How will Academic Institutions integrate MIL curricula? A case from Greece

Introduction

The complex ecology of media literacy encompasses concepts related to knowledge, information, communication, attitudes, policies, pedagogy, etc. in a wide range of cognitive, psychological and social fields. Livingstone (2011) has written about the ‘problem of knowledge’ in the context of new media and over the last 20 years many debates have been initiated about the interpretations and limits of MIL (indicatively, Buckingham, 2015; Hobbs, 2009; Livingstone, 2004; Mihailidis, 2014; Potter, 2010) in the fields of pedagogy, critical theory, epistemology, critical thinking, media theory and communication (Kellner & Share, 2007; Livingstone, 2011) suggesting a paradigm shift in all areas of our lives: the shift from print media to digital networks, from traditional curricula to the integration of digital technologies in education, from our classical hierarchically structured participation in communities to the multimodal and multifaceted ‘democratized’ individual expression in a variety of media by persons of all ages.

The skills and competences imposed by new technologies are embedded in a contemporary mediated landscape of digital imagined communities (Anderson, 1991) that materializes in the form of online groups, communities and worlds, where we observe the instrumental construction of the ’emergent citizen’ (Mihailidis, 2014): the prosumer who informs and gets informed, learns, works, interacts, plays, collaborates and communicates from within the ecosystem shaped by digital platforms (Mosco, 2017; van Dijck et. al., 2018). In these imagined communities, and the mediated socio-technical imagery (Mihailidis, 2014), the issue of digital engagement dominates all areas of communication and learning.

MIL and Education

With the diffusion of digital communication technologies at the beginning of the 21st century and their effects on novel types of information, new literacies go beyond the practices of so-called “education 2.0”, where new information and communication technologies merely support or complement educational content. Today we need to structure a new type of education, where innovative technologies are decisive for the participation in educational processes, drawing from the lessons learned from the online education applications during the Covid-19 pandemic worldwide. This new education is characterized by constant revision, variety and opportunities for social creativity (Frau-Meigs & Hibbard, 2016) and also by unpredictability, which, from now on, has to be considered an indispensable feature of all education policies.

A dimension of MIL, which is critically important when it comes to schooling, regards written communication; writing has always been a powerful technology, and a powerful medium, for human communication (Ong, 1988) in various forms throughout human history. Every single change in the technologies of writing has led to revolutions in the ways of reading, and learning, even if sometimes this change has taken centuries. In addition to transmitting knowledge, written communication in public media also enables us to find common ground, to recognize each other in different time and space.

On the other hand, the products of writing (‘content’, ‘information’ or whatever form they take) have their own ‘life’ in these imagined communities, as they are shaped on the basis of a mutual agreement on their new interpretations (Brown & Duguid, 2001). With the development of AI language models, written content acquires ‘personality’ and creativity. All digital content ‘points’ towards situations in both physical and digital or virtual worlds, all of which are perceived as equally real -especially by generations Z and A- and redefines the understandings and the practices of all writing and reading. Thus, in reinventing the skills we need to develop -and teach- in the contemporary learning and information structures, we also need to reinvent the mental models that represent them (Paivio, 2010; Pylyshyn, 1973).

The importance of new types of literacies in the knowledge society (European Council, 2018) not only connects this knowledge society with modern literacies, but also transforms the process of knowledge acquisition from a relatively passive to a more active and interactive process, which impacts current and future social developments (Unsworth, 2003). Content plays an important role in new literacies, as well as the social relevance of new resources^[1]; thus in contemporary education we need to consider knowledge along with the active and creative use of media, and critical attitude in terms of both quality, accuracy of content and intellectual property issues. This is especially important for younger people, who are accustomed to finding and producing content easily, effortlessly – and for free. In the process leading to media literacy, each element of the learning journey supports all others, as part of a non-linear, dynamic process; for example, learning how to create content helps people to analyze what is professionally created by others (Livingston, 2004).

Acknowledging that education needs to adopt this series of transformations, it is crucial that we all use the same language and we attribute the same meaning to terms; we need to be sure that what the lawmakers understand is the same with what the teachers and students understand. So, how do we express all the new dimensions of literacy? Is the single term “Media Literacy” enough? And what does it mean?

The Many Interpretations Of Media Literacy

In the Greek language, we have different terms to express “media literacy”: one term (‘γραμματισμός’) is based on the traditional notion of alphabetism and regards the process of becoming Media Literate (in the various MIL dimensions) during formal and informal education (‘εκπαίδευση’ in Greek); while another term regards the outcome of becoming educated in the various media literacies (‘παιδεία’), which also encompasses concepts of acquired culture, embodied behaviors, acknowledged systems, well established practices and internalized values. Buckingham (2006) argues that the general notion of literacy implies a broader education about media that is not limited to technical skills or narrow forms of functional competence and that it critically engages with four domains: representation, language, production and audience. Thus in the Greek literature we prefer to use the term ‘παιδεία στα μέσα‘ in order to refer to the outcome of media literacy education.

The appropriate conceptualization of the term is important as an educational policy tool in order for school to provide the means to each student to acquire the skills and to condition their behavior in their communities when ‘consuming’ any type of information; it is also important for motivating involvement in school life (and the mediated digital communities and, thus, society) via democratic participation (Mihailidis, 2005). Citizens who possess MIL skills and perceptions adopt an active and critical attitude and are able to contribute to the creation of quality and relevant audiovisual content.

MIL in the schooling environment can also be approached from a functional viewpoint. Functional literacy (Verhoeven, 1994) is perceived as the ability to write, read and use oral language and mathematical calculations and operations wherever they are needed in the social field, at the individual and collective level. According to a contemporary UNESCO definition (2011), persons are considered functionally literate when they have acquired knowledge and skills that enable them to engage in all those activities in which literacy is naturally acquired in their community or culture. Thus, functionally illiterate individuals, although they may have completed circular studies, are not able to respond to the needs of specific communicative, expressive and creative situations. Another key concept in this approach in MIL is critical literacy, which embodies the cultural knowledge that enables the speaker/editor/reader to recognize and use the appropriate language or symbolic code in different circumstances or conditions. This type of literacy aims to raise awareness of the structures and functions of dominant forms of knowledge and to develop critical thinking, with an emphasis on social goals and contexts, and is also linked to empowerment, since it makes people active critics of social reality (Mitsikopoulou, 2001).

So, when drafting education policies, and when implementing education programs, it is necessary that all stakeholders use the same language, and understand it in the same way, since different definitions express a range of different conceptions of both ‘media’ (e.g. as a cultural and social form of medium, as a channel for delivering information, or as a specific set of technologies, etc.) and ‘literacy’ (e.g. critical thinking, self-reflection, or skills for accessing, collecting and analyzing information, etc.). For example, it is important that we know when and why we focus on (indicatively) audiovisual literacy and the role that images and text play in the production and circulation of information and misinformation (Hameleers et. al., 2020); or on search literacy (Donovan & Rapp, 2020); source evaluation (Addy, 2020;); online reasoning (McGrew, 2020); information verification and evaluation techniques (Roozenbeek et. al., 2020); etc; so that we can all reflect on the same ‘kind of information’ (Buckingham, 2015).

MIL In Greek Schools

In the last decade, the term Media Literacy (‘παιδεία στα μέσα‘) in the meaning of the outcome of MIL education has started to gain ground in the Greek literature, both in the EL versions of the European Union documents (indicatively, European Council, 2016; Directive (EU) 2010/13; Directive (EU) 2018/1808; UNESCO Guide to Teacher Education (2014)) and also in Greek policy documents; in 2020 the term ‘παιδεία στα μέσα‘ was for the first time introduced in public consultation of the Greek Ministry of Education (before that, the “kind” of literacy included in the schools’ curricula regarded mainly digital literacy and ICT skills) and then included in the drafts of Law 4779/2021.

However, it seems that the lawmakers have not decided yet which approach to MIL (which ‘kind’ of MIL) to introduce to formal education; the Law voted in 2021 adopted the earlier terminology, providing for the incorporation of digital literacy skills, soft skills, 21st century skills, and critical thinking skills in a unstructured bundle of competences in the high school curriculum, along with multiple other topics, like citizenship, sex education, organizational skills, addictions’ protection, coding, algorithmic thinking, etc. This vast content is wrapped up in a new “lesson” titled “Skills Development Workshops” to be delivered for one hour (40 min) per week to high school students (12-15y).

Beyond any doubt, this is a positive development; we want MIL to find its place in formal education, even if it needs some more years to mature as a concept. And we shall patiently wait to (hopefully) see MIL becoming the horizontal canvas on which the whole school curriculum will unfold. However, after the introduction of this lesson, a problem arises: who teaches MIL? Or even digital literacy, or critical thinking? In Greece, there are no formally MIL-trained educators, terms like ‘MIL pedagogy’ are only starting gaining ground in the Greek bibliography, and it is not certain if educators receive any MIL CPD^[2] training; so, for the moment, the lesson is delivered by random teachers (physics teachers, ICT teachers, language teachers, STEM educators, or any teachers who have free hours in the school’s schedule). Nonetheless, each educator’s understanding of the field, as well as their academic training, has a significant impact on students’ learning experiences. So, in practice, in the absence of a single standardized framework for MIL pedagogy, educators translate and adapt MIL concepts and practices as they see fit to the conditions and contexts in which they work, to the political and news media status of their country, and to the prevailing technological environments (Kajimoto & Fleming, 2019).

In general, secondary education in Greece is still organized around the ‘older’ versions of literacy, namely, ‘school literacy’. This approach focuses on reading and writing, but emphasizes ‘language literacy’ at school. Similarly, ‘academic literacy’ refers to the acquisition and development of specialized and academically defined knowledge (Belcher, 1994). Traditionally, this ‘version’ of literacy in the context of schooling is not socially determined (Gee, 1993), i.e., it is not conceptualized differently according to the context and different needs in different communication contexts, but refers to the traditional teaching of language elements and phenomena outside of context and social practice, focusing mainly on the production of meaning.

Literacy taught throughout formal education is linear and its aim is to introduce students to the formal written form of discourse, applying a pedagogical method of transmission and reproduction of a single cultural and linguistic form. Although language is changing, since it is alive and serves the everyday needs of individuals, schools traditionally teach the grammar and syntax of the ‘frozen’ national language, rather than the different uses or even the subjective linguistic expressions in different contexts, which serve different purposes for different groups of users.

In addition, there is still a distorted impression that the term ‘Media Literacy’ refers mainly to audiovisual literacy, due to the narrow interpretation of the word media, and the 10+ years’ tradition of European programs in the country. Also, ‘Media Literacy’ is often confused with ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) or with the general ‘trump card’ term ‘digital literacy’.

Another issue, both in Greece and other European countries, is that various ‘MIL trainings’ are delivered by private initiatives to the general public or to professionals, though with a fragmented, discontinuous and scattered character -and with dubious scientific and pedagogical documentation- packing up cyber-security, digital skills, audiovisual education, fighting misinformation, and many more competences; these trainings often are self assessed as ‘good MIL practices’ and reported as such. This medley is complemented by a large number of publications, often in the context of cross-border European programs, which are usually drafted and circulated without coherent scientific basis, without linkage to learning theories and without robust evaluation of results. More importantly, the professionals who deliver such trainings have not been formally trained as MIL educators. On the other hand, MIL skills in the general public debate are understood as internet security or privacy, while in the media sector they are mainly related to misinformation.

How Media Literate Are University Students?

Understanding literacy depends on whether the term is approached in terms of alphabetic knowledge and information retrieval or in its broader sense as the perception and communication of meaning in multiple media and different modalities. New literacies are new practices of reading and writing (Street, 1998) that have emerged with new technologies, or new strategies and semiotic contexts (Kress, 2003; Lemke, 2002). Learning experiences with multimedia technologies are rich in visual, electronic and digital texts where different semiotic systems co-exist (language, image, sound, and so on); these experiences interact and co-operate to create meaning that requires the activation of more than one cognitive and metacognitive functions (Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001; Unswotrh, 2002, 2003).

Multimodality of digital discourse requires new literacy theories for education, which will adequately describe comprehension and communication processes in all contexts, as well as new pedagogical methods that respond to the new learning environment (Kress, 2003), at the same time keeping the basic comprehension and meaning-making strategies, such as:

• Understanding the wider socio-cultural context, discourse and coherence
• Understanding the “genre” of texts (e.g. literary, informational, etc.)
• Tailored reading based on the genre or purpose of the text 
• Activation of cognitive schemas (prior knowledge, knowledge of field/subject)
• Interaction between reader and text
• Active reader engagement
• Cognitive and emotional understanding and interpretation (inference, analogy)
• Critical/analytical attitude towards ideologies and positions
• Enabled imagination
• Information practice

The meta-semantic functions of verbal and non-verbal semiotic codes require the development of new, alternative strategies for assessing reading comprehension and learning (Papadimitriou, 2015). The way of understanding any text (visual or verbal) produces new interpretations, new reactions and new meanings (Walsh, 2003). Therefore, the new kinds of literacies, which correspond to multimodal digital texts, need to incorporate ways to understand the inter-textual and/or intermodal and inter-semiotic interconnections.

As regards learning, despite heated debates among scholars and differing opinions about which pedagogy is more or less MIL effective, no discipline is highly standardized yet. Even before (or without) restructuring the whole Education Realm in order to reflect current student needs, for educators to be in a position to deliver all such notions of MIL, they must be adequately and efficiently trained. However, there is no specific MIL training course at most Pedagogy Schools at Universities, while media and news literacy can be found in the curriculum of only a few Media or Communication Schools.

This lack of such training was a major finding in my Doctoral Research, where I studied MIL skills and MIL education of 1300 graduate and postgraduate students from all Schools at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki during the academic year 2022-2023. Also I examined whether they had received any specific MIL training, differentiated into semester courses within their formal curriculum, or lectures on related topics or practical training workshops and/or seminars (within or outside the University).

According to my findings, the vast majority of the respondents have not attended any seminar, course, workshop or lecture on concepts of media literacy and/or news literacy. It appears that only around 15 % of participants have received some relevant training within their academic environment, in variable formats, while around 10 % in total have gotten enrolled (on their own initiative) in some relevant training outside the University (6,4 % in the form of seminars, 13,3 % in the form of lectures and 10,6 % in the form of workshops).

On the other hand, over half of the respondents (52.6%) consider themselves familiar with the concept of media literacy while 13.7% declare complete ignorance of the term. However, as regards media literacy as an education process, almost half of the respondents are not sure about the meaning of the term (44.2%), 27% say that they can only guess what it means, while 28.8% answer negatively. Finally, only 38.9% of the participants are familiar with the concept of News Literacy, while 61.1% are uncertain or do not know what it means.

The above results were broken down by academic discipline, in specific: (a) media and/or journalism and/or communication; (b) computer science; (c) pedagogy; and (d) other disciplines. This distinction was deemed important because of (1) the nature of the concepts in the question, (2) the fact that these terms and the competences they represent are new to the pedagogical context of university programs, and (3) the assumption that students in communication and pedagogy faculties would be the most familiar with these concepts (or able to “guess” their meaning more correctly). We found that Media students indeed ranked first in having attended lectures or semester courses or workshops at the University in percentages ranging from 40% to 54%. We also saw that almost half of them (44%) had attended one or more MIL workshops outside University.

On the other hand, over 86% of Computer Science students had not received any MIL training whatsoever. Pedagogy School students had received some MIL training outside the University (36% had attended a lecture or workshop in media literacy education (‘παιδεία στα μέσα’) and only 11% in news literacy).

Finally, as far as other disciplines are concerned, approximately 15% said that they had followed some random MIL workshops at the University and very few (4-11%) had gotten enrolled on their own in such trainings outside the University.

As per the research assumption, it was observed that those familiar with MIL concepts have better MIL skills than the other participants in the survey. Interestingly, most respondents from all fields of study and all age groups (58%) answer positively to the need for MIL training, no matter how they personally ranked in MIL skills.

The Role Of Libraries

So, to summarize, Media Literacy has started being introduced in secondary schools in Greece. However, there are no relevant classes at the Universities, so there are no specialized educators to deliver courses to the students.

Could libraries, which by definition are ‘fluent’ in information literacy, delve early into MIL and quickly ‘generate’ experts, who will become trainers, so as to temporarily bridge this gap, until proper curricula are set up at the Universities?

Possibly yes! Here are some suggestions on how libraries can facilitate this process:

Partnerships: Libraries can collaborate with schools or educational institutions to form partnerships focused on media literacy. In such cooperation, libraries can leverage their expertise in informational literacy while schools provide insights into the educational context.

Training programs: Libraries could host structured and accredited training programs for educators to cover various MIL aspects, such as critical thinking, evaluating sources, media analysis, and digital citizenship. Programs can be designed as workshops, webinars, or online courses to accommodate different learning preferences.

Professional development opportunities: Libraries can host professional development sessions, conferences, or seminars focused on media literacy. These events can bring in experts, researchers, policy makers and practitioners to share insights and good practices. These events can serve as platforms for dialogue, exchange of ideas, and exploration of effective approaches to media literacy education. Libraries can facilitate discussions, present case studies, and provide practical examples to inform policy discussions

Resources and materials: Libraries can curate collections of resources, including books, databases, articles, videos, and websites (or even toolkits) related to media literacy.

Collaboration with universities: Libraries can collaborate with universities to advocate for the inclusion of MIL in teacher education programs.

Research: By gathering evidence and data, libraries can advocate for the integration of media literacy into educational policies and practice

Collaboration on policy development: Libraries can actively participate in policy development committees or working groups formed by the Ministry of Education. By offering their perspective, libraries can help shape policies that incorporate MIL effectively and align with the current educational landscape

In sum, libraries can contribute by collaborating with other stakeholders to advocate for the inclusion of media literacy in higher education. By establishing partnerships, they can demonstrate their commitment to supporting educational goals and contribute their expertise in the field. Also, by actively engaging with the Ministry of Education, libraries can play a vital role in influencing training policies and ensuring that media literacy receives due attention and support within the education system.

It is important, though, to note that while libraries can provide valuable support and training, the establishment of proper national curricula at universities and good teacher training programs remains crucial in ensuring comprehensive media literacy education at schools.

Conclusion

Taking into account the constant interaction between humans, machines, big data and artificial intelligence in contemporary concepts of education and learning, it is necessary to understand that Media Literacy Education has a clear pedagogical dimension. MIL needs to find its place in formal education curricula, both at primary and secondary school level, to guide students in the opportunities offered by digital technologies. To achieve that, MIL has to be established as a discipline or course at higher education level, to train professionals in the use of digital technologies as well as educators to deliver the new literacies to students.

Bibliography

Addy, J. M. (2020). The art of the real: Fact checking as information literacy instruction.Reference Services Review, 48(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-09-2019-0067

Anderson, B. (2020). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. In S. Seidman & J. C. Alexander (Eds.), The New Social Theory Reader (pp. 282-288). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.2307/1858850

Belcher, D. (1994). The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for specific purposes, 13(1), 23-34.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116

Buckingham, D. (2006). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1(4), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn1891-943x-2006-04-03

Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy – What do young people need to know about digital media? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(Jubileumsnummer), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn1891-943x-2015-jubileumsnummer-03

Buckingham, D., Banaji, S., Carr, D., Cranmer, S., & Willett, R. (2005). The media literacy of children and young people: a review of the research literature. Ofcom: London.

Donovan, A. M., & Rapp, D. N. (2020). Look it up: Online search reduces the problematic effects of exposures to inaccuracies. Memory & Cognition, 48(7), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-020-01047-z

Educational research, 13, http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier13/unsworth.html

Frau-Meigs, D., & Hibbard, L. (2016). Education 3.0 and Internet Governance: A New Global Alliance for Children and Young People’s Sustainable Digital Development. Centre for International Governance Innovation and Chatham House. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/education-30-and-internet-governance-new-global-alliance-children-and-young-peoples/

Gee, J.-P. (1993). What is Literacy? In L.-M. Cleary & M. Linn (Eds.), Linguistics for Teachers (pp. 257-265). McGraw-Hill

Hameleers, M., Powell, T. E., Van Der Meer, T. G., & Bos, L. (2020). A Picture Paints a Thousand Lies? The Effects and Mechanisms of Multimodal Disinformation and Rebuttals Disseminated via Social Media. Political Communication, 37(2), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1674979

Kajimoto, M., & Fleming, J. (2019). News Literacy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.848

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy: Crucial policy choices for a twenty-first-century democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 5(1), 59-69.

Kress, G. & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse. London: Arnold

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. Routledge.

Lemke, J. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visaul Communiation, 1(3), 299-325

Livingstone, S. (2004). Media Literacy and the Challenge of New Information and Communication Technologies. Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420490280152

Livingstone, S. (Ed.). (2011). Media literacy: ambitions, policies and measures. COST: European Cooperation in Science and Technology.

McGrew, S. (2020). Learning to evaluate: An intervention in civic online reasoning. Computers & Education, 145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103711

Mihailidis, P. (2005). Media Literacy in Journalism/Mass Communication Education: Can the United States Learn from Sweden? Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 60(4), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769580506000409

Mihailidis, P. (2014). Media Literacy and the Emerging Citizen: Youth, Engagement and Participation in Digital Culture. Peter Lang Inc.

Mosco, V. (2017). Becoming digital: Toward a post-internet society. Emerald Group Publishing

Ong, W. J. (1988). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Routledge.

Ong, W. J. (1998). Digitization Ancient and Modern: Beginnings of Writing and Today’s Computers: (Part One). Communication Research Trends, 18(2), 4–20. http://cscc.scu.edu/trends/v18/v18-2.pdf

Paivio, A. (2010). Dual coding theory and the mental lexicon. Words and Their Meaning: A Deep Delve From Surface Distribution Intounderlying Neural Representation, 5(2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.5.2.04pai

Potter, W. J. (2004). Argument for the Need for a Cognitive Theory of Media Literacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764204267274

Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1973). What the mind’s eye tells the mind’s brain: A critique of mental imagery. Psychological Bulletin, 80(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034650

Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L., Recchia, G., … & Van Der Linden, S. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society open science, 7(10), 201199.

Street, B. (1998). New literacies in theory and practice. What are the implications for language in education? Linguistics and Education, 10(1), 1-24

UNESCO. (2011). Media and Information Literacy: Curriculum for Teachers. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

UNESCO. (2013). Global Media and Information Literacy Assessment Framework: Country Readiness and Competencies.

Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001

Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Transfer in Bilingual Development: The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis Revisited. Language Learning, 44(3), 381–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01112.x

Μητσικοπούλου, Β. (2001). Γραμματισμός. Εγκυκλοπαιδικός Οδηγός για τη Γλώσσα. Κέντρο Ελληνικής Γλώσσας.

Παπαδημητρίου, Σ. (2015). Εγγραμματισμός στα Μέσα: Προσεγγίζοντας το Σχολείο του 21^ου Αιώνα. Εκπαιδευτική Ραδιοτηλεόραση.

---

[1] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A European approach to media literacy in the digital environment, 2007

[2] Continuing Professional Development