not only should

66

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

students critically perceive and evaluate media texts, but also realize what kind of impact they exercise in
surrounding reality (media as instruments of self expression of a personality, as means for the cultural
development, etc.), the way media texts influence the audiences, etc. (Bazalgette, Bevort, and Savino,
1992; Bevort et all, 1999; Gonnet, 2001).

Thus, the distinguishing feature of media education in France is the emphasis on the education of
a conscious, responsible citizen of a democratic society, while, for example, the Russian media education,
having taken up its stand upon the rich traditions of literature-centered education, still remains
aesthetically orientated.

The 1990s and early 2000s became quite productive years for the media and ICT education
progress in the UK too (C.Bazalgette, D.Buckinham, A.Hart, S.Livingstone, L.Masterman and others
leading media educators and researchers). In 1996 the College of Education of the University
Southampton opened Media Education Center led by professor A.Hart. This center initiated large scale
research, both national and international. The main projects of the centre (and before that – the research
team of A. Hart) in the 1990s were the research of media and ICT education in the English curriculum
and international outlooks of media education. The results were published in books and academic
magazines (Hart, 1988; 1991; 1998), were reported at conferences and seminars to the international
media education community.

At the turn of the century A.Hart launched another major research called ‘Euromediaproject’
aimed at the analysis of the current state of media education in European countries. Sadly, the tragic
death of A. Hart in 2002 interrupted the course of the project. The conclusions of this project were drawn
by the research team guided by his Swiss colleaugue, Professor of Zurich University D.Suss (Hart and
Suss, 2002).

In 1998 under the patronage of the government Department of Culture the BFI created Film
Education Working Group that engaged in research activity of media/film education problems. BFI
closely collaborates with another influential organization – Film education that also develops programs
for film and TV curricular, and teachers’ manuals.

However, unlike Canada and Australia, the study of media culture within integrated classes is not
so spread in British schools (for instance, media education may occupy only 1-2 weeks a year, and more
advanced study of media culture takes place in only 8 per cent of schools).

A.Hart critically estimated the UK situation in the field of media education. His findings related to
the effectiveness of media education, integrated in English, are based on the practical activities of the
Centre in 1998-1999, and include the following statements: teachers of English tend to be the followers
of the discriminatory, protectionist paradigm of media education; topics of majority of media related
lessons exclude political sphere; the dialogue form of work is rather poor, there’s a scarcity of practical
application of the experience of pupils, lack of connection with their previous knowledge.

These conclusions affirm that the problem of the quality of media education is on the agenda in
the UK. But the other hand, the criticism from a different perspective – aesthetic theory may be possible
here too. For example, A.Breitman argues that “accentuating the social and communicative functions of
the screen media to the detriment of the aesthetic one, the British model of media education is losing one
of the most effective means of the aesthetic and artistic development of the students” (Breitman, 1999,
p.17). This tendency that takes place in the UK can be explained by the fact that the aesthetic theory of
media education is considered to some extent to be ‘obsolete’ and it’s ceded to the cultural studies theory.

Recently quite a few books, collections of articles textbooks and other publication have been
published in Great Britain, and translated into foreign languages. And though there is no unity of opinion
in British media education (the vivid example is the debate between L.Masterman and C.Bazalgette on
the theory and technology approaches), it remains one of the most influential not only in Europe, but in
the world scale too.

Schools in Germany began their media education practice with its integration into the required
curriculum. Media education was included into Arts, Geography, and Social Sciences. In the opinion of
many modern German teachers, the study of media culture should promote the development of the civic

67

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

self consciousness of pupils, their critical thinking.
Media culture is taught in the majority of German universities. Besides there are several research

institutes, such as the National Institute of Film in Science (FWU). It publishes literature and teaching
aids for schools (videos, leaflets, brochures, etc.). Another research centre on media is situated in
Muenchen. Significant locations on the media education map of Germany are Kassel University with the
media pedagogy centre headed by Prof. Dr. B.Bachmair, Mainz University Media Education and
Competence Center by Prof. Dr. Stefan Aufenanger and Humboldt University in Berlin with media
education projects by Prof. Dr. Sigrid Bloemeke and her colleaugues.

On the whole, media education (Mediaenpaedagogik) in Germany is understood as a wide range
of various media related classes.
Within the broader media education field there are several directions:
- media training, and upbringing: defines the aims and pedagogic means necessary for this achievement;
- media didactics: defines which media can or should be used for the achievement of pedagogic aim;
- media research: embraces all scientific activity to find or/and prove aims, means, evidence, hypothesis
related to media and systematizes them (Tulodziecki, 1989, p.21).

The synthesis of the church and media pedagogy is quite typical for modern Germany; church has
its own radio, newspapers, books, films, TV programs production. Understandably, there are quite a few
proponents of the inoculatory or protectionist theory of media education among the German media
educators working for the church. That is why activists of the church centres consider the means of media
influence and strive for participation in the pedagogic process, realizing that media today is an
inalienable part of the everyday lives of people, their education, work and recreation. Thus, taking
advantage of media, one can efficiently influence the perception and the way of thinking of audiences.

Unfortunately, the impact of German media and ICT education is actually limited to the few
German-speaking countries. As a rule the theoretical and methodological works of German media
educators are known abroad among the small specialists’ circle.
Despite all the achievements of European media education, for the last 10-15 years Canada holds the
leadership in the field (N.Andersen, B.Duncan, C.Worsnop, J.Pungente, L.Rother, etc.). At least, media
culture here is an integral component of school curricula of the English language. Media and ICT course
are offered in almost all Canadian universities. And nearly each Canadian province has its own
association of media education activists that conducts conferences, publishes periodicals and other
materials. French speaking Canadians also do not fall behind in the movement of media education.

In 1991 Vancouver hosted the opening of the CAME: Canadian Association for Media Education.
In 1994 this association organized summer courses for teachers and began publications of the teaching
recommendations and programs. Finally, the strong chain of efforts led to victory – in September 1999
the study of media culture became obligatory for pupils of all Canadian secondary schools, grades 1-12.
Of course, Canadian provinces have certain peculiarities in educational practice. But the coordination of
media educators from different regions is implemented by the CAMEO (Canadian Association of Media
Education Organizations) founded in 1992.

Today one can state that media education in Canada is on the upgrade and holds the leading
position in the world.

Along with Canada and UK, Australia is one of the most advanced countries in media education
field. Media studies are provided in the school curricula of all Australian states. Media educators in
Australia are united in a professional association ATOM (Australian Teachers of Media), issuing the
quarterly magazine METRO. ATOM holds regular conferences, publishes books, audiovisual aids, etc.

Every Australian child has to attend school until the age of 15. 70 per cent of students continue
their education until 17 (McMahon, and Quin, 1999, p. 191). Media education is taught essentially in
senior classes, although the process starts in elementary school. In high school the specific course Media
Studies is taught but at the same time media education is integrated with subject like ‘The English
Language’, ‘Arts’, Technology’, etc.

The majority of Australian teachers believe that media literacy is necessary for teaching and

68

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

learning, because media education is the means of culture dissemination and a source of new knowledge
(Greenaway, 1997, p.187). Media preferences of the particular audience, appreciation of media texts
should be considered (McMahon and Quin, 1997, p.317). There are also the proponents of media as
popular art approach in Australia (Greenaway, 1997, p.188). However many media and ICT education
activists in Australia interpret it in a broader than merely art context. Due to the development of the
Internet the work of Australian media educators is spread overseas and is acknowledged internationally.

One cannot deny the fact that the USA has become a leading country in media culture. American
press, radio, and especially cinema, TV and Internet dominate the world’s information field. The impact
of American mass media on the formation of the personalities of adolescents from different culture is
hard to overestimate.

Though media education in the USA initially was not developing so intensely as in Europe, by
the beginning of the XXI century we can see a mature system of American media pedagogy, which
communicates with other countries through the web sites, publications, conferences. There are several
major associations for media education in the USA.

By the early 1990s more than a thousand of American universities have offered over 9000 courses
on film and television (Costanzo, 1992, p.73). In the mid 1990s the growth of the prestige of media
education resulted in the integration of media education into the educational standards of the 12 states
(Kubey and Baker, 2000, p.9). However 10 year later – by 2004 the number of states that officially
recognized media literacy as part of the curricula, raised to 50.

As for media education in American universities – it has traditionally developed more lively.
Nearly all American universities and colleges beginning from the 1960s have one way or another
allocated media courses (at journalism departments, Film, Art, Cultural Studies, etc.).

In 46 states media education is woven with the English language or Arts. 30 states integrate media
education in Social Science, History, civics, Ecology, Health. Professional associations try to include
media education into the state standards (although optional but considered as desirable examples) because
the acceptance of the state education standards would facilitate the dissemination of successful media
education practices (Kubey, 1998; Tyner, 2000).

In the 1990s media education in the USA was used as a strategy for a television reform,
propaganda of the health values, and as means of resistance against destructive stereotypes in
multicultural society – in other words, as an extended inoculatory model, that strives to protect the
audience from harmful media effects.

American media and ICT educators began to collaborate more closely with their foreign
colleagues in the 1990s, particularly from other English-speaking countries. But in order to apply the
borrowed experience successfully, Canadian or British models of media education must be certainly
adapted to cultural, social, historic and economic conditions lying at the basis of the American education.

Perestroika, initiated by M.Gorbachev has changed the practice of media education in Russia
dramatically. Media education encountered numerous difficulties during the whole history of its existence
(ideological, financial, technical, etc.). In the 1920s - 1980s the political and censorship control, and the
poor technical equipment of schools and higher educational institutions hindered the media education
movement. Finally in the 1990s Russian media teachers were granted the freedom and independence for
making programs and their practical introduction. But the raised costs increased technical problems of
introducing media and ICT education. Many Russian schools and colleges in the 1990s didn’t have
enough money for paying salary to teachers, to say nothing of the audiovisual equipment. Moreover, at
the time few universities were preparing future teachers for media and ICT education of pupils.

And still Russian media education was evolving. In May 1991 the first Russian Cinema Lyceum
was opened (and it existed until 1999). International conferences on media education were held in
Tashkent (1990), in Moscow region – Valuevo (1992), in Moscow (1992, 1995), Taganrog (2001). The
total number of media teachers – members of the Association for Film and Media Education – reached
300. Unfortunately, “the epoch of reform” of the 1990s affected media and ICT education movement not
to its advantage. The state support given to the Society of Film Friends (SFF) in the late 1980s ran out by

69

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

the early 1992. The private firm “VIKING” (Video and Film Literacy), organized by the Head of the
Association for Film and Media Education G.Polichko, sponsored a lot of successful projects, such as the
Russian-British seminars on media education and conferences, mentioned above. But in late 1990s the
firm went bankrupt and closed. However in the 1990s the summer festivals of film & media education for
children took place in some Russian cities with workshops on media and ICT. The screen arts and media
education laboratories at the Russian Academy of Education continue their projects. The ICT Education
development is supported by Russian Federation for Internet Education. Books and teaching materials,
media education curricula are published (A.Fedorov, S.Penzin, N.Hilko, A.Sharikov, A.Spichkin, and
others), etc.

The important events in media education development in Russia are the registration of the new
specialization (since 2002) for the pedagogical universities – ‘Media Education’ (N 03.13.30), and the
launch of a new academic journal ‘Media Education’ (since January 2005). Additionally, the Internet
sites of Russian Association for Film and Media Education
http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8 (English and Russian versions),
and http://www.mediagram.ru were created.

Taking into account the fact that UNESCO defines media education as the priority field of the
cultural educational development in the XXI century, media literacy has good prospects in Russia. We
can also see the fast progress of media education in other Eastern European countries. For example,
Hungary, Slovakia and Czech Republic (since the beginning of the XXI century) became the first
European country to introduce obligatory media education courses in secondary schools.

Summing up, at the beginning of the XXI century media education in the leading world countries
has reached the mass scale, supported by the serious theoretical and methodological research. However
media education is still not equally spread in all of the European, African and Asian countries.

References

Andersen, N., Duncan B. & Pungente, J.J. (1999). Media Education in Canada – the Second Spring. In: Feilitzen, C. von, and
Carlsson, U. (Eds.). Children and Media: Image. Education. Participation.
Bagenova, L. (1992). In the World of Screen Arts. (in Russian). Moscow: VIPK, 71 p.
Baranov, O. (2002). Media Education in School and University. (in Russian).Tver: Tver State University, 87 p.
Bazalgette, C. (1997). An Agenda of the Second Phase of Media Literacy Development. Media Literacy in the Information
Age. New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers, pp.69-78.
Bazalgette, C. (Ed.) (1989). Primary Media Education: A Curriculum Statement. London: BFI.
Bazalgette, C., Bevort, E., Savino, J. (Eds.) (1992) Media Education Worldwide. Paris: UNESCO, 256 p.
Bevort, E., Breda, I. (2001) Les jeunes et Internet. Paris: CLEMI, 160 p.
Bevort, E., Cardy H., De Smedt, T., Garcin-Marrou, I. (1999) Evaluation des pratiques en education aux medias, leurs effects
sur les enseignants et leurs eleves. Paris: CLEMI, 152 p.
Breitman, A. (1999). The Basics of the Film Art. (in Russian). Khabarovsk, 112 p.
Buckingham, D. (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 219 p.
Chevallier, J. (Ed.) (1980). Cine-club et action educative. Paris: CNDP, 64 p.
CLEMI (1996). L’Actualite’ et les medias `a l’ecole primaire, au college at au lycee. Paris: CLEMI, 120 p.
Costanzo, W.V. (1992). Reading the Movie. Urbana, Illinois: National council of Teachers of English, 201 p.
Fedorov, A. (2001). Media Education: History, Theory and Methods. (in Russian). Rostov: CVVR, 708 p.
Fedorov, A. (2005). Media Education for Future Teachers. (in Russian). Taganrog: Kuchma Publishing House, 314 p.
Fedorov, A. and Chelysheva, I. (2002). Media Education in Russia: Brief History of Development. (in Russian).Taganrog:
Poznanie, 266 p.
Fedorov, A. Development of the Media Competence and Critical Thinking of Pedagogical University’s Students. (in Russian).
Moscow: IPOS UNESCO IFAP (Russia), 2007, 616 p.
Freinet, C. (1927). L’imprimerie a l’ecole. Boulogne: Ferrary.
Freinet, C. (1963). Les techniques audiovisuelles. Cannes: Bibliotheque de l’ecole moderne, 144 p.
Gonnet, J. (2001). Education aux medias: Les controverses fecondes. Paris: CNDP, Hachette, 144 p.
Greenaway, P. (1997). Media and Arts Education: A Global View from Australia. In: Kubey, R. (Ed.) Media Literacy in the
Information Age. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, pp.187-198.
Hart, A, & Suss, D. (Eds.) (2002) Media Education in 12 European Countries. Zurich: The Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology. http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/show?type=bericht&nr=246
Hart, A. (1988). Making ‘The Real World’. Cambridge: CUP.

70

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Hart, A. (1991). Understanding Media: A Practical Guide. London: Routledge, 268 p.
Hart, A. (1998). Introduction: Media Education in the Global Village. In: Hart, A. (Ed.). Teaching the Media. International
Perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey – London: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Publishers, pp.1-21.
Hilko, N. (2001). The Role of Audiovisual Culture in the Creative Self Expression of the Personality (in Russian). Omsk:
Russian Institute of Cultural Studies, 446 p.
Hilko, N. (2004). Social and Cultural Aspects of Screen Creativeness. (in Russian). Moscow: Russian Institute of Cultural
Studies, 96 p.
Hodgkinson, A.W. (1964). A Specimen Screen Education Syllabus. In: Hodgkinson, A.W. (Ed.) Screen Education. Paris:
UNESCO, pp.26-27.
Kirillova, N. (1992). Theory and Practice of World Film Art. (in Russian). Ekatirinburg: Ekatirinburg State Theatre Institute,
48 p.
Korkonosenko, S. (2004). Journalism Education: Professional and Mass Media Education. (in Russian). St-Petersburg:
Mikhailov, 240 p.
Korochensky, A. (2003). Media Criticism in the Theory and Practice of Journalism. (in Russian). Ph.D. Diss. St-Petersburg:
St-Petersburg State University.
Kubey, R. & Baker, F. (2000). Has Media Literacy Found a Curricular Foothold? Telemedium. The Journal of Media Literacy.
Vol. 46. N 1, pp.8-9, 30.
Kubey, R. (1998). Obstacles to the Development of Media Education in the United States. Journal of Communication
(Winter), pp.58-69.
Levshina, I. (1974). Education of Pupils by Means of Film Art. Ph.D. Diss. (in Russian). Moscow: Russian Pedagogical
Academy, 25 p.
Malobitskaya, Z. (1979). Film Art as Moral and Aesthetic Education of Pupils. (in Russian). Ph.D. Diss. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State
Pedagogical Institute.
Marcussen, E.B. (1964). Teaching Screen Education to the Teachers. In: Hodgkinson, A.W. (Ed.) Screen Education. Paris:
UNESCO, pp.72-76.
Martineau, M. (Ed.) (1988). L’enseignement du cinema et de l’audiovisuel. Paris: CinemAction, 299 p.
Martineau, M. (Ed.) (1991). L’enseignement du cinema et de l’audiovisuel dans l’Europe des douze. Paris: CinemAction, 433
p.
Masterman, L. & Mariet, F. (1994). L’Education aux medias dans l’Europe des annees 90. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe,
180 p.
Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the Media. London: Comedia Publishing Group, 341 p.
Masterman, L. (1997). A Rational for Media Education. In: Kubey, R. (Ed.) Media Literacy in the Information Age. New
Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (UK): Transaction Publishers, pp.15-68.
McLuhan, M. (1967) . The Gutenberg Galaxy. London: Routlege & Kegan Paul, 294 p.
McMahon, B. and Quin, R. (1997). Living with the Tiger: Media Education Issues for the Future. In: Kubey, R. (Ed.). Media
Literacy in the Information Age. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, pp.307-321.
McMahon, B. and Quin, R. (1999). Australian Children and the Media Education, Participation and Enjoyment. In: Children
and Media. Image.Education.Participation. Geteborg: The UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence
on the Screen, Nordicom, pp.189-203.
Minkkinen S. (1978). A General Curricular Model for Mass Media Education. Paris: UNESCO.
Monastyrsky, V. (1979). Art Education of Pupils by Means of TV in After School Programs. Ph.D. Diss. (in Russian).
Moscow: Russian Academy of Education.
Moore, G.J. (1969). The Case for Screen Education. In: Stewart, F.K. and Nuttall, J. (Eds.). Screen Education in Canadian
Schools. Toronto: Canadian Education Association, pp.6-26.
Nechai, O. (1989). The Basics of Film Art (in Russian). Moscow: Prosveshenie, 288 p.
Penzin, S. (1987). Cinematograph and Aesthetical Education (in Russian). Voronezh: Voronezh State University, 176 p.
Penzin, S. (2004). Film Education and Modern Times (in Russian). Voronezh: Voronezh State University, pp.151-163.
Polichko, G. (1990). Introducation to Film Education (in Russian). Moscow: Russian Pedagogical Academy, 23 p.
Potter, W.J. (2001). Media Literacy. Thousand Oaks – London: Sage Publication, 423 p.
Rabinovich, U. (1991). Cinema, Literature and my Life (in Russian).Kurgan: Periodika, 120 p.
Rother, L. Media Literacy and At-Risk Students: A Canadian Perspective.Telemedium, The Journal of Media Literacy. 2002.
Vol.48. N 2.
Semali, L.M. (2000). Literacy in Multimedia America. New York – London: Falmer Press, 243 p.
Sharikov, A., Cherkashin, E. (1991). Experimental Curricula for Media Education. (in Russian). Moscow: Russian
Pedagogical Academy, 43 p.
Silverblatt, A. (2001). Media Literacy. Westport, Connecticut – London: Praeger, 449 p.
Sim, J.C. (1977). Mass Media Education in the U.S.A. In: Media Studies in Education. Paris: UNESCO, pp.74-88.
Spitchkin, A. (1999). What is Media Education? (in Russian). Kurgan: Kurgan Teacher Training Institute, 114 p.
Stewart, F.K. and Nuttall, J. (1969). What’s the Idea? In: Stewart, F.K. and Nuttall, J. (Eds.). Screen Education in Canadian
Schools. Toronto: Canadian Education Association, p.5.

71

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Tulodziecki, G. (1989). Mediaenerziehung in schole und unterricht. Bad Heilbrunn.
Tyner, K. (1998). Literacy in the Digital World: Teaching and Learning in the Age of Information. Mahwan, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 291 p.
Tyner, K. (2000). Directions and Challenges for Media Education. Telemedium. The Journal of Media Literacy. Vol. 46. N 1,
p.4.
Usov, Y. (1989). Film Education as Aesthetic and Art Education and Development of Pupils. Ph.D. Diss. (in Russian).
Moscow: Moscow State Pedagogical University, 32 p.
Usov, Y. (1998). Basics of Screen Arts. (in Russian). Moscow: Russian Academy of Education, 60 p.
Vartanova, E. And Zassursky, J. (2003). Russian Module of Media Education: Conceptions, Principles, Models. (in Russian).
Information Society, 3: 5-10.
Worsnop, C. (1999). Screening Images: Ideas for Media Education. Second Edition. Mississauga: Wright Communication.
Zaznobina, L. (1996). Media Education Standard Integrated in Humanities and Others Disciplines of Secondary Education’, in
L.Zaznobina (Ed.), Media Education. (in Russian). Moscow: Moscow Institute of Teachers’ Education, pp.72-78.
Zaznobina, L. (1998). Media Education Standard Integrated Across the Curriculum. (in Russian). Standards and Monitoring in
Education, 3: 26-34.

72

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

An Outline of Media Education in Russia

One can say that the hearth of film education in Russia was lit in 1919 when a film school was
opened in Moscow. Important constituents of general media education in this country in the 1920’s were
film clubs and clubs of young journalists, amateur film/photo studios. In 1925 the Soviet Cinema’s
Friends Society (SCFS) was organized. A lot of well-known Russian directors like Sergei Eisenstein,
Vsevolod Pudovkin, Dziga Vertov and others were in the Central Council of this society. There were
about 50 SCFS’ amateur studios in Moscow that had film cameras and – 93 in St.Petersburg (Ilyichev,
Naschekin, 1986, p.7). Similar clubs where films were shown, discussed and made; lectures, exhibitions
were held, worked in Astrakhan, Vologda, Rostov-on-Don, Voronezh, Tomsk, Omsk, Novosibirsk and
other cities. Due to the initiative of the Central Council of SCFS in Moscow the special educational
course for club leaders from different cities were taught. Zarkhi, Romm, Pudovkin and other Russian
filmmakers were teaching there. Teaching manuals were published. The first All-Russian Conference of
SCFS was held in 1928 with delegates from 60 cities. For several years SCFS published its newspaper
“Cinema”. In 1930 this society included 110 thousand members. The SCFS’ statutes distinguished the
following objectives: to study the mass audience and to teach by the means of cinema.

Simultaneously media education of pupils and students through press was developing. “The
government supported this process, pursuing two main goals: the spread of the communist ideology and
the liquidation of illiteracy of population (almost half of the country’s population couldn’t even read).
These two goals were closely connected with each other. The role of media in a Soviet society was
increasing rapidly. Dozens of newspapers and magazines published by different schoolchildren’ – and
youth unions appeared. Kids-journalists often joined the clubs where professional journalists taught them
to prepare articles for newspapers and magazines” (Sharikov, 1990, p.29-30). Schools in almost all cities
of Russia issued some kind of press or school papers in the 1920’s.

However many of the creative attempts in Russian media education were abolished by the Stalin
regime in 1934, when SCFS was closed. From the late Thirties till early Fifties on the whole only those
film activities were allowed, which served aims of propaganda. However, in spite of the strict censorship,
the debate clubs of SCFS developed in this way or another not only the creativity of children but also the
critical thinking of the audience. Therefore they could provoke (undesirable for the regime) thoughts
about life in the country and its social structure. Also cameras of some non-professional SCFS members
could shoot something not very appropriate, not sanctioned by the authorities…

It was not until late 1950s – early 1960s that media education was given a second birth in Russian
schools and universities. The amount of institutions where courses of film education were taught was
growing (Moscow, Petersburg, Voronezh, Rostov, Samara, Kurgan, Taganrog, etc.).

Beginning from 1957 film clubs began to appear again, uniting thousands of the “The Tenth
Muse” lovers of different ages. In 1967 the first big seminar of film clubs’ leaders from 36 cities took
place in Moscow. A statute of many clubs included not only the watching and discussion of films, but
studying the history of cinema, works of outstanding masters, sociological research, etc. (Lebedev, 1969,
p. 52-54).

By 1967 there were about 4 thousand small amateur film studios and circles (Ilyichev, Naschekin,
1986, p.38). Some of them became sort of media education centres. For example, they did sociological
research about the role of mouvies in people’s life, studied the history of cinema, organized film shows
and discussions of films, exhibitions, made documentary, feature and animated amateur films and so on.
The movement of school journalists and photographers was also given a new start.

The social and cultural situation in Russia at that time provided grounds for a great interest in
cinema among school children and teachers. Video and PCs were only dreamt of in science fiction
novels. Films were seldom shown on TV, (in fact there was only 1, later 2 TV channels). Therefore
cinemas were crowded (statistics showed that in average, a person went to the cinema about 18 times a
year), and school children went to the movies much more often than adults. For many Russians the screen
was the only window into the world, cut through the still thick “iron curtain”. Thanks to the production of

73

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

8- and 16-mm cameras the amateur film studios movement developed very actively until the early 1980’s.
Instructors or teachers of such clubs were taught at the Moscow Institute of Culture, some Pedagogical
Institutes and Universities. The number of clubs and studios grew from 5 thousand (1974) to 11 thousand
(1983), and the number of members of these youth groups grew from 60.000 to 120-130 thousand people
(Ilyichev, Naschekin, 1986, p.53-60). In the second half of the 1980s many of these clubs began to use
videotapes for making films, that was, no doubt, easier and cheaper.

“Curricula for the basics of cinema art for schools and pedagogical institutes were written in the
60s-70s. These programs were significantly different from many programs of other subjects: their authors
avoided strict regulation, dogmatic approach (…). It was emphasized in these curricula that
communication with art should be enjoyable. One more important peculiarity of the programs on cinema
art was that the task was not to prepare specialists in a small field, because the country did not need 50
million film critics. The objective of cinema pedagogic was to widen the spiritual, cultural world of
school children, to develop their personality” (Waisfeld, 1993, p.4-5). I agree here with I.Waisfeld who
said that “classes of media teachers can be described as a dialogue. An old “teacher-centered” scheme,
where a teacher is a source of knowledge and a pupil is its receiver, is broken. Both pupils and teachers
get a bigger field for creativity, improvisation, for game activities. A game is treated as kind of a reality
model. It helps to grasp the inner dynamics of a film, its deep roots” (Waisfeld, p.5).

However, some Russian teachers of media education still practiced outdated pedagogical
approaches. For instance, A.Bernstein believed that “teaching with film is impossible without constant
control of what a pupil sees on TV and in cinema theatres every day” (Bernstein, 1971, p.7). Here, I
think, one can clearly see the similarity with viewpoints of many American media teachers (especially in
the 1940s – 1970s) who also considered that the main goal of media education was a strict control,
“information defense”, “inoculative approach”, aimed against the harmful impact of press, screen, etc.

In early 1980s there was a big experiment of introducing film education into the primary and
middle school curriculum in some Moscow schools. Similar experiments on media education (on the
press, cinema and TV materials) were conducted in summer children centres like “Ocean” and
“Orlyonok”. As for the universities, lectures and practical classes for the teachers-to-be were held. Some
Institutes of Teachers’ Professional Development (in Moscow, Kurgan, Tver) have also made a
contribution to media education. Seminars and workshops on teaching cinema were conducted. Some
universities integrated media education into courses of the aesthetic education.

Media education in Russia is not a required subject (with the exception of some secondary schools
used as an experimental field and media orientated universities and faculties). Thus there is no national
curriculum for media education, no standards or guidelines. Many Russian teachers still confuse media
education with using media as a technical aid. Media language is seldom a topic in its own right. Only
few school principals encourage the integration of media education, or support teachers’ initiative. Media
education can be integrated across the curriculum into Informatics (Internet & computer application
lessons), Language and Literature, Arts, or Science. Another variant is an optional autonomous media
education course.

For example, Film Studies courses have been taught in Voronezh Pedagogical Institute since
1970. Then similar courses appeared in Voronezh University and Institute of Arts, and several schools.
Since 1965 the film club has been working in Voronezh. Some other Russian cities and towns (Moscow,
Petersburg, Kurgan, Tver, Rostov, Samara, Taganrog, etc.) have a similar structure of media education
centres. As a rule, it is a net of courses on media education in universities, teachers’ training colleges,
institutes, school elective subjects, film clubs in schools and community centers.

In 1967 the Council for Film Education in schools and higher educational institutes was
established by the Union of Filmmakers (Moscow). It was headed first by a film critic N.Lebedev and
then by Professor I.Waisfeld. He was the first Russian media educator who delivered a report on
problems of media education at UNESCO conference in Rome in 1966. Some other Russian media/film
educators who began their work in schools, colleges and clubs in the Sixties are: Ury Usov, Inna
Levshina, Zinaida Smelkova (Moscow), Nina Gornitskaya (Petersburg), Stal Penzin (Voronezh), Uly

74

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Rabinovich (Kurgan), Oleg Baranov (Tver), Evdokiya Gorbulina (Armavir), Elvira Gorukhina
(Novosibirsk) and others.

From the very start the Council tried to consolidate the efforts of media teachers-enthusiasts from
different Russian cities (Moscow, Petersburg, Voronezh, Kurgan, Samara, Novosibirsk, Rostov,
Taganrog, etc.). It collaborated with the Ministry of Education, Pedagogic Academy and State Committee
of Cinema specifically in publishing teaching plans, curriculums, sponsored seminars, workshops and
conferences. Starting from the second half of the 1960’s such conference were held in Moscow, Tallinn,
Alma-Ata, Erevan, Tbilisi, Petersburg, Kiev, Kurgan, Bolshevo.

At all the stages of the media education development in Russia there were its opponents too. They
were afraid that “fast and awkward accomplishment of the ideas of school film education can destroy the
direct contact between the screen and young audience by its importunate interference. Thus, after special
training newly educated “film literate” audience would critically evaluate, not simply enjoy a film. But in
order to enjoy cinema one should watch films freely, without any bias. One cannot turn a visit to a
cinema theatre into the obligatory school subject. It is not right to “freeze” love of the youth for the
cinema” (Rybak, 1980, p.4).

However, despite of all the difficulties, the 1980s in Russia were marked by “the process of
“deepening” of media education researches; transition from the description and summing up of the
pedagogic experience to the revealing of psychological and/or sociological grounds of this phenomenon;
the growth of the researchers’ interest to children creativeness through media. Researchers began to
explore media effects on smaller children. In the 1980s their activity affected the elementary school too”
(Sharikov, 1990, pp.38-39).

In the end of the 1980s the vigorous development of the video began to change the work of clubs
and amateur children’s studios. VCRs and video cameras were used more and more often for making and
showing films. School TV studios were emerging. In 1990 the Association of Young Journalists was
established. In 1998 the Council for Film Education was transformed into the Association for Film and
Media Education. In the 1990s it joined the European Association for Audiovisual Media Education.

Today the number of members of Russian Association for Film & Media Education is about 300:
primary & secondary level schoolteachers, high school, university, college, lyceum teachers &
professors, leaders of film-clubs, journalists, etc. Russian Association for Film & Media Education
includes also members of the Laboratories of Screen Arts and Media Education (Russian Academy of
Education, Moscow). The main directions of Association’s work are: integration of media literacy
courses in school and universities; development of school and university curricular; teacher training
programs; conferences and seminars; publications; research; maintaining web resources on media
education.

At the same time, as it has already been mentioned, media education in Russia has come across
numerous difficulties during the whole time of its existence (ideological, financial, technical, etc.). In the
1920s - 1980s the political and censorship control, and poor technical equipment of schools and higher
educational institutions hindered media education movement. In the 1990s media teachers were granted
freedom and independence for developing programs and their practical implementation. But they lacked
financial and technical support. Many Russian schools and colleges in the 90s didn’t have enough money
for teachers’ salary, not mentioning the audiovisual equipment. Moreover, still just the few universities
were preparing future teachers for media education of pupils.

The drastic change in social and cultural situation in Russia effected serious alteration in media
education’s development. The remains of the “iron curtain” fell down. More and more Russian were
getting the opportunity to travel abroad. Cinema stopped being the only window into the world. Films
(including foreign films) were not a deficit anymore; you could watch them on TV on different channels.
Media repertoire was satiated with American action movies. Information about film and music stars, new
releases and premiers could be read in hundreds of newspaper, magazines and books. By the end of the
nineties nearly every urban family owned a VCR. Computers, interactive games, Internet spread very
rapidly. Thus, an uncomfortable question arised: could a school teacher, as a rule lagging behind his

75

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

pupils as far as media consumption concerned, have authority in the sphere of media culture with his
pupils?

But Russian media education was developing. International conferences on media education were
held in Tashkent (1990), Valuevo (1992), Moscow (1992, 1995). The Screen Arts Laboratory at the
Research Institute for Art Education of the Russian Academy of Education (this laboratory was headed
by Professor Dr. Ury Usov until his death in April 2000) published books and teaching materials,
programs on media and film education (by Prof.Dr.Ury Usov, Dr.Larissa Bazhenova, Dr.Elena
Bondarenko, etc.).

Similar processes were going on in Russian film clubs in 1990s. After a long resistance by
authorities (who looked at film clubs and media education movement as potentially dangerous
encouragement of oppositional critical thinking) finally, in 1988 the Russian Federation of Film Clubs
was officially established.

“Perestroika” years at first seemed as the golden age for film clubs. The foundation of the
Federation promised an anticipated liberation from the censorship’s dictatorship, an opportunity of the
exchange with the best Russian and foreign films. In fact, the Film Clubs Federation began to collect its
own film library, club enthusiasts were invited to regional and All-Russian seminars, conferences and
festivals, famous actor and directors toured the country meeting their audience face-to-face. But the
drastic growth of prices forced its rules. By the end of the 1990s even big Russian film clubs could not
afford buying a new film copy from Moscow. Not to mention small film clubs in small provincial towns.
Together with the film club movement the economic crisis hit amateur school film and video studios too.
The vast majority of them closed down.

The publication of programs and study guides has always been an important component of media
education. Moscow publishing houses (“Prosveschenie”, “Pedagogica”, “Detskaya Literatura”, “Novaya
Shkola”, “Kino Center”, “Iskusstvo”) have published quite a monographs, programs dedicated to the
issues of media education. Articles on film/media education were published in magazines “Iskusstvo
Kino”, “Pedagogica”, “Specialist”, “Ecran”, etc.

One of the most active enthusiasts of literature on film education was Lev Rybak – a teacher, film
critic, the chief editor of the “Kino Centre” publishing house. The author of several brilliant cineastes’
biographies, Lev Rybak founded the book series “Cinema & School”. There he published four of his
books, written in an entertaining way, using the language, comprehensible both for teachers and high
school students. Three of these books tackled the problem of screening Russian classical and modern
literature. And in his book “Alone with a Film” L.Rybak wrote about the subjectivity of film perception.
“Before I became a film critic, - Rybak wrote, - I had been a school teacher for more than 15 years. I
went to the cinema with my pupils. And sometimes I was really hurt when a pupil of mine, after having
seen a good film, said: “Rubbish!” evidently not considering the film to be a good one. I was mad: you
can interpret a film in your own way, but try to comprehend it! Viewers’ impressions of a film are always
different, individual; there is no sense in trying to level them. But how can one make these impressions
emerge at all and not be so poor?” (Rybak, 1980, p.6). I must agree that this is still one of the key
questions on the media education agenda though many media education researchers and teachers have
tried to find an answer to it.

So, there was no scarcity of pedagogical literature. However no regular academic journal on
media education has been issued till 2005. The journal of “Media Education” was set up by the
Association for Film and Media Education, and Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute. The magazine
offers a needed forum for the exchange of information about different forms and contents of media
education, thus fostering essential coordination of efforts of Russian media educators.

As far as the research work is concerned, the Laboratory of Screen Arts at the Institute of Art
Education of the Russian Academy of Education was in the lead for several decades. First doctor’s theses
on media education appeared in the 1960s. Researches by O.Baranov (1968), A.Karasik (1966),
Y.Rabinovich & R.Rabinovich (1966) were dedicated to the problem of film education of school pupils.
And V.Saperov’s thesis (1969) analyzed the problem of using radio broadcasting in education. In the

76

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

1970s many dissertations about teaching audiovisual literacy were defended (N.Goncharova, 1970;
S.Sokolova, 1971; U.Usov, 1974; I.Levshina, 1974; G.Labkovska, 1976; S.Ivanova, 1978;
Z.Malobitskaya, 1978; V.Monastyrsky, 1979). Later studies of media education for pupils included:
producing and using audiovisual means in school (L.Pressman, 1981; V.Bulavko, 1982), filmmaking by
school children (E.Yanelauskas, 1983; U.Bozhkov, 1984; P.Genkin, 1985), social & psychological
aspects (Ch.Shakeeva, 1983; N.Kirillova, 1983), morals education of teenagers (Z.Smelkova, E.Zharinov,
1986), analysis of using foreign films in media education (A.Fedorov, 1986), inter-disciplinary ties of
literature and film courses (G.Polichko, 1987), employment of cinema as a complex education of pupils
(N.Gutova, 1987), aesthetic education and artistic development of school children (N.Yakovleva, 1988;
U.Usov, 1989; G.Evtushenko, 1991, E.Bondarenko, 1994).

Theses based on the school data made way for the research of media education in universities.
The most important works on film education in Universities appeared in the 1980s-1990s
(L.Seregenkova, 1982; S.Odintsova, 1981; S.Penzin, 1987; A.Fedorov, 1993; L.Platunova, 1995). In
2000 the first Russian thesis analyzing the foreign experience, more specifically, the theory and history of
media education in the U.S., was written (A.Novikova). In the 1990s the Laboratory of Technology and
Media Education (Russian Academy of Education) headed by Professor L.Zaznobina worked out a
concept of school media education, integrated into the basic curriculum.

From the 1990s onwards, Russian media education specialists (U.Usov, L.Bazhenova,
A.Levitskaya, G.Polichko, A.Spitchkin, A.Sharikov, A.Fedorov and others) have joined the international
media educators’ community, participating in international conferences for media education (held in
France, Canada, Austria, the UK, Brazil, Spain, Greece, Switzerland), publishing their works in French,
American, English, Australian, and Norwegian journals.

By the year 2001 the number of secondary and higher educational Russian institutions training
professionals in media, has quite grown. Besides VGIK (Russian State Institute of Cinematography),
School for Script Writers and Film Directors, Russian Institute of Professional Development in the Field
of Film, now there are St.Petersburg State University of Film and Television, Film-Video Colleges in
Sergeev Posad and St. Petersburg, film/television colleges in Irkutsk, Sovetsk, and Rostov-on-Don.
Professional media education is included into the curriculum of St. Petersburg State Academy of Culture,
St.Petersburg Academy of Theatre Art, Institute of Professional Development of TV & Radio Specialists
(Moscow), Independent School of Cinema and Television (Moscow), Grymov’s School of Advertising,
Institute of Modern Art (Moscow), New Humanities University of Natalia Nesterova (Moscow), several
schools of animation, etc.

First works summarizing general problems of media education, appeared in 1990s (A.Sharikov,
A.Fedorov, L.Zaznobina). In February 2000 (A.Fedorov and others) the first in Russia bilingual (Russian-
English) Internet site http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8 on media
education was created. More than 20000 people visited the site during the first 10 years of its existence.

The same year staff of the Laboratory headed by L.Zaznobina in the Russian Academy of
Education opened one more Russian web site on media education.

The important event in media education development in Russia was the registration of the new
specialization (minor) for pedagogical universities – ‘Media Education’ (N 03.13.30) in 2002. Since
2002 this specialization includes in education process in Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute (head of
this media educational project is professor A.Fedorov, media educators: I.Chelysheva, E.Murukina,
N.Ryzhykh, V.Kolesnichenko, D.Grigorova and others).

The media educators team (head is Alexander Fedorov) from Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute
since 1994 published about 30 monographs (Fedorov, 2001; 2005; 2007 and others), textbooks and more
than 400 articles about media education and media literacy. This team also received the research grants
(media education topics) from many Russian and foreign foundation (foundation of President of the
Russian Federation, Russian Foundation for Humanities, Foundation of Russian Ministry of Education,
Kennan Institute (US), IREX (US), MacArthure Foundation (US), Open Society Institute (Soros
Foundation, US), DAAD (Germany), Fulbright Foundation (US) and other).

77

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

In 2004 UNESCO and South Urals Media Education Center conducted the interregional round-
table discussion “Media Education: Problems and Prospects” in Chelyabinsk. The participants discussed
the concept and notions of media education and educational standards in this area and mapped out the
ways of concerted efforts to be made by national and regional mass media in the coverage of media
education problems. According to the participants, media education is a way of shaping national
information and education policies and promoting information literacy, media culture of personality, and
civil society. Media education problems were considered in the reports. Media education was proclaimed
as one of ways of the development of a national information and educational policy, social integration,
and media literacy.

The final document of the “round table” included suggestions to introduce a major specialty
Media education with a qualification Media educator for universities of Russia; to develop the plan of
effective realization of Media Education in various regions of the Russian Federation; to create a
databank about forms and methods of media education activities with the purpose of the analysis and
generalization of experience; to publish “Encyclopedia of Media and Media Education”; to support the
regular release of a journal Media Education.

In the begin of XXI century Media Education Centers or projects (including media
education/literacy conferences) were created in Belgorod (A.Korochensky and others), Byisk
(V.Vozchikov and others), Chelyabinsk (I.Fateeva, A.Minbaleev and others), Ekaterinbourg (N.Kirillova
and others), Irkutsk (L.Ivanova and others), Krasnodar (T.Shak and others), Omsk (N.Hilko and others),
Perm (P.Pechenkin and others), Samara (A.Sharikov and others), Tomsk (I.Zhilavskaya and others),
Toliatti and others Russian sities.

Many projects are realized due to my colleagues from the Russian Academy of Education. A
network of school mediathekas (libraries containing books, journals, audio and video cassettes, CDs,
DVDs, etc.) has been created in recent years, and a number of most interesting creative network projects
for schoolchildren have been launched—these directions are guided by Y. Yastrebtseva. Her colleagues,
L. Bazhenova and Y. Bondarenko, aim their efforts at promoting media educational work in Moscow
schools. During the lessons, play activities are often used (especially with younger children), students
perform creative tasks (making a short video film, a photo collage, etc.), and have collective discussions
of media texts. Similar work is going on in schools and universities of other Russian cities — Tver,
Voronezh, Samara, Perm, Chelyabinsk, Rostov, Taganrog, Tambov, Krasnodar, Yekaterinburg,
Volgodonsk…

For example, the recognizable symbol of media education in Voronezh is the Student Film and
Video Club, where participants come to discuss especially significant or problem films — the club is led
by S. Penzin, an art critic and assistant professor of the Voronezh State University. Professor G. Polichko
from the State University of Management is the initiator of annual media educational festivals for
schoolchildren — with master classes, talks given by well-known figures of media culture, and collective
discussions… Such festivals have taken place for about 10 years in different Russian cities.

In 2005, the Center for Media Education in the city of Togliatti organized a Virtual Tour of the
Media Land, an Internet game for schoolchildren
(http://mec.tgl.ru/modules/Subjects/pages/igra/priilog_1.doc). The participants form teams, visit some
Russian media educational websites, study their content, answer questions, accomplish creative tasks, and
create presentations. To find out more about the methods used in particular media educational classes
your readers may visit the “Biblioteka” (Library) section of the Russian Association for Film and Media
Education website.

Within the framework of conferences the reports directly concerning questions of media education,
problems of the organization of multimedia databases, electronic libraries, and mediateques in libraries
for children and youth were heard. Important objective for Russian media educators is to open (get it
registered by the Russian Ministry of Education and Sciences) a new university major speciality (major)
“Media Education” within the framework of which it will be possible to prepare professional media
educators for universities and schools.

78

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Within the context of increasing interest to media education worldwide, the UNESCO program’s
support, recent developments such as the introduction of a pre-service teacher training, and the systematic
publication of a journal, media education has good prospects in Russia.

References
Bernstein, A. (1971).Feature Film in the Classroom. Moscow: BPSK, 52 p.
Fedorov, A. (2001). Media Education: History, Theory and Methods. Rostov: CVVR. 708 p.
Fedorov, A. (2005). Media Education of Future Teachers. Taganrog: Kuchma Publishing House, 314 p.
Fedorov, A. (2007). Development of the Media Competence and Critical Thinking of Pedagogical University’s Students.
Moscow: ICOS UNESCO Program ‘Information for All’, 616 p.
Fedorov, A. (2007). Media Education: Sociology Surveys. Taganrog: Kuchma Publishing House, 228 p.
Ilyichev, S., Naschekin, B. (1986). Cinema Amateur Movement: The Start and Perspectives. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 110 p.
Lebedev, N. (1969). Film and Audience. Moscow: BPSK, 55 p.
Penzin, S. (1987). Cinema and Aesthetic Education: Methodological Problems. Voronezh: Voronezh University Press, 175 p.
Rybak, L. (1980). Alone with a Film. Cinema and School. Moscow: BPSK, 57 p.
Sharikov, A. (1990). Media Education: International and Russian Experience. Moscow: Russian Academy of Education, 66 p.
Waisfeld, I. (1993). Screen Evolution, Perception Evolution. Specialist. N 5, p. 3-6.

79

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Moscow Media Education Centers for Non-professionals in the Media Fields

Introduction. The comparative analysis of Russian media education centers is closely connected
not only with their goals and objectives but also with the typology problem of media education theories.
In this connection Irina Fateeva suggests using a generalized term “action / activity theory” instead of the
traditional pool of such theories (cultural studies theory, semiotic, socio-cultural, aesthetic, practical and
other theories). This dominant practical approach is aimed at:
- adequate appreciation of media texts as human production, understanding of their origin and

circulation, their critical assessment and well-grounded judgment of them;
- participant observation of mass media social functioning (both on the system and component levels), the

audiences’ media participation as conscious media consumers;
- dialogue-oriented media participation based on modern technologies;
- media creation based on the audience’s participation in media education projects of a varied scale”

(Fateeva, 2007, p. 34; Fateeva, 2008, p. 140-147).
Having analyzed the media education theories developed by media educators from different countries
Irina Fateeva concluded that “to derive a media education theory from communication theories is not
only unreasonable but also destructive since that initially causes conceptual disunity of teachers and their
pupils intensified by moral and ethical problems: after failing to reach a consensus in the dispute the
teachers are apt to impose their arguable views on the audience” (Fateeva, 2007, p. 25-26).

Such obvious rejection of conceptual approaches to media education is far from being undoubted.
And the categoricity of the assertion also sounds bewildering: why are teachers sure “to impose their
views”? Can the mutual process of correct comparative analysis of different theories and/or conceptions
together with the audience fail to be fruitful?

Moreover, a thorough examination of each theoretical media education conception shows that all
of them include media activity/action in a way, as a practical component of education.

On the one hand, we could deny with Irina Fateeva the theoretical peculiarities of this or that
media education centre and confine ourselves to mentioning the unified “theory of media action” which
is indeed characterized by a wide degree of generalization (and, neither Yury Usov nor Lev Pressman
would object to its definition/formulation). But on the other hand, one cannot avoid in this case the loss of
“creative individuality” of this or that media education centre, e.g. the aesthetically/artistically oriented
media education conception of Yury Usov.

The total number of Russian most significant media education centers is more than ten. In this
article we analyze the activities of Moscow media education centers. Besides we took into consideration
chiefly the media education centers whose activities (in a varying degree) are aimed at mass media
education. That is why we describe the activities of numerous Moscow faculties of journalism, film and
advertisement which train exclusively media professionals.

At the same time, we analyze the work of the Moscow State University media education centre
exactly because during the last 7-8 years its leaders have attempted to extend the traditional scope of
professional media education by arranging systematic (especially during the last two years) activities and
events aimed at mass media education of school students and teachers.

Brief characteristics of Moscow media education centers
Thus, we single out five leading Moscow media education centers:
- Screen Arts Lab of Artistic Education Institute of the Russian Education Academy;
- Media Education and Technical Teaching Means Lab of the Educational Methods and Contents Institute
of the Russian Academy;
- The Moscow City experimental platform “Media Education Technologies and New Teaching Forms in
the Modern Educational Institution”;
- Labs of experimental research coordination of the General Secondary Education Problems Centre of the
Educational Methods and Contents Institute of the Russian Academy;
- Faculty of Journalism, MSU;

80

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

- Public organization – League of Young Journalists of Russia (YUNPRESS).
It should be also mentioned that the majority of the Moscow media education centers’ staff are

members of the Russian Association for Film & Media Education
(http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8) which unites hundreds of
school teachers, university teachers, additional education institutions’ workers, culture and non-profit
public organizations’ workers from different Russian cities.

***
1. Name of the Media Education Centre: Screen Arts Lab of Artistic Education Institute of the Russian
Education Academy (http://www.art-education.ru/otd-dop-ekran.htm).
2. Year of establishment, location: 1974, Moscow.
3. Financing sources: state funding (till 1992), state funding and grants of different funds (since 1992).
4. Direction: Professor Dr. Yury Usov (1974-2000); Dr. Larisa Bazhenova ( since 2000).
Yury Usov (28 July, 1936 – 27 April, 2000): Brief Biography

During many years Prof. Dr. Yury Usov was an undisputed leader of Russian media education
movement, a board member of the Russian Association for Film & Media Education.

Two years after graduating from the Cinematography Faculty of the All-Union State Institute of
Cinematography (1972) he successfully defended a Ph.D. thesis and became Head of the Film and
Television Lab (the Artistic Education Institute of the Education Academy). He initiated a number of
wide-scale experiments in film education in many schools of the Russian capital in the first half of the
1980s. It was he who gave a thorough and detailed description of the aesthetic/artistic theory of media
education.

Prof. Dr. Yury Usov actively promoted media education in schools, Moscow Cinema Lyceum,
teachers’ training courses in film education; he supervised PhD. students’ research, wrote a number of
books on the theory and methodology of film and media education in schools.

His first articles were published in the 1970s in Russian collections of scientific works and
journals (Soviet Screen, Pedagogika, Public Education, Television and Radio Broadcasting, Specialist,
Arts and Education, Art in School, and others). He took part in several international conferences on film
education and artistic education; was one of the organizers of the Russian-British seminars on media
education in the middle of the 1990s.

Bibliography (Yury Usov’s books in Russian):
Usov, Y. (1980). Methology of Using Film Art for Aesthetic Development of Senior School Students (Grades 8-10). Tallinn.
Usov, Y. & Rudalev, V. (1983). Methology of Using Film Art in Educational Process. Moscow.
Usov, Y. (1986). Program of the Optional Course “Basics of Cinema Art” (Grades 9-11). Moscow.
Usov, Y. (1987). Film Art in the Aesthetic Development of School Students (Grades 7-10). Tallinn.
Usov, Y., Bazhenova, L. et al. (1991). The Basics of Audiovisual Culture. Moscow.
Usov, Y. (1993). The Basics of Screen Culture. Moscow.
Usov, Y. (1994). In the World of Screen Arts. Moscow.
http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8

Books, articles about Y. Usov (in Russian):
Fedorov, A. (2003). Media Pedagogy of Y. Usov. In: Art and Education. № 3, p. 65-74; № 4, p. 78-95.
Fedorov, A., Tchelysheva, I., Muryukina, E., et al. (2007). The Aesthetic Conception in Russian Media Education and
Creative Heritage of Y. Usov. Taganrog.

Larisa Bazhenova: Brief Biography
Ph.D., member of the Russian Association for Film & Media Education. Worked as senior

scientific associate for the Screen Arts Lab of the Artistic Education Institute of the Russian Education
Academy. After Y. Usov’s decease (2000) she became head of the laboratory in the present-day Artistic
Education Institute of the Russian Education Academy. Under the supervision of Prof. Usov she
repeatedly took part in practical experiments in film education of school students. Used to teach in the
Moscow Cinema Lyceum for some years. Now teaches in different educational institutions of Moscow.
Participated in many Russian and international conferences.
Larisa Bazhenova is the author of numerous articles on film education published in Russian journals:

81

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Primary School, Art and Education, Art in School, Specialist, Family and School, Media Education et al.

Bibliography (Larisa Bazhenova’s books in Russian):
Bazhenova, L. (1992). In the World of Screen Arts. Moscow.
Bazhenova, L. (1995). Our Friend, the Screen. Issue 1 and 2. Moscow.
Bazhenova, L. (2004). Media Education of the School Student (Grades 1-4). Moscow.
http://www.art-education.ru/otd-dop-ekran.htm

5. Target Audience: school students of different age-groups, school teachers.
6. Chief aim: research of screen arts’ potential (film, TV, video) in students’ artistic education and
media education, personality development on art media texts.
7. Objectives:
- research and analysis of media education experience;
- experimental, aesthetic, ethical, audio-visual, emotional and intellectual media education of school
students developing: various types of active thinking (imaginative, associative, logical and creative
thinking); perception, interpretation, analysis, and aesthetic appreciation of media texts; need for media
language acquisition in communicating with both screen and traditional arts products and mass media;
need for verbal communication to exchange views on the acquired information, and in artistic and
creative activities; abilities to impart the knowledge gained at media education lessons; skills to represent
the results of their personal perception of different arts, the surrounding world via communication
technologies in the form of multimedia and audio-visual (video creation, computer-generated imagery)
and written texts;
- holding of conferences and seminars on media education;
- arranging of optional and compulsory media education courses for schools students, teachers’ extension
courses;
- post-graduate media education research.
8. Working definition of media education:

Y. Usov defines media education as “a system of using mass communication and information
media (press, radio, film, TV, video, computers, and photography) in a student’s individual development.
The system itself, unlike the traditional school subjects aimed at knowledge acquisition, suggests in the
first place introducing the artistic and creative activities shaping the student’s emotional and intellectual
development” (Usov, 1998, p. 55). He also introduced the concept of “audio-visual culture as a definite
system of the student’s levels of aesthetic development on the screen arts material: needs level, education
level and audio-visual thinking level” (Usov, 1989a, p. 21).
9. Key media education theories: aesthetic and cultural studies media education theories.
10. Media education model units: ascertaining experiments aimed at detecting the initial levels of
students’ of different ages aesthetic development in screen arts; “forming” experiments aimed at school
students’ aesthetic film/media education; final ascertaining experiments aimed at detecting the changes
occurred in the course of the “forming” experiments. In general, Y. Usov’s model integrates the study of
screen, traditional arts and communication technologies. The model contents are defined by “the concept
of the aesthetic culture as a system of the students’ emotional and intellectual development levels of
imaginative, associative and logical thinking, perception of fiction and fact, interpretation skills, media
evaluation skills, need for artistic and creative activities on the material of the traditional arts and various
mass media (film, TV, video, press, radio, computer and multimedia technologies)” (Usov, 1998, p. 56).

According to Y. Usov, this model can be realized in the form of specialized and integrated media
education. Moreover, the model can be applied in different variations and correlations, and that is by
itself, in our opinion, very essential namely for Russia (due to different living conditions in big cities and
remote regions, financial instability of education).

Usov’s model is directed at the effective development of such important aspects of basic personal
culture as: active thinking (including imaginative, creative, logical, critical, and associative thinking);
perception, interpretation, assessment and analysis of media texts; need for media language acquisition
and qualified usage; need for verbal communication in the course of media information perception;
knowledge communication skills and perception/reflection sharing skills via media (Usov, 1998, p. 56).

82

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Yury Usov (Usov, 2000a) is also the author of the educational model of virtual thinking
development based on the unity of video production and reflection on its results. The perception and
analysis of the art/screen media text is achieved by video production of a picturesque scene; video
material editing/montage; detecting of semantic, emotional interrelations between discrete elements;
conception development of the watched episode; opinion development and verbal communication; a
coherent analysis of the screen version and so on (Usov, 2000a, p. 3-6).

The concept of virtual reality has greatly changed of late. It used to be considered as something
similar to artistic reality but due to the intensive development of computer technologies the virtual reality
does actually appear on the inner screen of the person’s mind, linking him/her with any media text, either
his/her own or somebody else’s.
That prompted the idea of the so-called virtual thinking which, according to Y. Usov, is able to resolve
the contradictions between the level of achievements in the field of the art’s aesthetic impact and the
present day man’s readiness to actively use these possibilities: both at specialized lessons and personally
when perceiving and interpreting multivariate space-and-time reality.

The virtual thinking is closely connected with the history of the screen arts development, and with
all types of studying the space-and-time reality (montage, audio-visual, space-and-time, screen).
Undoubtedly, the development of the virtual thinking is one of the progressive fields of media education
in the modern information society.

An important feature of Y. Usov’s model is the integration of screen, electronic and new ICT in the
systems of basic and additional education, and in out-of-school students’ activities.
11. Organizational forms: media education integration into school students’ academic, out-of-school
and leisure activities. Here four types of activities are distinguished: 1) learning about media arts and
their functioning in the society; 2) looking for a media text message communicated through the space-
and-time form of narration; 3) interpreting the results of perception, aesthetic evaluation of a media text;
4) artistic and creative activity in screen arts (Usov, 1989a, p. 7-8).
12. Teaching methods:
According to the knowledge sources: verbal methods (lecture, description, debate, explanation,
discussion); visual methods (illustration, demonstration of media texts); practical methods (practical
assignments on media material). According to the level of cognitive activity: explanatory and illustrative
methods (the teacher gives some information about the media, media culture, and the audience assimilate
the information); reproductive methods (the teacher works out a system of various exercises and tasks on
media texts for the students to master the methods of solving them); problem-solving methods (problem
analysis of some situations or media texts aimed at developing the audience’s critical thinking); heuristic,
research methods (the teacher creates conditions for the students’ research and creative learning).
Preference is given to students’ media texts perception and analysis, to the system of role-play/creative
lessons, practical lessons in video filming, etc.
13. Media education program contents (based on the key concepts of media education: media agency,
media category, media technology, media language, media representation, media audience):
- introduction to media education (the definition of media education, media text, the main criteria for its
evaluation, media creation, etc.);
- media reality in school media education (means of the visual image, media culture and the model of its
development, etc.);
- man and environment, the possibilities for its study, comprehension and identification (correlation
between the perceptive units, different means of establishing these interconnections; information space,
its interpretation through word, music, image, etc.);
- technologies improving the human environment and modeling the human mind (media technology
development, modeling of the world and the human mind, etc.)
- philosophic, aesthetic, and cultural evaluation of mass media; the peculiarities of the digital society, the
narration and impact of modern media, modern ICT potential, etc.
14. Application fields: Compulsory and optional subjects (in specialized educational institutions

83

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

(lyceums, vocational schools); teachers’ extension courses), society classes (clubs, studios, institutions of
additional education and leisure). The film/media education programs can be applied within the
framework of artistic and aesthetic subjects (World Artistic Culture, Basics of Media Culture, etc.),
literature, history, foreign language studies, etc. For instance, the subject Media Studies can be part of
different school subjects, or can be taught as an independent special course. Since the problem of training
professional media teachers in Russia has not been solved yet, such a varied approach is logical for
Russian media education.

***
1. Name of the Media Education Centre: Media Education and Technical Teaching Means Lab of the

Educational Methods and Contents Institute of the Russian Academy
(http://www.mediaeducation.ru).
2. Year of establishment, location: 1965, Moscow.
3. Financing sources: state funding (till 1992), state funding and grants from different funds (since
1992).
4. Direction: Prof. Dr. Lev Pressman (1965-1993), Prof. Dr. Ludmila Zaznobina (1993-2000), Prof. Dr.
Alexey Zhurin (2000-2004), Dr. Elena Bondarenko (2004 – now).
Lev Pressman (1924 – 1996): Brief Biography

One of the founders of the ‘practical branch’ of media education in Russia, Doctor of Education
(1981), Professor (1982), Member of the Russian Union of Filmmakers. He graduated from Kuibyshev
Pedagogical Institute (1948). Used to work as a school teacher (in the 1940s-1950s). Since 1960 began
working at the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of RSFSR (later – the Russian Academy of Education)
where he headed the Lab of Technical Teaching Means from 1965 to 1993. In his old age he was chief
research officer of the Russian Academy of Education.

For many years Lev Pressman initiated and headed numerous media education projects. He is the
author of many books on the problem of using media in school. In the course of several decades he
succeeded in developing an effective system of using ICT in school teaching literature and Russian, and
an extensive film reader for literature classes. Lev Pressman composed scripts for more than 150
educational films, TV programs, diapositive films; had several teaching aids on media education
published. He had his articles published in Russian journals: Pedagogika, Cinema Art, Soviet Screen,
Literature in School, Russian in School, Public Education, Family and School and others, and also in
scientific collections of articles. Frequently participated in different scientific conferences.

Bibliography (Lev Pressman’s books in Russian):
Pressman, L. (1965). Film and Television Education for Developing Students’ Speech. Moscow.
Pressman, L. & Kisenkov, V. (1972). ICT in School. Moscow.
Pressman, L. & Poltorak, D. (1972). The Blue Screen Educates. ICT in School. Moscow.
Pressman, L. & Solovjeva, E. (1972). School Film Amateur Club. Moscow.
Pressman, L. (1972). School Radio Centre. Moscow.
Pressman, L. (1975). Literature Room in School. Moscow: Prosveschenie.
Pressman, L. (1976). ICT at Literature Lessons. Moscow.
Pressman, L. (1979). Basics of Using ICT in School Teaching. Moscow.
Pressman, L. (1988). Teaching Methods of Using ICT: Screen and Sound ICT. Moscow.
Pressman, L. (1993). Video Recording in School. Moscow.

Ludmila Zaznobina (1939-2000): Brief Biography
Doctor of Education, Professor, Ludmila Zaznobina headed the Lab for ICT Education and Media

Education in the Russian Academy of Education from 1993 to 2000. For many years she supervised the
experiment of media education and using ICT in Russian schools. She was one of the leading authors and
the editor of the collective monograph ‘Media Education Integrated into Compulsory Education’, the
author of the project ‘Media Education Standard’ (1998) for Russian secondary schools.

Ludmila Zaznobina is the author of many books on media education integrated into compulsory
secondary school subjects, and teaching methods of chemistry. Her books were published in such Russian
journals as Public Education, Chemistry in School, Pedagogika, Educational ICT and others.

84

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Bibliography (Ludmila Zaznobina’s books in Russian):
Zaznobina, L. (1981). Screen Aids in Teaching Chemistry. Moscow.
Zaznobina, L. (Ed.) (1996). Media Education. Moscow.
Zaznobina, L. (Ed.) (1999). Media Education Integrated into Compulsory Education. Moscow.
Zaznobina, L. (Ed.) (2000). School ICT Equipment in Modern Conditions.
http://www.mediaeducation.ru

Alexey Zhurin (born September 30, 1955): Brief Biography
Doctor of Education (2005), member of the Russian Association for Film & Media Education. A.

Zhurin graduated from Moscow State Pedagogical Institute (1977), worked as a teacher, deputy
headmaster, research assistant (since 1998 – as a senior research fellow) of the Media Education and
Technical Teaching Means Lab of the Educational Methods and Contents Institute of the Russian
Academy. From the second part of 2000 to 2004 he headed this laboratory. Since 2004 he has been
deputy director of research in the Educational Methods and Contents Institute of the Russian Academy.
The main field of his research is developing the theory of making and using ICT methods in teaching
chemistry and media education. He is the author of a number of articles on media education published in
such Russian journals as Pedagogika, Chemistry in School, Media Education and others. He has also a
number of published books on ICT; often took part in conferences and workshops.

Bibliography (Alexey Zhurin’s books in Russian):
Zhurin, A. (1999). Self-Tuition Manual for Computer Users in Questions and Answers. Moscow.
Zhurin, A. & Milutina, I. (1999). Computer Basics. Moscow.
Zhurin, A. (1998; 1999). Windows 95 for School Students and Computer Novices. Microsoft Office 2000 for School Students
and Novice Computer Users. Moscow.
Zhurin, A. (2002). Lesson of Inorganic Chemistry from Cyril and Mephody: Software Multimedia Teaching Tool. Moscow.
Zhurin, A. (2003). Computer Literacy: Practical Guide for School Teachers. Moscow.
Zhurin, A., Bondarenko, E. & Milutina, I. (2004). ICT in Modern School Teaching. Moscow.
Zhurin, A. (2004). Computer in the Chemistry Schoolroom. Moscow.
Zhurin, A. (2004). Media Education of School Students at Chemistry Lessons. Moscow.
Zhurin, A. (2009). Integrated Media Education in the Secondary School (Natural Sciences). Moscow.
http://www.mediaeducation.ru

Elena Bondarenko (born June 10, 1962): Brief Biography
Candidate of Education (1997), member of the Russian Association for Film & Media Education.

After graduating from the Film Critic Faculty of All-Union State Institute of Cinematography (1985)
worked as a scientific assistant in the Lab of Screen Arts in the Artistic Education Research Institute of
the Russian Academy of Education. Since 2004 she has been head of the Media Education and Technical
Teaching Means Lab of the Russian Academy of Education. She is the winner of scientific grants of the
Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund (2000-2002, 2004-2006) and the program ‘Renovation of the
Humanitarian Education in Russia’ of the ‘The Open Society’ Institute (1994). She was an organizer and
leader of the training group at the workshops ‘Media-95’ (Russia - UK) and ‘Media Education and the
Problems of Educational Television’ (Krasnaya Pachra, 1996), an expert of the All-Russian Scientific
School ‘Media Education and Media Competency’ (2009). Participated in scientific conferences of the
Russian Association for Film & Media Education and six media education festivals. Her research is
focused on the development of teenage media culture. She is the author of numerous articles, teaching
aids and programs on film and media education, has publications in such Russian journals as Specialist,
Pedagogika, Standards and Monitoring in Education and others.

Bibliography (Elena Bondarenko’s books in Russian):
Bondarenko, E. (1994). Dialogue with the Screen. Moscow.
Bondarenko, E. (1994). Excursion into the Screen World. Moscow.
Bondarenko, E. (2000). Theory and Methods of Social and Creative Rehabilitation by Audiovisual Culture Means. Omsk.
Bondarenko, E. (2001). Creative Rehabilitation by Media Culture Means. Omsk.
Bondarenko, E. (2003). In the World of Cinema. Moscow.
http://www.mediaeducation.ru

5. Target Audience: school students of different age-groups, school teachers.

85

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

6. Chief aim: preparing school students for living in the information society (information competency
and competent usage of data flows) through media education integrated into the system of
compulsory education.

7. Objectives:
- research and analysis of media education experience;
- holding of conferences and workshops on media education problems;
- developing of media education courses for school students, teachers’ extension courses;
- post-graduate media education and ICT education research supervision;
- teaching the audience (school students, teachers) to accept and process media information (in wide
sense);
- developing the audience’s (school students’, teachers’) critical thinking, understanding of the implied
meanings of media texts, conscious resistance to mass-media manipulations;
- out-of-school information inclusion in the context of general compulsory education, in the system of the
knowledge and skills formed within school subjects;
- developing students’ skills to find, prepare, hand over and accept the required information, also using
ICT (computers, modems, faxes, multimedia, etc.) (Zaznobina, 1996, p. 73; Zaznobina, 1998).
8. Working definition of media education: the former amorphous definition of media education

offered by E. Zaznobina (media education is the preparation of ‘students for the life in the information
environment by the intensification of media educational aspects while teaching different school
subjects’ (Zaznobina, 1998)) was replaced in the 2000s by a more systematized and strict definition
offered by A. Zhurin. ‘Media education is a pedagogical science which studies the mass media
impact on children and teenagers and deals with theoretical aspects of preparing students for
meeting with the media world; practical cooperative activity of the teacher and students preparing
children and teenagers to use the media and to understand the role of mass media in culture and
perception of the world; an educational sphere consisting in the knowledge of the mass media role in
culture and perception of the world, and skills of effective interaction with media content’ (Zhurin,
2005, p. 51).
9. Key media education theories: practical theory, theory of developing critical thinking, and semiotic
theory of media education.
10. Media education model units:

To a great extent L. Zaznobina’s media education theory coincides with the media education
approach of V. Polevoy who proved in his research that students’ thinking on the audio-visual level of
perception will be considerably activated only on condition that they are given an opportunity to
independently (to a certain or full extent) estimate and make out the essential and the inessential, the
required and the accidental on the screen; to analyze, synthesize and generalize what has been seen
(Polevoy, 1975, p. 8). The traditions of the media education model offered by L. Zaznobina are being
developed now in the Media Education and Technical Teaching Means Lab of the Russian Academy
of Education. Thus, the model of media education integrated with the system of compulsory
education suggests the following components: objective, contents, activity, technology and regulation
(Zhurin, 2005, p. 30).
11. Organizational forms: media education integration into compulsory school subjects.
12. Teaching methods: According to the knowledge sources: verbal methods, visual methods, practical
methods; according to the level of cognitive activity: explanatory and illustrative methods,
reproductive methods, problem-solving methods, heuristic, research methods. The methods if
integrated media education depend on the used educational means and their aims, organizational
forms of the educational process. The alterations caused by integration on the level of these
components lead to alterations in teaching methods. Moreover, alongside with the organizational
forms that prompts the modification of the inner contents of teaching methods. The principal
modification consists in the practical realization of the informational equality between the teacher and
the students against the background of the participants’ free choice of bifunctional educational means

86

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

of the didactic process consisting in using bilateral analysis of the educational material presented by
the chosen educational aids. The result is that the methods well-known to the teacher get enriched
with the new techniques which ensure a peculiar interpenetration of different methods (Zhurin, 2005,
p.37). Preference is given to the synthesis of theoretical and practical assignments: information search
and systematization, information conversion from visual into verbal forms and vice versa;
information transformation, information search for errors, media texts review, information search for
the message, ICT literacy, etc.
13. Media education program contents (based on the key concepts of media education: media agency,
media category, media technology, media language, media representation, media audience):
- media education assignments integrated into compulsory primary school subjects;
- media education assignments integrated into compulsory subjects of the general secondary school.

As a result, according to the media education standard offered by L. Zaznobina, school leavers are
supposed to be able:
- to understand tasks in different wordings and contexts;
- to find the required information in different sources;
- to systematize the offered information or the self-obtained information on the given characteristics;
- to collect and systematize subject information during a long period of time (term, school year or any
other time cell);
- to convert visual information into verbal system;
- to transform information, modify its content, form, sign system, data carrier and so on, depending on the
communication purpose and the intended audience;
- to apprehend communication purposes, directivity of the information flow;
- to give argumented opinions;
- to find errors in the obtained information and correct it;
- to tolerate alternative view points and to give sound arguments (for and against the opinion);
- to review and announce media texts;
- to ascertain associative and practically expedient relations between media texts/messages;
- to distinguish the message in the media text and to dejoin it from “white noise”;
- to make an outline of the media text, to suggest the form of its presentation in accordance with its
contents;
- to extract data from the offered information and to present them list-form or in any other form;
- to operate (even on the primitive level) these tools of data preparation, transmission and accessing
(Zaznobina, 1996, pp. 75-76; Zaznobina, 1998).
14. Application fields: secondary education institutions. The following objectives of media education

(integrated into humanitarian subjects and natural sciences of the school curriculum) are emphasized:
educational information on this or that field of knowledge (irrespective of the information source or
carrier); information transmitted through different communication channels available to school
students; ICT of information creation, transformation, reservation, transmission and operation
(Zaznobina, 1996, pp. 74-75).

***
1. Name of the Media Education Centre: Moscow City Experimental Platform “Media Education

Technologies and New Teaching Forms in the Modern Educational Institution” of the Experimental
Research Coordination Lab in the General Secondary Education Centre of the Contents and Teaching
Methods Institute (Russian Academy of Education) (http://art.ioso.ru).
2. Year of establishment, location: 2001, Moscow.
3. Financing sources: state, municipal funding, grants.
4. Direction: Dr. Svetlana Gudilina.
Svetlana Gudilina: Brief Biography

Head of the Experimental Research Coordination Lab in the General Secondary Education Centre
of the Contents and Teaching Methods Institute (Russian Academy of Education), Ph.D., member of the

87

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Russian Association for Film & Media Education. Svetlana Gudilina is the research supervisor of the
Moscow city experimental platform “Media Education Technologies and New Teaching Forms in the
Modern Educational Institution”. She teaches a university course ‘Using ICT in Education’ in Moscow
State Pedagogical University.

Svetlana Gudilina has a number of publications (including teachers’ guides, programs) on the
problems of integrated media education, media education and arts in school. Frequently took part in
scientific conferences. Designer of the web-site: http://www.art.ioso.ru, http://www.art.ioso.ru,
http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8, http://edu.of.ru/medialibrary
5. Target Audience: school students of different age-groups, students, teachers, kindergartens’

educators (basic platforms: School № 858, School № 1173, Kindergarten № 2435, innovation web:
Schools №№ 511, 515, 574, and 1405).
6. Chief aim: to train pupils, students, teachers to sensibly interact with audio-visual media texts as
well as with printed texts, to develop communicative and analytical skills working with different text
forms, to form creativity through positive media within media education integrated into compulsory
school subjects and in the process of self-education as well.
7. Objectives:
- research and analysis of media education experience;
- holding of conferences and workshops (including remote videoconferences) on media education
problems;
- creating media education courses for school students, pedagogical university students, teachers,
kindergartens’ educators;
- helping students to obtain actual independence of mass media manipulations;
- making students active participants of communication in the modern society as well as in the future
society;
- developing students’ media competency, i.e. their abilities to expert information search and
interpretation; abilities to analyze, critically interpret and create media texts; use media for self-
education, in creative projects and intellectual potential enhancement.
8. Working definition of media education: the definition given in the UNESCO papers.
9. Key media education theories: practical theory, theory of developing critical thinking, and semiotic
theory of media education.
10. Media education model units: administrative, cultural, teaching and methodical, educational and
scientific components.
11. Organizational forms:
- city, regional seminars run by teachers-experimentalists; workshops on media education for educators
and school administration with the framework of teachers’ extension program;
- Internet-seminars for pupils and teachers;
- annual scientific practical conference ‘Educational Technologies of the 21st Century’;
- annual school students’ teleconference ‘World’s Culture in the Internet’;
- regional educational project ‘Media Festival’;
- teachers-experimentalists’ participation in the system ‘President’s Prize’, ‘Moscow Grant’;
- creation of Media Education Technologies Bank;
- master-classes including media education elements, discussions of video recorded lessons for the
channel ‘Stolitsa Plus’;
- master-classes at All-Russian Exhibition Centre;
- realization of the program for pedagogical university students ‘ICT in Teaching’;
- experimental site support: http://art.ioso.ru.
For instance, there were organized seminars on different topics for primary school: Media Education
Technologies in Primary School, Audio/Video Recording in Primary School, How to Work with
Children’s Journals, etc. For general and secondary school the following topics were chosen: ICT and
Media Education, Media Education Integrated into Compulsory Education, Teaching with Media (chats,

88

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Internet-seminars, teleconferences, presentations, round work tables, etc.), Didactic and Teaching
Requirements to Smart Board Usage, Cinema Art Through Creation, Using Internet Resources in the
Classroom, How to Become a Journalist, Educational Environment of School and Mediatheque, The
Principle of Visualization in Media Education Technologies, Development of Media Education
Competences. For pre-school institutions: Media Education in the Kindergarten, Information and
Communication Environment in the Media Educational Aspect, Development of Communicative Skills in
the Media Educational Aspect, Game in the Media Educational Aspect and others (Gudilina, 2009
http://art.ioso.ru/index.php).
12. Teaching methods:
According to the knowledge sources: verbal methods, visual methods, practical methods; according to
the level of cognitive activity: explanatory and illustrative methods, reproductive methods, problem-
solving methods, heuristic, research methods. Preference is given to research methods and the methods
developing the audience’s critical thinking (reflective methods of assessment, comparison and
identification of information and media texts), practical methods (ICT literacy development which helps
to understand mass media messages and objectives from inside).
13. Media education program contents: (deals with the key concepts of media education: media

agency, media category, media technology, media language, media representation, media audience):

- School № 511: Communicative Competency Development in the Aspect of Media Education;
- School № 515: The Role of ICT and Mass Media in the Media Educational and Communicative Competence of School
Students;
- School № 574: The Realization of the Socialization Principle in Educating with Media Technologies;
- School № 858: Media Education Integration into Basic School Subjects;
- School № 1173: Modern Means of Education in the System of Media Education and Communicative Didactics (Primary
School) and Media Education and Internet Technologies Integration for the Development of School Students’ Communicative
Competence;
- School № 1405 (Inspiration): The Role of Media Education in Teaching the Arts (Gudilina, 2007, p. 11).

So, each school involved in the experiment works on a definite theme of the general program of
the media education centre.

In the city kindergarten № 2435 another experiment is being carried out on the topic: The
Development of Communicative Culture in the Media Educational Aspect in the Preschool Institution.
14. Application fields: schools, kindergartens, universities.

After several years of the experimental work in schools the experiment organizers raised a question:
What has changed in your school since the media education experiment was started? 62 teachers and
local education authority officials took part in the questionnaire. The majority of the interviewees noted
the positive changes in teaching methods, intellectual and scientific growth of school teachers; in
understanding how to organize students’ media education, the work with e-books, etc. (Gudilina, 2009
http://art.ioso.ru/index.php).

***
1. Name of the Media Education Centre: Faculty of Journalism, Moscow State University

(http://www.journ.msu.ru).
2. Year of establishment, location: the Faculty of Journalism (MSU) has been training media

specialists since the date of its opening (1947, Moscow) but it took up mass media education only in
2009 when the direction of the faculty won a UNESCO Bureau grant in Moscow for arranging media
education courses for Moscow school teachers; they presented their project for the discussion in the
Moscow City Parlament which was approved of in May, 2009 and recommended the introduction of
media education courses in the city in Moscow schools.
3. Financing sources: state funding, grants.
4. Direction: Prof. Dr. Elena Vartanova.
Elena Vartanova (born December 28, 1959): Brief Biography
Doctor of Philology (1999), Professor, dean of the Faculty of Journalism (MSU) Elena Vartanova
graduated from the Faculty of Journalism (MSU) (1981). She is a member of the European Media
Management Education Association, ECCR (The European Consortium for Communication Research),

89

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

IAMCR (International Association for Media and Communication Research) and the Russian
Association for Film & Media Education, director of the Finnish-Russian Research Centre of journalism,
mass communications and culture, editor of the Russian journals Media@almanach and Meida@scop. In
1995-2000 she was an expert of the Council of Europe. She is a laureate of scientific grants of a number
of international funds and the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund (2006-2008). Has more than 100
articles published in Russian and foreign academic journals. Presently she researches modern media
economics in the information society, supervises a media education project supported by a UNESCO
Bureau grant in Moscow. She reads lectures on media economics, history of business journalism, foreign
mass media.

Bibliography (Elena Vartanova’s books in Russian):
Vartanova, E. (1997). The Northern Model at the End of the Century. Press, TV and Radio of Northern Europe Countries
between State and Market Regulation. Moscow.
Vartanova, E. (1999). The Finnish Model at the Turn of the Century: Information Society and Mass Media of Finland in the
European Perspective. Moscow.
Vartanova, E. (2006). Encyclopedia of the World Media Industry. Moscow.
Vartanova, E. (2009). The Theory of Mass Media. Moscow.
http://www.journ.msu.ru

5. Target Audience: students of the journalism faculty, media specialists, teachers, school students.
6. Chief aim: developing the audience’s creative and critical attitude to mass media, the audience’s

transformation into a lifelong creative media user (Vartanova, Zasursky, 2003, p. 5).
7. Objectives:
- holding of conferences and workshops on media education problems;
- creating programs of media education courses for school / university students, and teachers;
- familiarizing the audience with the key concepts and laws of the communication theory, developing
initial operational skills of media work;
- developing the audience’s comprehension of media and media texts, of conscious contact with the
media;
- developing media creation.
8. Working definition of media education: “Media education = protection against the media +

preparation for media analysis + comprehension of media functions + conscious participation in
media culture” (Vartanova, Zasursky, 2003, p. 6).
9. Key media education theories: elements of the theory of developing critical thinking, sociocultural
theory, semiotic theory, cultural studies theory, practical and protectionist theories of media
education.
10. Media education model units: administrative, educational and teaching, and scientific units.
11. Organizational forms: different media education courses depending on the education institution
(university, school) which take into account the interconnection of different modules/stages in the
education system.
12. Teaching methods: according to the knowledge sources: verbal methods, visual methods, practical
methods; according to the level of cognitive activity: explanatory and illustrative methods,
reproductive methods, problem-solving methods, heuristic, research methods. There dominate
theoretical and practical blocks including creative assignments, role play of different types.
13. Media education program contents (deals with the key concepts of media education: media agency,
media category, media technology, media language, media representation, media audience):
- media categories;
- mass communication (the concept of mass communication , media language, etc.);
- media technologies;
- media reflection of reality;
- Internet as mass media (Vartanova, Zasursky, 2003, p. 9-10).

Besides they offered some rough media education programs: 1) knowledge of mass media and
developing initial media user’s skills; 2) developing media comprehension and constant media user’s
skills training; 3) conscious media participation; 4) media creation development (including the ability to

90

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

create media texts) (Vartanova, Zasursky, 2003, p.7-8), and a series of media education programs for
school students (2009-2010) of an apparently practical character. In the authors’ opinion they can be
grouped or altered depending on the target audience.
14. Application fields: the media education courses can be used in institutions of different types for: 1)

continuous education, 2) school education; 3) higher education, 4) disadvantaged groups education, 5)
teachers’ training (Vartanova, Zasursky, 2003, p. 7).

***
1. Name of the Media Education Centre: public organization – League of Young Journalists of Russia

(YUNPRESS) (http://www.ynpress.com, http://www.mediashkola.ru)
2. Year of establishment, location: 1996, Moscow.
3. Financing sources: private financing, grants.
4. Direction: Dr. Sergey Tsymbalenko.

Sergey Tsymbalenko (born October 14, 1949): Brief Biography
President of the regional public organization – YUNPRESS, executive director of the League of
Young Journalists of Russia, Ph.D., Sergey Tsymbalenko graduated from the Philosophy Faculty of the
Urals State University; worked as a staff correspondent of the newspaper Pionerskaya Pravda in the
Urals, an instructor of the Central Council for the pioneers’ organization. In 1992 was one of the founders
of the first in the country children’s information/news agency YUNPRESS.

Bibliography (Sergey Tsymbalenko’s books in Ruyssian):
Tsymbalenko, S., Sharikov, A., Scheglova, S. (1999). Russian Teenagers in the Information World (Sociology Surveys).
Moscow: Yunpress.
Tsymbalenko, S., Sharikov, A., Scheglova, S. (2006). The Information Environment of the Russian Teenager in the Post-Soviet
Period (Sociological Analysis). Moscow: Research Institute of School Technologies. 128 p.
http://www.ynpress.com
http://www.mediashkola.ru

5. Target Audience: school students.
6. Chief aim: developing school students’ media activity (generally on the press material).
7. Objectives:
- teaching the basics of media culture to school students;
- developing school students’ media creation (generally on the press material);
- organizing different festivals and competitions of school press;
- sociological research on the topic ‘Children and Media’.
8. Working definition of media education: the definition given in the UNESCO papers.
9. Key media education theories: the theory of media activity resembling the practical theory of media

education.
10. Media education model units: objective block (school students’ involvement in media text creation),

‘media activity’ block (collaboration of media specialists, teachers and students aimed primarily at
developing school press), result block (forming a net of school editions meant for the audience of
different ages).
11. Organizational forms:
- media production (e.g. children and teenage press, Internet sites);
- educational programs (courses, seminars, master classes, workshops) on media education on the press
material;
- holding of media festivals, competitions;
- publishing books on media education of school students on the press material.
12. Teaching methods - according to the knowledge sources: verbal methods, visual methods, practical
methods; according to the level of cognitive activity: explanatory and illustrative methods,
reproductive methods, problem-solving methods, heuristic, research methods. But practical methods
dominate.
13. Media education program contents (deals with the key concepts of media education: media agency,

91

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

media category, media technology, media language, media representation, media audience): mass
communication, media technologies; developing school students’ media creation.
14. Application fields: in educational institutions of different types, culture centers, media agencies.

Conclusions. My analysis has shown that the majority of media education centers tend to the
synthesis of theoretical concepts and pay with every year more attention to practical methods of media
education. It is characteristic of the media education conceptions of E. Bondarenko, S. Gudilina, L.
Zaznobina, E. Vartanova and Y. zasursky, S. Tsymbalenko and other Russian media educationalists.

At the same time, the synthesis of the aesthetic and sociocultural media education models suggested
by Y. Usov (Usov, 1989, 1998), for example, is now supported by such Russian media educationalists as
L. Bazhenova.

Thereby, Moscow media education centers have developed a number of perspective media
education models used in education of people of different social strata, especially – of school students
and young people.

The analysis of the basic media education models used in Moscow media education centers has
shown that nowadays the synthetic media education models are most typical; they are based on the
synthesis of the sociocultural, educational and informational, practical and utilitarian models. And they
lean towards the maximum usage of media education potential depending on the aims and objectives;
they are characterized by variability, and the capacity to entirely or partially integrate into the education
process.

The suggested media education technology is based as a rule on blocks or modules of creative and
role play/gaming assignments for the teachers to use both in school and out-of-school activities. An
important peculiarity of the analyzed models is that they have a wide field of application: schools,
universities, institutions of additional education and leisure activity. Media studies may be organized in
the form of lessons, optional classes, and special courses integrated into different school subjects, or used
in school societies.

And here one should consider S. Pensin’s opinion who justly warns against such typical mistakes
unfortunately characteristic of some media education models: vulgar sociologism, imposition of ready
stereotyped schemes, retreat from ethical problems of media texts (Pensin, 1987, p. 64).

Taking into consideration the above-examined models one can build a rough model of developing
a person’s media competence depending not only on the general didactic principles of education
(upbringing and all-round personality development, scientific character, intelligibility, systematic
character, unity of theory and practice, visualization, life-long learning, practical value, sound knowledge,
positive emotional background, consideration of students’ individual peculiarities, etc.) but also on some
specific principles connected with media content.

Among such principles one can mention the observance of unity of the emotional and intellectual
aspects in the personality development, creative abilities, and individual thinking in teaching targeted at
the maximum usage of media culture potential, and based on using hedonistic, compensatory, therapeutic,
cognitive and heuristic, creative and gaming potential of media texts enabling the teacher to involve the
audience both in perceptive and interpretive activity; analysis of space-and-time, audio-visual media text
structure, and also in media creation (creating one’s own media texts of different types and genres). Plus
correlation with the current media situation which alongside with its shortcomings (stranglehold of low-
grade mass media production, etc.) offers teachers the challenge connected primarily with using video
recording, computers, Internet, interactive media potentialities.

References

Bazhenova, L. (1992). In the World of Screen Arts. Moscow: VIPK, VIKING, Association for Film Educators. 71 p.
Bondarenko, E. (1997). The System of Audiovisual Education in Grades 5-7 of the Secondary School. Ph.D. Thesis. Moscow.
Gudilina, S. (2004). Development Prospects for Media Technologies. In: Education Technologies of the 21st Century.
Moscow: Contents and Teaching Methods Institute of the Russian Academy of Education, p. 71-78.
Gudilina, S. (2007). Innovation Activity in Media Education. In: Education Technologies of the 21st Century. Moscow:

92

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Contents and Teaching Methods Institute of the Russian Academy of Education, p. 8-13.
Gudilina, S. (2009). Innovation in Media Education. In: Education Technologies of the 21st Century. Moscow: Russian
Academy of Education, p. 7-21.
Pensin, S. (1987). Cinema and Aesthetic Education: Methodological Problems. Voronezh: Voronezh State University. 176 p.
Polevoy, V. (1975). Research into Efficiency of Using Educational Film Methods for Cognitive Activity Intensification. Ph.D.
Thesis Abstract. Moscow. 21 p.
Tikhomirova, K. (2004). Visual Aids of Education in the System of Media Education Technologies in Primary School. In:
Education Technologies of the 21st Century. Moscow: Contents and Teaching Methods Institute of the Russian Academy of
Education, p. 243-268.
UNESCO (1999). Recommendations Addressed to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNESCO. In: Education for the Media and the Digital Age. Vienna: UNESCO, p. 273-274.
Usov, Y. (1989a). Film Education as a Means of Aesthetic Education and Artistic Development of School Students. Ph.D.
Thesis Abstract. Moscow. 32 p.
Usov, Y. (1989b). Film Education as a Means of Aesthetic Education and Artistic Development of School Students. Doctoral
Thesis. Moscow. 362 p.
Usov, Y. (2000a). Virtual Thinking of School Students in Familiarization with Different Arts. In: Art in School. № 6, p. 3-6.
Usov, Y. (2000b). Screen Arts as a New Way of Thinking. In: Art and Education. № 3, p. 48-69.
Usov, Y., et al. (1998). The Basics of screen Culture. Moscow: Russian Academy of Education. 60 p
Vartanova, E. & Zasursky, Y. (2003). Russian Module of Media Education: Conceptions, Principles, and Models. In:
Information Society. №3, p. 5-10.
Zaznobina, L. (1996). Media Education Standard Integrated into the Arts and Sciences of Primary and Secondary General
Education. In: Media Education. Moscow: Moscow Institute of Advanced Training in Education, p. 72-78.
Zaznobina, L. (1998). Media Education Standard Integrated into Different School Subjects. In: Standards and Monitoring in
Education. №3, p. 26-34.
Zhurin, A. (2005). Media Education Integration into Secondary School Curriculum. In: Media Education. №2, p. 29-51.

93

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

Regional Media Education Centers (for non-professionals in the media fields) in the
European Part of Russia *

* The author is Dr. Anastasia Levitskaya

Using the comparative methodology, we will try to analyze the aims, tasks, models and practical
activity of the most important regional Media Education Centers (for non-professionals in the media
fields) of the European part of Russia.

***
1. The name of the Media Education Center: The School of Film Education in Tver.
2. Year of establishment, location: 1968 (this year O.A.Baranov defended a Ph.D. thesis on film
education of pupils; the cinema club for pupils under the direction of O.A.Baranov has begun its work
since 1957), Tver.
3. Financing sources: government, public financing; funds earned by the pupils. Infotainment of the
regional media (television, radio, the press, internet-portals).
4. Direction: professor O.A.Baranov.

Oleg Baranov (born 28.12.1934): a short creative biography:
O.A.Baranov is one of the founders of the media education movement in Russia, Ph.D. (1968),
professor of Tver State University, member of Russian Association for Media Education, member of
Russian Cinematographers Union, Honored teacher or the Russian Federation, Honored educator of the
RF. He graduated from the Kalinin State Pedagogical Institute (1957) and post-graduate courses in VGIK
(All-Russian Institute of Cinematography). One of the first Russians who defended a Ph.D. thesis on film
education of pupils. For many years he had been the head of the Film Club in a boarding school (1957-
1971). He was the head of sub-faculty and the dean of one of the departments of Tver State Pedagogical
University. At present time he teaches at Tver State University and Tver School N14 (here he is also a
deputy director and conducts an experiment on aesthetical education). O.A.Baranov is an author of many
works on cinema education of pupils and students, also on the problems of school and youth cinema
clubs, as well as some textbooks for pedagogical institutes of higher education. His articles on media
education have been published in numerous periodicals “Popular Schooling”, “The Art of Cinema”,
“Family and School”, “Radio and Television”, “Upbringing of School Children”, “Projectionist”, “Media
Education” etc. since 1960. Altogether he published more than 70 works, including a book on film
education published in Prague (1989) in the Czech language. O.A.Baranov participated in numerous
conferences where he read reports on cinema education and aesthetical education.

Bibliography (Books by O.A.Baranov):
Baranov, O. Film Club in Kalinin. Moscow,1967.
Baranov, O. Optional Cinema Courses in School. Kalinin,1973.
Baranov, O. Cinema in the work of Secondary School. Kalinin,1977.
Baranov, O. The Screen Becomes a Friend. Moscow,1979.
Baranov, O. Cinema in out-of-school activities. Moscow,1980.
Baranov, O. Cinema in the Work of a Form-master. Kalinin,1982.
Baranov, O. Pedagogickym otazkam vychovy filmovym umehim oborove informachi strcaisko. Praha, 1989.
Baranov, O. Media Education in Schools and Colleges. Tver, 2002.
Baranov, O. Pedagogics in Schemes and Tables. Tver, 2003.
Baranov, O. Cinema in Pedagogical Work with Students. Tver, 2005. (with S.N.Penzin).
Baranov, O. Tver School of Film Education: 50th Anniversary. Taganrog, 2008.
Literature about O.A.Baranov:
Agafonov Y. Cinema and School. In: Literary Newspaper. 1968. March, 27.
Varshavsky Y. Furikov L. Dovzhenko and Me. In: The Art of Cinema. 1964. № 6.
Pazhitnova L. Unusual Celebration. In: The Art of Cinema. 1968. № 3.
Penzin S.N. For Those Who will Take a Risk and Follow Our Steps. In: SK-News. 2007. № 3.
Penzin S.N. The Teacher of Cinema. In: Media Education. 2007. № 1. p. 79-89.
Razorenko M. School Film Club. In: Youth. 1964. № 10.
Fedorov A.V. O.A.Baranov: From the Film Club to the University. In: Art and Education. 2004. № 2. p.58-66.

94

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8
http://www.mediagram.ru

5. Target Audience: school children of different age groups, students.
6. Chief aim: aesthetic, audio-visual, emotionally-intellectual, ethical education of the audience, the
development of media competence of a personality by means of artistic media texts.
7. Objectives:
- to help the students to understand the main laws and the language of the artistic media;
-to develop emotionality and tenderness;
-to develop moral and aesthetic/artistic perception and taste, the abilities to a qualified analysis of the
artistic media texts;
-to develop firm value, moral and aesthetic principles and orientations; involvement into moral and
aesthetic process (Baranov, 2002, p.25).
8. Working definition of media education: The synthesis of the definitions proposed by UNESCO
(UNESCO, 2009) and Y.N.Usov (Usov, 1989).
9. Key media education theories: aesthetical, ethical, cultural theories of media education.
10. Media education model units: target (orientation on aesthetical, audio-visual, ethical media
education of the audience), stating, contents (first of all the studies of the history and the contemporary
state of the art of cinema; the work of A.P.Dovzhenko in particular); the development of practical skills
with the accent on the collectively conducted analysis of audio-visual media texts, mainly of high artistic
level; making of media texts by students), resulting (rise the level of media competence of the audience).
11. Organizational forms: integration into the traditional subjects, autonomous lessons, lectures,
seminars, special courses, optional courses, media/cinema workshops, media/cinema clubs, school movie
theatre, family movie theatre (Baranov, 2002, p.25; Baranov, 2008, p.199).
12. Teaching methods: according to the source of the gained knowledge: verbal methods (lecture,
narrative, conversation, explanation, discussion); visual methods (illustration and demonstration of media
texts); practical methods (fulfillment of various practical tasks on the material of media). According to
the level of cognitive activity: explanatory/illustratory methods (a teacher’s statement of some
information about media, perception and learning of this information by the audience); reproductive
methods (working out and the use of various exercises and tasks on the media material so that students
could master the methods of solving them), problem methods (problem analysis of certain situations or
media texts with the purpose of the development of critical thinking); partially search or heuristic,
research methods (research and creative activity arrangement).

At the heart of the training technique lies the analysis of the media texts:
Form 1-4. Reconstruction of the plot storyline of a movie, finding out the causal relationship between the
preceding and the following episode.
Form 5. Basic elements of compositional construction of a movie in the consequence of episodes:
exposition – culmination – finale.
Form 6. Formation and development of an image, a character in the consequence of episodes.
Form 7-8. Elementary idea about the artistic structure of a movie through basic cinematographic
concepts: montage, cinematographic time.
Form 9-11. Complete analysis of a movie as a work of art (Baranov, 2008, p.164).
13. Media education program contents: relative to the study of such key concepts of media education
as “media agencies”, “categories of media”, “media technologies”, “language of media”, “media
representation”, “media audience”:
Forms 1-4. The sort of spontaneous viewer’s experience. Elementary ideas about the peculiarities of
cinematography and the people who create it (by the example of animated cartoons).
Forms 5-6. Extending and development of fragmentary, episode-by-episode perception of a movie,
finding out openly heroic characters, active situations and conflicts.
Forms 7-8. The beginning of the development of evaluative criteria, finding out separate compositional
elements in the structure of a movie, and the determination of connections between those elements.
Forms 9–11. The development and securing of the skills of the integral analysis of movies, elaboration of

95

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

individual system, the development of one's own view on art in general and cinematography in particular
(Baranov, 2008, p.164).
14. Application fields: lessons in study groups (in schools, boarding schools, clubs, institutions of
accessory education and leisure), elective courses, integrated media education (educational institutions of
different types).

***
1. The name of the Media Education Center: V.M.Shukshin Cinema Video Center.
2. Year of establishment, location: 1989, Voronezh (before that there used to be a similar structure
established in 1965 on the basis of cinema clubs and university media education courses).
3. Financing sources: government (Voronezh State University, Voronezh State Pedagogical University,
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation grant program “Universities of Russia”),
public organizations (Theatre Workers Union, The House of Actors, Russian Cinematographers Union,
etc.); municipal authorities (the structures connected with education and culture). Infotainment of the
regional media (television, radio, the press, internet-portals).
4. Direction: Ph.D., associate professor S.N.Penzin.

Stal Penzin (1932-2011): a short creative biography
One of the founders of media education movement in Russia, Ph.D. (1968), associate professor in
Voronezh State University, S.N. Penzin was the member of Russian Association for Media Education,
member of the Russian Cinematographers Union. S.N.Penzin graduated from Voronezh State University
in 1955, and from VGIK post-graduate studies in 1968. He defended his thesis on the subject of the
educational role of television. S.N.Penzin received Cinematographers Union Prize (1987) and Russia’s
Film Critics Prize laureate (2002). He was a research project director by grants of Russian Ministry of
Education and Science (“Universities of Russia” program, 2002-2005). For many years S.N.Penzin
teached Film Theory and History in Voronezh State University, Voronezh State Pedagogical Institute and
Voronezh Institute of Arts. Since 1970 he had been teaching in the town’s film club. As the director of
V.M.Shukshin Cinema Video Center he connected with Voronezh universities. Since 1950s he has wrote
many articles on the issues of film and media education. They were published in numerous scientific
editions and magazines («Soviet Screen», «Educational Work», «The Art of Cinema», «Projectionist»,
«Rise», «Pedagogics», «Higher Education in Russia», «The Higher School Messager», «Specialist»,
«Media Education»), newspapers («SK-News», «Teacher’s Newspaper», «Family», «Arguments and
Facts», «Antenna», etc.). S.N.Penzin in the author of several monographs, school-books dedicated to the
problems of theory of cinematography, film education in schools and institutes of higher education,
aesthetic education, film clubs movement. He also participated in many Russian and international
conferences and seminars.

Bibliography (books by S.N.Penzin):
Penzin, S. Cinema as Means of Education of the Youth. Voronezh,1973.
Penzin, S. Cinema is Educator of the Youth. Voronezh,1975.
Penzin, S. Cinema in the System of the Arts: the Problem of the Author and the Character. Voronezh, 1984.
Penzin, S. Cinema Lessons. Moscow,1986.
Penzin, S. Cinema and Aesthetic Education: Methodological Problems. Voronezh, 1987.
Penzin, S. Andrei Platonov’s Films. Voronezh, 1999.
Penzin, S. American Cinema Trip. Voronezh, 2001.
Penzin, S. Cinematography Basics. Voronezh, 2001.
Penzin, S. Cinema in Voronezh. Voronezh, 2004.
Penzin, S. Film Analysis. Voronezh, 2005.
Penzin, S. A Film in Educational Work with Students. Tver, 2005. (with O.A.Baranov).
Penzin, S. My Voronezh After the War. Voronezh, 2008.
Penzin, S. The World of Cinema. Voronezh, 2009.
Literature about S.N.Penzin:
Penzin Stal Nikanorovich. Bibliographic Textbook / Edit. V.S. Listengarten and S.V. Yantz. Voronezh, 2002.
Fedorov A.V. Media Education According to S.N.Penzin. In: Art and Education. 2004. № 3. p.64-74.
http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8
http://www.mediagram.ru

96

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

5. Target Audience: students, the youth, the adults.
6. Chief aim: the development of a personality on the material of the artistic audiovisual media texts. As
a result according to S.N.Penzin a personality must possess the following qualities: general aesthetic
(good aesthetic taste, absence of stomps of spectacular’s perception, creative thinking, understanding that
cinema is an art and not a reflection of real life, knowing the importance of art studies) and special (need
for serious cinema art, the ability to understand films sufficiently, selective attitude towards film
production, interest in the history of cinema etc) (Penzin, 1987, p.46-47).
7. Objectives:
-aesthetic, audiovisual, emotionally-intellectual, ethic media education of the audience;
-knowledge forming (as a result – understanding of the importance of the studies of the history of cinema
and its theory, the ability to familiarize oneself with all the elements of a film, fully apprehend any film,
selective attitude towards cinema);
-the development of creative thinking;
-as a result of the upbringing a young person should develop such qualities as good aesthetic taste,
understanding of the necessity of art studies, need for communication with “serious art”, etc. (Penzin,
1987, p.47-48);
-the acquaintance with the tasks of cinema/media education (Penzin, 2004, p.151) .
8. Working definition of media education: Media education is defined as aesthetic upbringing of the
audience (students, school children, youth, etc.) on the material of audiovisual artistic media texts (on the
basis of the masterpieces of «author’s cinematography»).
9. Key media education theories: aesthetic and ethic theories of media education: “we can’t come to
nothing more than specific aesthetic tasks, for the viewer above all must be a personality, a Human (also
be a homo eticus, “an ethic man” (Penzin, 1987, p.47).
10. Media education model units: target (orientation on aesthetical, audiovisual, emotionally-
intellectual, ethical media education of the audience), contents (first of all the studies of the history and
the contemporary state of the art of cinema; the development of practical skills with the accent on the
collectively conducted analysis of audio-visual media texts, mainly of high artistic level), resulting (rise
the level of aesthetic taste and media competence of the audience).
11. Organizational forms: introduction of media education into educational (in Voronezh State
University and other institutions of higher education), and leisure activities of the students and youth by
means of perception of media texts, explanation of the apprehended material, artistic creativity.
12. Teaching methods: according to the source of the gained knowledge: verbal, visual methods,
practical methods. According to the level of cognitive activity: explanatory/illustratory, reproductive,
problem, partially search or heuristic, research methods. Among the main methods S.N.Penzin
emphasizes reproductive, heuristic and research methods on the basis of his collection of films and
educational film fragments, card index and methodical textbooks.
13. Media education program contents:
relative to the study of such key concepts of media education as “media agencies”, “categories of media”,
“media technologies”, “language of media”, “media representation”, “media audience”:
a) aesthetics and fine arts fundamentals (mainly cinematography), the history of cinematography, which
help the full-fledged artistic perception of any film; b) information about basic fields of application of
theoretical knowledge; c) information about the unsolved scientific problems; d) the tasks which help the
students gain experience in the analysis of pieces of cinema art (Penzin, 1987, p.46; Penzin, 2004).

Guided by the traditional principles of didactics S.N.Penzin singles out the following peculiar
principles of media education: cinema studies in the system of arts; unity of rational and emotional in the
aesthetic perception of cinema art; bifunctionality of aestheic education when aesthetic sense makes clear
the ethic one (Penzin, 1987, p.71). It follows that there’s a “unity of three main aims of film analysis
studies. The first one is the studies of everything which is directly related with the author who is he main
carrier of aesthetic basis. The second one is the comprehension of the hero. The third one is the synthesis
of the previous two concepts. (...) The three aims are indivisible, they appear simultaneously and require

97

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

simultaneous solution” (Penzin, 1987, p.56).
14. Application fields: disciplines of compulsory and optional series of studies (mainly in the
institutions of higher education) , club studies (in clubs, media centers, institutions of accessory education
and leisure).

***
1. The name of the Media Education Center: Media Education Center “Media Education and Media
Competence”
2. Year of establishment, location: 2003 (this year the collective under the direction of A.Fedorov won
the status of the Leading scientific school by the President’s grant program “The Support of the Leading
Scientific Schools”), Taganrog (though purposeful media education activity in Taganrog schools and
Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute started in 1981).
3. Financing sources: funds of Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute, various federal and departmental
programs of Ministry of Education and Science of the RF, Presidental funds by the program “The
Support of the Leading Scientific Schools”, funds of Russian Humanitarian Foundation and other Russian
and foreign foundations.
4. Direction: Prof. Dr. Alexander Fedorov. The members of the research team are the members of
Russian Association for Media Education Dr. I.V.Chelysheva, Dr. A.A.Levitskaya, Dr. E.V.Muryukina,
Dr. N.P.Ryzhih, Dr. V.L.Kolesnichenko, Dr. D.E.Grigorova, Dr. E.A.Stolbnikova, and others; post-
graduates G.V.Mihaleva, R.V.Salniy, R.V.Serdyukov, A.P.Zhdanko and others. The team collaborates
with the professor of Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute V.V.Gura and his post-graduates, who conduct
researches at the turn of media education and informational literacy.

Aleksandr V. Fedorov (born. 4.11.1954): a short creative biography:
Dr. (1993), professor (1994), President of Russian Association for Media Education, the Chief
Editor of the journal “Media Education”, member of the board of directors of the Russian
Cinematographers Union, Pro-rector of Scientific Work of Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute (since
2005). A.V. Fedorov graduated from the Film Critic Department of VGIK (Moscow, 1983), finished
post-graduate courses (1986) and doctorate (1993) in the Institute of Artistic Education of Russian
Academy of Education (Moscow). A.V. Fedorov is a member of Russia’s National Academy of Film
Arts and Sciences (since 2002), International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth and Media, FIPRESCI
and CIFEJ (Montreal, Canada). He is laureate of Cinematographers Union Prize (1983), Russia’s Film
Critics Guild Prize (2001), The Prize for Outstanding Contribution to the Development of Media
Education (2007). A.V. Fedorov won the first prize in All-Russian Competition “The Best Book on
Communication Sciences and Education” (in Media education section, 2009).
As the head of Media Education Center “Media Education and Media Competence” A.V. Fedorov
conducts scientific research. He’s a laureate of All-Russian Competition of the Leading Scientific
Schools of the RF (2003-2005) by the Russian President’s program; the Competition of the projects
according to the Special Federal Program “Scientific and Pedagogical Manpower of Innovation Russia”
(2009-2013); the program of Ministry of Education and Science of the RF “The Development of
Scientific Potential of the Higher School” (2006-2008); research grants on the Arts (media, cinema art
and media education): Russian Humanitarian Scientific Foundation (the leadership over the seven
projects, 1999-2010), The Foundation of the President of the RF for the support of creative projects of
national significance in the sphere of culture and arts (2001-2002), Ministry of Education and Science of
the RF (1997-2000), the program “Universities of Russia” (2002-2003), Open Society Institute (various
lines of investigation in the Arts field, 1997-2002), Central European University (1998, 2006), The
MacArthur Foundation (1997, 2003-2004), The Kennan Institute (2003), German DAAD Foundation
(2000, 2005, 2010), Swiss Scientific Foundation (2000), French Foundation - Maison des science de
l’homme (2002, 2009), ECA Alumni (2004), MION Center: Interregional Research in social sciences
(2004-2005) and others.
A.V.Fedorov worked in the Press, in schools, was a member of editorial board of the magazine
“Screen” (Moscow), teached in Russian New University. For more than 20 years (1987-2008) he was the

98

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

head of the Department of Socio-cultural Development of Personality in Taganrog State Pedagogical
Institute. He gives courses on media education, he is the scientific adviser of post-graduates (11 of them
defended a thesis).

A.V. Fedorov is the author of 20 books on media education, media competence, media culture,
Russian and foreign cinema art. He has published over 500 articles in Russian and foreign magazines
since 1978 (such as “Alma Mater: the High School Messenger”, “Russian Humanitarian Foundation
Messenger”, “Higher Education in Russia”, “Innovations in Education”, “ICT in Education”, “Distant
and Virtual Education”, “Art and Education”, “World of Education – Education in the World”, “School
Technologies”, “The Kennan Institute Messenger in Russia”, “USA-Canada: economics, politics,
culture”, “Pedagogics”, “Human”, “Specialist”, “Break”, “Mediateka”, “School Library”, “Practical
Psychology”, “Pedagogical Diagnoctics”, “Youth and Society”, “Media Education”, “Screen”, “The
Art of Cinema”, “Projectionist”, “Opinions”, “Video Ace Premier”, “Videoshop”, “Meeting”,
“Monitoring”, “Journalism and Media Market”, «Total DVD», «About Cinema» (Moscow), “Cinema
Screen News”, “Kino-Kolo”, “Media Critics” (Ukraine), “Innovation Educational Technologies”
(Belorussia), “Cinema” (Lithuania), Audience (USA), Cineaste (USA), Film Threat (USA), Russian
Education and Society (USA), Canadian Journal of Communication (Canada), Cinemaction (France),
Panoramiques (France), Educommunication (Belgium), International Research Forum on Children and
Media (Australia), Media i Skolen, Tilt (Norway), MERZ: Medien + Merziehung (Germany), Media
Education Journal (Scotland), Educational Media International, International NGO Journal, Thinking
Classroom, AAN Quaterly and others; in newspapers “Art Lantern”, “Culture”, “Our Time”, “Week”,
“New City Gazette”, “Teacher’s Newspaper”, “Screen and Stage”, “SK-News”, “Literary Newspaper”,
“The 1st of September”, “Business Screen”, etc.

A.V.Fedorov repeatedly participated in the work of international media education conferences
(Geneva 1996, 2000; Paris, UNESCO 1997, 2007, 2009; San-Paulo 1998; Vienna, UNESCO 1999;
Saloniki 1999, 2000; Toronto 2000; London 2002; Strasbourg, 2002; Montreal 2003; Baltimore 2003;
Budapest 2006; Prague 2007; Graz 2007; Madrid, UN, 2008, Ludwigsburg, 2010, etc.). He researched
media education and media culture in Central European University (Budapest, 1998, 2006), Kassel
University (Kassel, 2000), Media Education Centers in Belgium (Brussel, 2001) and France (CLEMI,
Paris, 2002, 2009), The Kennan Institute (W.Wilson Center, Washington, USA 2003), Humboldt
University in (Berlin, 2005), Mainz University (Mainz, 2010). He was a member of the board of juries
(incl. FIPRESCI) during International festivals in Moscow, Sochi, Oberhausen, Montreal, Locarno, etc.

Bibliography (books by A.V.Fedorov):
Fedorov, A. Pro and Contra: Cinema and School. М.,1987.
Fedorov, A. It’s Hard to Be Young: Cinema and School. Moscow,1989.
Fedorov, A. Video Argument: Cinema – Video – Youth. Rostov, 1990.
Fedorov, A. Training of the Students of Pedagogical Universities for Aesthetic Education of School Children on the Material
of Screen Arts. Taganrog, 1994.
Fedorov, A. Film Art in the Structure of Contemporary Russian Artistic Upbringing and Education. Taganrog, 1999.
Fedorov, A. Media Education: History, Theory and Methods. Rostov, 2001.
Fedorov, A. Media Education in Russia: A Short History of Development. Taganrog, 2002 (with I.V.Chelysheva).
Fedorov, A. Media Education Today: Contents and Management / Edit. A.V.Fedorov. Moscow, 2002.
Fedorov, A. Media Education in Pedagogical Institutes of Higher Education. Taganrog, 2003.
Fedorov, A. Media Education in Foreign Countries. Taganrog, 2003.
Fedorov, A. Violence on the Russian Screen and Youth Audience. Taganrog, 2003.
http://interact.uoregon.edu/medialit/MLR/home/dwnload/violence.doc
Fedorov, A. Children’s Rights and the Problem of Violence on the Russian Screen. Taganrog, 2004.
Fedorov, A. Media Education and Media Literacy. Taganrog, 2004.
Fedorov, A. Media Education in the Leading Western Countries. Taganrog, 2005 (with A.A.Novikova).
Fedorov, A. Media Education of the Future Teachers. Taganrog, 2005.
Fedorov, A. Media Education in the USA, Canada and the UK. Taganrog, 2007 (with A.A.Novikova, V.L.Kolesnichenko and
I.A.Karuna).
Fedorov, A. Media Education: Gallup Polls. Taganrog, 2007.
Fedorov, A. Media Education: Sociology Surveys. Taganrog, 2003.
interact.uoregon.edu/medialit/MLR/home/dwnload/sociology.doc

99

Fedorov, Alexander. Media Literacy Education. Moscow: ICO
“Information for all”, 2015.

http://www.nordicom.gu.se/cl/publ/electronic/Book%202007%20ME%20SociologyFedorov.pdf
Fedorov, A. The Develpoment of Media Competence and Critical Thinking of the Students of Pedagogical Institutes. Moscow,
2007.
Fedorov, A. On Media Education. Moscow, 2008.
Fedorov, A. Media Education and Media Competence: Questionnaires, Tests, Control Tasks. Taganrog, 2009.
Fedorov, A. Media Education Yesterday and Today. Moscow, 2009.
Fedorov, A. Transformation of the Image of Russia on the Western Screen: From the Epoch of Ideological Confrontation
(1946-1991) till the Present Days (1992-2010). Moscow, 2010.
Literature about A.V.Fedorov:
About the Books by A.V.Fedorov “Media Education and Media Literacy” and “Children’s Rights and the Problem of Violence
on the Russian Screen”. In: Cinema Process. 2005. № 1. p.173, 175.
Kirillova N.B. Media Culture: From Modern to Post-Modern. Moscow, 2005. p.397.
Korkonosenko S.G. Teaching Journalism: Professional and Popular Media Education. St.Petersburg, 2004. pp.79-81.
Korochensky A.P. Important Contribution into Media. In: Media Education. 2005. № 1. p.121-124.
Chudinova V.P and others. Children and Libraries in the Changing Environment. Moscow, 2004. p.155-165.
Yanchevskaya E. From Life to the Screen and Vice Versa. In: Independent Newspaper. 2.09.2004.
Korochensky A.P. Media Education and Journalism in the South of Russia. In: The South of Russia in the Past and the Future:
History, Economics and Culture. Belgorod, 2006. Vol.1. p.316-323.
Polichko G.A. Cinema Language Explained to a Student. Moscow, 2006. p.7.
Burke, B.R. (2008). Media Literacy in the Digital Age Implications for Scholars and Students. In Communication Studies
Today At the Crossroads of the Disciplines. Moscow, 2008.
Yoon, J. (2009). The Development of Media Literacy in Russia: Efforts from Inside and Outside the Country. In: Marcus
Leaning (Ed.). Issues in Information and Media Literacy: Criticism, History and Policy. Santa Rosa, California: Informing
Science Press, 2009, p.189-213.
http://mediaeducation.ucoz.ru/load/media_education_literacy_in_russia/8
http://www.mediagram.ru
www.tu-ilmenau.de/fakmn/uploads/media/Russia-report_3.pdf

5. Target Audience: students, pupils, teachers.
6. Chief aim: the development of media competence of a personality, its culture of communication with
the media, creative, communicative abilities, critical thinking/autonomy, abilities to the full-fledged
perception, interpretation, analysis and evaluation of media texts, self-expression with the help of media,
preparation of future media educators for various institutions.
7. Objectives:
- creation of scientific and methodological basis for the development of media education and media
competence of the growing-up generation;
- analysis of Russian and foreign experience in the field of media education;
- creation of the scientific basis of the monitoring of the levels of media competence of the audience of
various age groups;
- during the process of basic and optional education to develop the following abilities: perceptive-creative
(creative perception of media texts of various types and genres taking into consideration their connections
with various arts etc.); practical-creative (creation of media texts of different types and genres); analytical
(critical analysis of media texts of different types and genres); historical-theoretical (self-dependent use
of the gained knowledge on theory and history of media/media culture); methodical (take-over methods
and forms of media education; various technologies of self-expression with the help of); practical-
pedagogical (use of gained knowledge and abilities in the field of media education during teaching
practice).
- development of collaboration (including international collaboration) with the scientific and educational
institutions related to media education and media competence;
- training of top-qualified, media competence specialists and pedagogical cadres (candidates and doctors
of science) on the basis of the newest pedagogical technologies in collaboration with the interested
faculties;
- development of new progressive forms of innovation activities, scientific collaboration with scientific,
educational organizations, foundations and other structures with the purpose of joint solution of the most
important scientific and educational tasks in the field of media education;
- conducting of conferences, seminars, competitions on the subject of media education, media

100