Introduction

Global research on media literacy is continually evolving and shifting towards digital, meta-media pathways. New issues under analysis, such as human and machine interaction through Generative AI, ethics and copyrights, digital content and e-safety, as well as innovative e-learning opportunities. This places media literacy under a novel, enlarged prism of capacity building where multiple media literacy realities meet, deconstruct and intersect. This new media intelligence calls for reformed institutional media literacy policies and strategies, and national infrastructures that (ought to) consider the abundant opportunities and numerous challenges of our transformed knowledge societies for public commons. Developing policies shall strive to minimize the risks and maximize the benefits with full respect to basic human rights, such as open voice and freedom of expression (UNESCO, 2019). This paper is based on the presentation made at the 5^th International Media Literacy Research Symposium in 2024, where, for the first time, key findings of the global online survey State of Play of Media Literacy at National Level (AUTH, 2023), were communicated worldwide. The survey aimed to explore streamlining media literacy policies through monitoring structures, and attempted to associate evidence-based data from an evaluation point of view, all towards developing a media literacy assessment policy model as part of strong, sustainable democracies.

The Context of the Survey: Main Theoretical Assumptions Around Media Literacy Policies

In attempting to situate the online global survey within a broad media literacy framework, we need to engage in multimodal analysis and adopt a mixed definition of media literacy—recognized both as an empowering component of digital citizenship and as a vital element for promoting active citizen participation in all-inclusive, resilient, and intercultural democratic societies. Media literacy is a pivotal life skill within capacity building for an open, public dialogue where all citizens can freely express themselves, be heard and actively participate in public commons. Through media literacy, all individuals are empowered with critical cognitive skills to become judicious and ethical “prosumers” of content and recognize how media filters perceptions and beliefs, shapes popular culture, and influences personal choices. 

By and large, media literacy is a dynamic, fluid, multifaceted, interdisciplinary subject. It draws elements from different paradigms, such as: sociology and cultural studies, humanities, pedagogy and education, communication and media, ICT, and digital skills, following UNESCO ecosystem (Andriopoulou et al., 2013; UNESCO, 2013, 2014, 2019). In the digital era, it goes beyond traditional forms of communication and encompasses new media settings and open voice expressions in multiple digital platforms and contexts. Following UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy Ecology (Fig.1, Fig. 2), media literacy is approached as core life skills for the 21^st century citizen, a composite concept applied in both school education and lifelong learning settings for inclusive and participatory democracies and public commons.

Fig. 1. UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Ecology (UNESCO, 2011)

Fig. 2. UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Ecology (UNESCO, 2019)

In addition, EU research associates media literacy as a silver bullet, as our own defence mechanism – in terms of adopting pre-bunking and debunking mechanisms – against information consumption pathogeny phenomena, such as mis-, dis- and malinformation, fake news, deep fakes, and other information tactics. While it certainly applies to these cases, media literacy goes far beyond this, into a macro-creative and self-empowerment approach towards qualifying citizens with broad critical media autonomy as Masterman (1990) described early on, in our highly intermediated and digitally saturated societies (Fig.3). It is also aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 Agenda towards improving the quality of human life and social well-being, namely SDG 3 on good health and well-being, SDG 4 on quality education, SDG 5 on gender equality and diversity, SDG 8 on reduced inequalities in terms of knowledge societies, SDG 11 for sustainable cities & communities and SDG 16 for peace, justice & strong institutions (UNESCO, 2013).

Fig. 3. Media & Information Literacy Scheme (Andriopoulou, 2019).

From a national policy perspective in Greece, following Buckingham’s (2003) dichotomy – where media literacy is the outcome of media education procedure in school settings – the term “media literacy” (παιδεία στα Μέσα) is preferred to the term of “media education” (εκπαίδευση στα Μέσα), following the terminology set by EU policies early in the 00s (COM 2007/ 833, Rec 2009/625, AVMSD 2018/1808). In parallel, it adopted EAVI pyramid (Celot & Pérez Tornero, 2009) scheme, where media literacy is divided into social and individual competencies and influenced by environmental factors. Moreover, for our survey, we supported a more holistic approach within a lifelong learning context, for another reason: literacy is by definition a broader, more comprehensive, essential, and inclusive concept than education that focuses on didactic contexts. On this premise, media literacy embraces school educational procedures related to alphabetism but further extends to advanced concepts of literacy associated with upbringing, environment, social behaviour, life experiences, culture, morals, ideas, open voices, and overall attitude to life (Andriopoulou 2008; EKOME, 2018).

The online survey is situated within the internationally formulated demand over the last twenty years for the development of national educational policies on media, with the European Commission and UNESCO as key stakeholders (Andriopoulou, 2018:63-66). Our research data may potentially lead to valuable conclusions for planning future actions on media policies with beneficial results for the formation of active and autonomous media citizens within public commons, with increased digital intelligence that contributes to holistic and inclusive Societies of Knowledge (Pérez Tornero & Varis 2010:94). In the context of UNESCO’s Media and Information Literacy ecology, we identify three intersecting levels of action: a) individual competences development b) social competences development and c) institutional development level. Our survey State of Play of Media Literacy at National Level addressed the third one, which refers to the normative level and includes legislative regulations and provisions within the context where wider policies are articulated (UNESCO, 2013:35). 

The outcomes of the survey may provide the baseline for articulating a core structure of a monitoring national media literacy policy model, evidence-based, metrics-based and indicator-specific, to depict national infrastructures on media and information literacy, linking policies to strategies, bridging theory with practice towards enriching public dialogue and ensuring sustainable Knowledge Societies.

The Survey: Design and Methodology

The main premise behind the design, planning and implementation of the survey State of Play of Media Literacy at National Level was to explore, study and where possible, map the status quo of national policies and practices on media literacy as an interdisciplinary field, and gauge the global mobility in the field. Due to different crossing cognitive fields, the survey called for a nuanced, flexible and mutatis mutandis approach (Fig.4). 

Fig. 4. Survey ID (Andriopoulou, 2023).

The survey was originally designed based on literature review and policy documents. To ensure technical control, the survey was uploaded to the LimeSurvey online platform registered by AUTH. It was tested for validity and credibility controls through Alpha and Beta phases. Originally, it consisted of 55 mixed questions (quantitative, qualitative) in multiple formats (open, closed), divided into ten thematic sections: each section explored a different dimension and the distinctive application fields of media literacy, in policies and in practice. Open questions were addressed to expert’s knowledge and experience whereas closed questions (Yes / No / Do Not Know) were more context – specific. After testing and quality control, the survey received approval by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Department of Journalism and Media of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – AUTH (A.P.145766/01/06/2023) based on which, protection of the participants’ personal data was outlined in an informed consent form signed by them. In Gamma Testing, the survey was finalized with 46 mixed questions divided into 9 Sections and sent out through an online questionnaire in predefined target groups (Fig.5). Together with the questionnaire, the forms of consent were also forwarded. 

The survey was officially launched in June 2023 and remained open until 31 October 2023, coinciding with the celebrations of 2023 UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Week. It was open access via a special link for the questionnaire sent by e-mail, together with the consent forms (acceptance, refusal) of the participants (Fig.4.). 

Fig.5. Sections of media literacy engagement.

Although quite extensive, the survey got indicative input from a total of 33 countries from five continents (Fig.6). Greece is on top of the list because the survey was designed and supported by Greek-based, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH). USA and United Kingdom follow, whereas an important contribution was registered by North Macedonia, where strong institutions exist to deal with disinformation phenomena. In total, 241 participants were registered for the survey, 168 partially submitted their responses, and 73 completed the survey.

Fig. 6. Participation rate by country.

Due to the context-specific nature of the survey, the addressed target group consisted of media literacy experts, academics, educators, media literacy professionals, and policymakers, who were invited anonymously to take the survey. For time management issues and due to the interdisciplinary field of the subject, all experts were approached through a single questionnaire; however, they were not obliged to answer all the questions, only the sections/questions that best suited their discipline, field of action and experience. 

The survey-specific target groups were grouped as below:

• National media and/or digital literacy organizations/institutions/public entities
• NGOs active in media and/or digital literacy, capacity building
• ML research networks: e.g., UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Alliance & Regional Chapters, NORDICOM, Media and Information Literacy For ASEAN, NAMLE
• EU institutions & working groups on media, digital policy, democracy, education and lifelong learning
• National/regional associations on media and/or digital literacy and capacity building
• Practitioners of media and /or digital literacy (educators, trainers, teachers)
• Regulatory bodies of media, communication, and digital media (ERGA, EPRA)
• Academia/researcher’s community in the respective fields

Key Findings and Media Literacy Semantics  

With regards to participants’ affiliations, we received an interesting mixture among different fields (Fig. 7). Most of the input came from universities and research bodies, indicating media literacy as a strong academic discipline. The main fields were a) media and communications studies and b) education and pedagogy units. Contributions by civic society were also significant, and NGO input was combined with private entities since their status of operation was not always clearly recognized. We should note here that taking grassroots action – from bottom to top – is considered an important axis in the national media literacy action map. It often works both as an inspiration force as well as an indirect pressure towards the undertaking of policies and initiatives at a vertical level. 

It is very enticing that we received satisfactory feedback from both, media regulatory authorities and school professionals, who both represent key fields of action for practicing and promoting media literacy. In this context, they constitute separate media literacy indicators. Media regulatory authorities were mainly reached through EU bodies, such as ERGA – European Regulator’s Group for Audiovisual Media, the Board of the EU AVMSD Directive 2018/1808 and EPRA – European Platform of Regulatory Authorities.

Other key stakeholders and globally acclaimed players that took part in the survey were members of UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Alliance, the Center for Media Literacy and NAMLE in the USA, OFCOM from the UK, KAVI in Finland and a lineup of universities, such as Bournemouth University, Webster University, The Temple University, Autonoma University of Lisbon, Western Sydney University. 

A low participation rate was noted from the memory and cultural institutions, such as libraries and archives, which were not identified as the primary action target group on media literacy. 

Fig. 7. Participation per media literacy sector.

Media Literacy per Policy Development Field

In the first thematic section (Section A, Q.1) on identifying policies and strategies related to media literacy in the participating countries, the vast majority responded positively on the presence of such policies with a rate of 75.34%. Of particular interest are the fields in which policies with direct or indirect reference to media literacy are outlined (Fig. 8). A 54.79% came from Education & Pedagogy policies, both prevalent in the school curriculum and non-typical school education. Someone mentioned indicatively, “I have to say that all the above topics are of major effectiveness for the development of media literacy among national politicians, but some have more impact and some less. For me education field is the most important.” A 31.51% came from audiovisual & digital media policies and the creative media industry, addressing mainly media platform regulation, such as Acts and Laws that focus on linear and non-linear content providers, digital content, VLOPS, VLOS, etc. More specifically, the content of such policies related to media literacy was regulation of the social media platforms and online content providers with regards to minors’ protection, addressing hate speech, open voice and freedom of expression, disinformation, provision for quality content, capacity building on digital skills, protection of journalists and media pluralism, content classification and labelling, as well as protecting consumer’s rights online and digital presence overall. 

The recent EU policies (such as the revised AVMSD 2018/1808, DSA 2024, EU AI Act 2024, EMFA 2024) contribute greatly to promoting the media literacy agenda. On this premise, the EU regulation highlights a new target group related to media literacy policies and online content: that of influencers/kid-fluencers (users under 18) highly present in social media, recognizing their potential influence on shaping attitudes, ideas and consumer behaviours among youth, for the consolidation of certain standards. The next fields where media literacy policies are present follow as such: digital inclusion policies and digital skills (30.14%), interministerial approach/combined policies within media pluralism and cyber-protection units (27.40%), ICT policies/digital infrastructure (24.66%), consumer protection policies/civic rights where advertising literacy initiatives are mentioned (9.59%). 

Fig. 8. Media Literacy per Policy Development Field.

In the same section (Section A, Q.4, Q.5), we explored the presence of a national institution/body and an independent media authority in audiovisual, digital, and cultural contexts with a clear remit on media literacy strategy nationwide. The picture is positive for most of the replies: 53.42% replied Yes on the operation of national bodies and 46.58% on the operation of independent media regulatory authorities. In terms of locating media literacy monitoring and assessment mechanisms (in the forms of metrics and indicators) that are key dynamics for a sustainable media literacy policy, either within the aforementioned bodies or operating in other national contexts, we received negative input mainly, indicating a gap between policy strategies and evaluation mechanisms. Policy assessment is crucial for open and sustainable democracies and needs certain metric systems such as indicators, which, by definition, are quantitative metric units that provide information to monitor performance, measure achievement, and determine accountability.

Media Literacy in School Education

The presence of policies for the promotion and implementation of media literacy in school education has as its main objective the introduction of an educational scheme integrated into formal education. In this context, analyzing our research data on mobility in the field, directly or indirectly, is of major importance. In the relevant question (Q.10), 56.16% replied positively about the presence of media literacy in schools, whereas 44.84% replied negatively or did not know. What is more interesting is the education level where it is present (Q.11), with secondary education level as the prime one of reference at 38.89% and pre-school and primary education level at 26.39%. The most common model used is the spiral curriculum model (Bruner, 1960), which is used to teach media literacy in a mixed content and cross-level format. The lead of secondary education level is interpreted in light of the advanced capacity building of the students: a more mature learning and experienced use of media is available hence they are able to understand more complex concepts about their media identity, information use and sharing, disinformation and active digital citizenship |(Andriopoulou, 2007). Tertiary education comes third, with a low rate of response (19.44%) since there is more focus on teaching media literacy as a special teaching subject in specific faculties and schools rather than as a general study discipline. 

The detection of actions and practices related to media literacy in formal education was explored through open-ended questions (Q.12) related either to the research knowledge of the respondents or to experience (personal engagement). The main categories in which actions were documented are:

• As a separate course / autonomous cognitive unit, 31.51%.
• As an interdisciplinary approach / optional course / cross-curricularly, through other modules/courses, 42.47%.
• As an individual educational activity/school project/program for teachers and/or students, 32.88%.

Special reference needs to be made to two distinct subcategories where media literacy educational programs were detected: a) thematic weeks and b) thematic school networks, which contribute significantly to the progress of the educational process and the school flow. These two subcategories provide a platform for actions outside the typical school curriculum, with flexibility in time and forms of participation, and offer a wide range of topics, engaging at the same time elements from the UN Sustainable Development Goals – Agenda 2030. They have a positive impact since they offer encouraging experiences, increased interaction, and group-based participation in the classroom, among students and teachers and between schools. 

Thematic weeks can be national, regional, or international. In an overloaded school curriculum, thematic weeks offer a creative outlet for schools to engage in outside-of-the-classroom activities in a non-linear way. Among the most referenced weeks was UNESCO Global Media and Information Literacy Week, which is celebrated annually during the last week of October, with large school engagement noted globally. UNESCO proclaimed the Week official by 193 countries in 2019 as a powerful promotion tool to draw attention to the fast-rising issue of Media and Information Literacy, linking it to social inclusion and intercultural dialogue. During the week, numerous events take place globally that celebrate media and information literacy, following recommendations by UNESCO on how to get actively involved in both typical education and lifelong learning settings. Other thematic weeks mentioned are EU Media Literacy Week, EU Gaming Week, EU Code Week, and the new UNESCO Digital Learning Week. 

Thematic school networks offer lifelong training for in-service, in-training teachers (up-skilling, re-skilling) to better prepare them to respond to the growing needs and demands of the digital age. They offer open educational resources, seminars, and hands-on workshops (synchronous and asynchronous), and they function as a networking hub within the school community. In Greece, the National School Network for Media Literacy: Television, Cinema, Internet (2021-2024, 2024-2027), approved by the Hellenic Ministry of Education, stands out as an indicative example. It addresses schoolteachers of primary and secondary education, special schools and Greek schools abroad. What is noteworthy about this network is that it not only offers media educational resources but, at the same time, inspires students towards experimenting and producing User Generated Content (UGC) in the classroom, engaging in action the learn-by-doing methodology. In particular, during the period 2021-2024, the Network collected more than 281 school projects on various elements of media literacy throughout Greece and Greek schools abroad that are all freely accessible from the Network’s platform www.edu4media.eu.

In addition, when exploring the existence of evaluation mechanisms to capture the educational actions on media in formal education among teachers and students (Q.14, Q.15), we received negative input both from teachers (63.01%) and students (58.90%): neither group mentioned any such mechanisms present for evaluating media literacy skills in schools. The presence of media literacy metrics is crucial for evaluating the level of knowledge and skills that could function as a quality barometer. In this context, special mention needs to be made to the European project EduMediaTest (2021, Creative Europe / Media Literacy for All), which was the first joint effort in seven EU countries to assess and record the level of knowledge and management of media and digital skills to secondary education students through an open interactive tool (test) and accompanying educational material. The exercises and educational proposals of the EduMediaTest project spanned six important dimensions of media literacy: Language, Technology, Production and Distribution, Ideology, Audience Reception, and Aesthetics. The tool was tested on 9,000 students aged 14-18 years from the seven countries of the consortium, highlighting trends with important indications for the understanding of concepts related to media literacy. The project was completed with a set of recommendations on media literacy skills among Greek students (EKOME, 2021).

Media Literacy in Civic Society

The survey highlighted important actions driven by the civic society. Most respondents (63.01%) reported strong mobility by NGOs and local communities on media literacy initiatives. The primary audience to which audiovisual, media and digital literacy actions are addressed to are young people, especially from vulnerable social groups, while significant action was also recorded towards parents and caretakers. Civic society, although fragmented and scattered with elements of discontinuity and the absence of national registries, is an important indicator for developing actions on media literacy. It engages citizens from a bottom-to-top approach (grassroots), has flexibility and extroversion, and is based on volunteer potential. Accelerating voluntarism through the “alternative open voice” of civic society has led to ground-breaking social movements, such as the Arab Spring, the #metoo and #IStandwithUkraine movements, demonstrating the dynamics of mass mobilization through social media. Among the synergies mentioned between civic society and private initiatives are collaborations with digital content providers (such as Facebook/Meta) in digital skills education actions (e.g., academies) within the context of Corporate Social Responsibility. At the same time, specific media literacy actions have been mentioned by international NGOs, such as IREX -International Research & Exchanges Board and UNESCO.

Media Literacy in Academia / Research

The presence of media literacy units in the academic sector mainly concerns (Q.26.) autonomous courses (textbooks, syllabus) at a rate of 56.16%, and interdisciplinary reference, among other cognitive objects (media production) and university laboratories (Q27). The main departments and faculties where media literacy is traced are departments of journalism/media/communication (47.22%), departments of education and pedagogy (38.89%), followed by departments and faculties of audiovisual media and production, radio and television, new media and digital production (19.44%), social studies and psychology, humanities (12.50%), public relations, marketing and advertising (11.11%), as well as departments related to cyber security and online infrastructures (8.33%). The abundance of modules, courses and workshops in the academic field confirms the interdisciplinary approach and the fluid cognitive field of media literacy (Fig.9).

Fig. 9. Academic fields of media literacy in academia / research.

The replies received regarding the existence of national, regional, or international academic networks on media literacy of which the respondent’s country is a member of (Q.30) were unusual. While 42.47% replied positively and mentioned global leading networks in the field, such as UNESCO, NAMLE, Poynter Institute, Mediawijs, and IC4ML, a considerable number of replies did not reflect awareness of such initiatives (No 17.81% / No answer 39.73%). (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Media Literacy Research Networks per country participation.

Another important dimension explored was the production rate of national bibliography related to media literacy ecology. In the relevant question (Q.31), the majority of replies reported a low production rate (73%), demonstrating the need for increased visibility of media literacy research through easy access to open data, digital infrastructure and interoperability, and indexing structures (Fig.11.). However, since Q.31 on mentioning indicative publications was an open question, we received a mixed reference of publications, not only on national but on international level.

Fig. 11. Production rate of national bibliography on media literacy.

Media Literacy in Media Professionals / Journalists

Media literacy, as a professional reporting and voicing of public opinion tool, is related to journalists and media professionals, who are public opinion advocates and watchdogs for public commons. In this context, media literacy skills are vital for journalists’ professional development since they respond to challenges embedded in the messages of media platforms and information providers, as well as the news agenda setting in traditional and new media outlets. Media literacy works as a two-sided mechanism for self-development at the professional level and for guiding the audience and public opinion to adopt a critical attitude towards media content (messages, representations, ideologies) and media context (functions and mechanisms) of all news and media actors. Journalists and media professionals ought to cultivate their own media literacy skills to be able to address objectively, verified, non-stereotyped and bias-free content while conducting their research. In the same context, they ought to create a neutral media narrative that will promote public values and open dialogue, such as freedom of expression, civic rights and diversity, media pluralism, accountability, and ethical reporting, as well as protection of copyrights and sources, all vital elements of democratic and knowledge societies. At the same time, they need to be aware of and avoid information consumption pathogenic phenomena, such as hate speech reporting, disinformation, and information manipulation, augmented through new technological and AI developments. 

The variants for our survey include the discoverability of media literacy training among journalistic settings, whether in-service or in-training (Q.34). A correlation between media literacy and disinformation and/or fact-checking skills as safeguards for broad media literacy pluralism and freedom of ownership was also implied. A great amount of the respondents replied positively (43.84%) on the presence of media literacy schemes among in-service media journalists and the professional community in the form of training courses, awareness campaigns, funding programs, professional networks among academia/journalistic unions/organizations/networks in their country (Fig.12.). In terms of geographical reach, respondents did not focus solely on national paradigms but mentioned initiatives with a global outreach as well (e.g., Google actions on disinformation and fact-checking).

Fig. 12. Media literacy training schemes among journalists and media professionals.

Media Literacy in Target Groups and Distinct Social Groups

Defining clear focus groups makes the articulation of targeted policies and strategies more effective. Simultaneously, it contributes to holistic, diverse, intercultural intervention within societies. The focus groups on where actions of media literacy were addressed to, according to our survey data, were primarily senior citizens (65+), vulnerable social groups (immigrants, refugees, Roma), students and young people, people with special needs, girls, and women (Fig. 13). Analyzing data per target-audience constitutes an important indicator for measuring and developing policies per social group, emphasizing where lower mobility is observed and boosting relevant action per se. For instance, according to FRA (2024), more emphasis needs to be given to developing media and digital skills among seniors 65+, the grey digital divide, since they are highly active on social media however most susceptible to disinformation phenomena. At the same time, we got insufficient data (and often, complete absence) on the 75+ age group and their relationship with digital media. This gap in data calls for improved actions and policies to empower this age group, given that the “old population” (75+) will make up 20% of the world by the year 2050. Several reports, although not the majority, noted that educational and digital actions for special target groups such as people with special needs with a percentage of 28.77% (Finland, Netherlands, United Kingdom, North Macedonia) compared to 38.36% (No) and 32.88% (Don’t know).

Fig. 13. Target-group of media literacy actions.

Conclusions – Towards open, democratic, resilient, and competitive Knowledge Societies for Public Commons 

Data analysis of our survey State of Play of Media Literacy at the National Level confirms impactful international mobility on media literacy, mainly driven by global key stakeholders (UNESCO, EE, NAMLE), in co-regulation and self-regulation structures. As a result, the need to strengthen and prioritize policies in the field is more urgent than ever, given the ever-changing mediated environment, the new digital challenges, and further interaction with Artificial Intelligence (EU AI Act), which indicate new fields of action. Ethical dilemmas and moral panics arising arise from the need for multiliteracies to shift to new digital norms, however, the axis remains the same: the need to build strong Knowledge Societies with an open voice, democratic cohesion, and multilateralism. Knowledge Societies are a prerequisite for promoting public commons where all citizens can contribute dynamically and critically to public dialogue. On that note, the need for media literacy capacity building towards active media and digital citizenship is the focal starting point for conquering future literacies (Tsekeris & Zeri 2020:111). This can be advanced through a “tripole” set of interventions that serve public commons:

a) Build on digital infrastructure with safety and interoperability mechanisms.

b) Enact a sustainable regulation shield by streamlining flexible policies on media literacy ecology.

c) Cultivate an enhanced Media and Information Literacy competence framework as a mechanism of self-empowerment and bullet-proof shield against information chaos and information disorder. 

Inspired by Masterman’s theory in the 1990s on the power of linear mass media, we argue that today’s media are even stronger “consciousness industries” that shape patterns and behaviours towards new social norms. It is thus a great challenge for the citizen of the 21st century to deconstruct modern communication models and the mechanisms of information capacity within the media industries through the canvas of critical media literacy and digital skills to conquer true Knowledge Societies of cognitive euphoria.

References

Andriopoulou, I., (2019). Knowledge Structures. In R. Hobbs, P. Mihailidis (ed) The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy, Vo. 2. NY: Wiley Blackwell Publishing.

Andriopoulou, I., (2018). Δείκτες Ανάπτυξης Παιδείας στα Μέσα Επικοινωνίας στην Ψηφιακή Εποχή: Μια Διερευνητική Ευρωπαϊκή Προσέγγιση. Στο Ιορδανίδου, Σ., Παπαδημητρίου, Σ., & Βαλσαμίδου (επιμ.) Εγγραμματισμός στα Μέσα, Σε Αναζήτηση της Έννοιας και της Λειτουργίας της, (55-76). Αθήνα: Μεταμεσονύχτιες Εκδόσεις / Advanced Media Institute.

Andriopoulou I., Kourti S., Papadimitriou S., (2013). Media and Information Literacy Policies in Greece. ANR TRANSLIT and COST “Transforming Audiences/Transforming Societies. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334698176_Media_Information_Literacy_Policies_in_Greece 

Andriopoulou, I., (2008). Επικοινωνιακή αγωγή: Ανάγκη ή Πολυτέλεια; μια θεωρητική και πρακτική προσέγγιση στην Ελλάδα. In Analekta 2007, Hellenic Audiovisual Institute, Athens: Papazisis. 

Ανδριοπούλου Ε., (2007). Το μάθημα της «Αγωγής στα ΜΜΕ» στο σχολείο. Στο Το Αλφάβητο των Μέσων και η Διδασκαλία του, Ινστιτούτο Οπτικοακουστικών Μέσων. Ημερίδα 24 Οκτωβρίου 2007. Αθήνα.

Bruner, J. S., (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Buckingham D., (2003). Media Education: Literacy, Learning and Contemporary Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Celot, P. & Pérez Tornero, J.M. (2009).  Study on Assessment Criteria for Media Literacy Levels. EAVI, European Commission. 

ΕΚΟΜΕ. (2018). White Paper on Media and Information Literacy. https://www.ekome.media/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/EKOME_White-Paper-_GR.pdf. 

ΕΚΟΜΕ. (2021). EduMediaTest Recommendations. https://www.ekome.media/wpcontent/uploads/2021/11/Edumediatest_Recommendations.pdf.

FRA Annual Report. (2024). https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2024/fundamental-rights-report-2024.

Masterman L. (1990). Teaching the Media. London: Routledge. 

Pérez Tornero, J.M. & Varis, T. (2010). Media Literacy and New Humanism. UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.

Tsekeris, C., & Zeri, P. (2020). State, society and communication media in the coronavirus era. The Greek Review of Social Research, 154, 109–128. https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/ekke/article/view/24518

UNESCO. (2019). Understanding MIL in the Digital Age, Carlsson U. (ed.). Swedish National Commission UNESCO. Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2014). Media and Information Literacy Curriculum for Teachers. Andriopoulou I. (Greek eds), Paris: UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2013). Media and information literacy: policy and strategy guidelines. Paris: UNESCO.

Abbreviation List