A Media Literacy Case in Peru: Reflections on a 10-year journey

Abstract

This paper compares media literacy understanding through 2009 post-test results to 2019 comparison post-test at three schools in Lima. These post-test studies were sponsored by Medios Claros, a Civil Association in Lima devoted to advancing media literacy; administered and analyzed by researchers at the University of Lima; with media literacy training for participating teachers provided by the Center for Media Literacy (CML, Los Angeles, CA).  To understand study results in this 10-year comparison, the context surrounding the study is examined, including CML’s methodology used for training teachers and Peru’s approach to national standards and curriculum.  But perhaps the most impact on results in the 10 year period between the student post-tests resulted from the rapid technological changes that influenced the youth’s media environment and usage.

Keywords

Media Education, Media Literacy, Media Culture, Schools, Educomunicación, Paulo Freire, Core Concepts, Empowerment Spiral, Peru, Latin America

1. Introduction

As digital media technologies drive global culture, media literacy has emerged from the periphery of education and increasingly become recognized as an imperative for preparing citizens of all nations to be active, engaged and resilient. Latin America is no exception: for the past 30 years, Latin American governments have connected schools with digital technologies, and there are public education policies that validate ICT as a transversal core concept (Mateus, Andrada, Quiroz, 2019). However, much of this investment has prioritized buying devices over building skills (Peru was one of the most enthusiastic participants of One Laptop per Child project acquiring almost 1 million laptops, but most of them are underused or stacked at school’s warehouses) (Mateus, Quiroz, 2017).  

Leading academic researchers from Latin America have long contributed to the media literacy field since the 1960’s, and two regional organizations promote media literacy:  the Latin American Researchers Association (ALAIC), founded in 1978, and the Latin American Federation of Social Communication Schools (FELAFACS).  Liberation pedagogy – originating with Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1970) – and the concept of educomunicación, a word that combines education and communication, has contributed to the thinking behind media literacy for decades. “Freire criticized the vertical and authoritarian sense of the education system, proposing the construction of a dialog enriched by the students’ experiences and their way of viewing  the  world” (Mateus, Quiroz, 2017, 155).  Thus, “educomunicación assumes that education and communication are interrelated, part of a transformational and liberatory process that is dialogical, critical, relational, collaborative, and participatory” (Lombana, 2021).

As this concept of literacy has taken hold – a concept that incorporates contextual understanding of media messages as well as the reading and writing of a text, whether digital or print, video, or audio – youth are challenged to interrogate the media on a deeper level to make meaning in their every-day lives.  No longer is it enough to “read” and “write” in the traditional sense, but instead, to filter through the plethora of information available, it is essential to understand the deeper nature of media and information, and how media work as a global symbolic system. 

2. Methods and Materials

Medios Claros, a Civil Association that emerged in Lima in 2008 to publicize, disseminate and promote Media Literacy in Peru, uses the evidence-based methodology of the Center for Media Literacy (CML). Motivated by the challenges of living today in mediated cultures and faced with fragmented media that increasingly press for attention, Medios Claros contributes to awakening parents, children, educators and citizens to the need for how people should freely interact with the media and its messages and thus, encourage the critical thinking necessary for free decision-making. The goal of Medios Claros is to create a demand for media literacy in society and therefore, to encourage the acquisition of tools from an early age through education, and in all possible areas of society, both for the consumption of messages and for the responsible production of the same.

In early 2009, Medios Claros sponsored CML to conduct a two-day teacher training for 100 teachers at four private Lima-based schools (with 25 teachers from each school):  América del Callao School; Newton College; Villa Cáritas School (Catholic School -Women); and Colegio San Pedro (Catholic School – Men).

Subsequent to the teacher training, each school administered a post-test for all students, grades 2-11.  The purpose of this post-test was reported as:

• To provide a school-wide evaluation of media literacy learning and baseline for future evaluation.
• To see whether students improved their understanding of the Five Core Concepts of Media Literacy
• To determine whether students understood how to apply the Five Key Questions of Media Literacy; and
• To see whether students understood the importance of individual decision-making and their social responsibility.

Medios Claros has preserved these post-test results since 2009.  In 2019, students who were among the youngest students at the school during the time of the initial teacher training participated in an identical post-test prior to their graduation, to measure the impact of their learning on their knowledge about media literacy, as well as their individual decision-making and social responsibility.  This paper compares the 2009 post test results to the 2019 comparison post-test at three of the participating schools in Lima (Newton College was unable to participate in 2019) (Figure 1).  Analysis of results was conducted by the University of Lima, Medios Claros and the Center for Media Literacy.

Background on CML Pedagogy

CML’s training and curricula development revolve around two evidence-based frameworks that CML developed through the years: Questions/TIPS (Q/TIPS), comprised of CML’s 5 Core Concepts and Key Questions for both consumers and producers of media; and the Empowerment Spiral of Awareness, Analysis, Reflection and Action, based on work by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1970).

Among the ideas behind the Core Concepts are understanding  authorship and the provenance of information; to be aware of the techniques that are used to attract attention and influence thinking; to know that other people in different locations or with different backgrounds will undoubtedly interpret a message differently – or be targeted in a different way that may be more appealing to them; to detect the bias that is always present in media, because it is impossible for all points of view to be adequately represented; and to accept that media is always created for a purpose, either for profit or for power and influence  (Jolls, Wilson, 2014).

  Specifically, these evidence-based (Fingar, Jolls, 2013) Concepts and Questions for deconstruction of media messages are: 

1. Authorship:  All media messages are constructed. Who created this message?
2. Techniques/Format:  Media messages are constructed using a creative language with its own rules. What creative techniques are used to attract my attention?
3. Audience:  Different people experience the same media message differently.  How might different people understand this message differently?
4. Content/Framing:  Media have embedded values and points of view. What values, lifestyles and points of view are represented in or omitted from this message?
5. Purpose: Most media messages are organized to gain profit and/or power.  Why is this message being sent?

These Concepts and Questions apply to any media, anytime, anywhere —  whether the media is textbooks, news, social media, videos, websites, or games — the possibilities are limitless in a media-driven world, online and offline. It takes practice over time for students to learn these Concepts and Questions — to develop a heuristic or habits of mind when engaging with media. 

Furthermore, students need to understand that media messages involve a context as well as the content itself, so that students can determine whether they will take action in using a media message, or not.  This decision-making process is represented through an evidence-based model called the Empowerment Spiral of Awareness, Analysis, Reflection and Action (UNESCO, 2020).

The Empowerment Spiral helps answer the question, “So what?”  “Why should I care about this message?”  “Should I care at all?”   The overwhelming number of messages that each individual processes each day call for many such decisions, but in consciously applying these steps, it is possible to make a more informed decision (Fingar, Jolls, 2020). Through learning media literacy, students gain confidence through practice over time, acquiring a heuristic that can be used on a lifelong basis. 

The combination of the Core Concepts of media literacy, resting on a process of inquiry, along with the Empowerment Spiral provides a systematic way to deconstruct, construct and make decisions while navigating the media, online or offline.  The University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) evaluated CML’s two pedagogical frameworks in a longitudinal study, and found that these frameworks were effective in positively affecting middle school students’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors (Fingar, Jolls, 2013, 2020).

Effectively utilizing these two frameworks in a classroom calls for teacher training, since this student-centered approach requires a different style of teaching, with the teacher becoming more of a “guide on the side” than a “sage on the stage.” 

For professional development, CML typically uses a train-the-trainer approach, by teaching teachers to understand media literacy concepts, and then, applying those concepts/frameworks through a process of inquiry that helps both teachers and students to explore a subject or problem, rather than the “banking approach” of transmitting content through spoon-feeding information or answers.  This allows teachers and students to use fresh and relevant content for learning, rather than oft-outdated textbooks.

Teacher Training in Lima

The teacher training that CML provided took two days (about 6 hours each day) in March of 2009, with 25 teachers from three (3) schools.  Tessa Jolls, CML’s president, was the trainer.  The first day of training addressed acquiring a deeper understanding of the CML Concepts and Questions, along with practice activities. Before teachers can teach, they must first understand.  Teachers had opportunities to get familiar with media literacy frameworks, and practice close analysis of short video clips, so that they could identify how the 5 Core Concepts and Key Questions helped unlock the meaning behind the videos. 

The second day of training gave teachers the opportunity to facilitate discussions and work as class leaders themselves.  The teachers led close analysis sessions amongst themselves, received feedback on their practice, and broke into groups to create their own class activities and plans for connecting the CML Concepts and Questions, and the Empowerment Spiral, to their own curricula.  Teachers had the opportunity to share these plans with each other and again, to receive feedback, to share their learning and to discuss how integrating media literacy into curricula faced obstacles — or not.

Follow-up coaching was provided by CML to teachers who requested it.  Some teachers shared lessons and activities that they conducted with their classes following the training session.

Formal Curriculum Characteristics in Peru

Like many countries, Peru does not have a tradition of critical media education. On the contrary, the paradigm that has prevailed in the Peruvian educational policy in the last 30 years has been to provide technology to schools, obtaining very limited results. The public policy of recent years has been linked to the purchase of hardware and software rather than thinking of the media as an object of study that must be incorporated in schools. This paradigm of provision of technologies fails in two debatable premises: first, that ICTs (Information, Communication, Technology) are an end in itself and that their integration is intended to facilitate the teaching process; and second, that their integration into the school responds to an economic criterion of development of working capital, rather than to a political right to develop citizenship.

At the curricular level, the presence of the media in schools is circumstantial. However, in 2017 the Ministry of Education approved a new National Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2017). This standard is mandatory for education at all levels and affects both public and private schools, to introduce an approach based on competencies that aims to integrate and contextualize content depending on the situations of the day. Although the media competencies are not mentioned, many of these conceptual proposals are present in the Curriculum in a scattered way. In addition, there is a new transversal competence called “ICT Competence”, defined as the competence to develop in digital environments generated by ICT. The objective is that students acquire skills to be able to: (i) personalize virtual environments, (ii) manage information from the virtual environment, (iii) interact in virtual environments and (iv) create virtual objects in different formats (Mateus, Suárez-Guerrero, 2017).

Regardless, teachers cannot help students acquire skills unless they receive the professional development support they need.  Certainly, one of the keys to the development of media education is the initial training of teachers. As stated in the presentation of the UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Curriculum for Teachers: “By educating students to learn how to use the media and information, teachers will first respond to their role as advocates for citizenship informed and rational, and secondly, they will respond to changes in their role as educators, as teaching moves away from teacher- centered and more focused on learning” (UNESCO, 2011, p. 17).

Although much has been written on the subject, few countries have taken specific actions in teacher training and curriculum development. In most cases, lack of standardized curriculum at international and national level has meant that teacher training in media literacy is often a one-sided effort by educators who are passionate, rather than encouraged through public policy (Bulger, Davison, 2018, Mateus, el al. 2019). In other areas where governments have carried out formal initiatives, such as in Europe, efforts and resources have focused more on digital competence than on media literacy, so there is an unnecessary proliferation of different media literacy frameworks (Buckingham, 2018).

In Peru, initial teacher training is offered by three types of institutions: universities; pedagogical institutes and art schools. Currently, there are nearly half a million serving teachers and 50,000 education students. 63% of Peruvian teachers have been trained in institutes and 36% in universities. Unlike other countries, in Peru there are no “white papers” or government guidance for teacher training. There is only one national curriculum design approved by the Ministry of Education in 2010 that only applies to pedagogical institutes and does not address media education. Also, each university defines its own curriculum, which has caused many different profiles, often contradictory and with different objectives, rather than following a coherent and interconnected initial formation plan of study (Diaz, 2015, p. 25).

According to a study carried out by the National Council of Education (2016), the three main areas for teacher training are “strategies and didactics of learning areas” (27.1%), “materials for teaching and the use of ICT ” (18%) and the “psychology and culture of students” (14.3%). In many ways, the three areas are related to media education: first, because the media can be both a teaching tool and an object of study; second, because the media are part of everyone’s daily life and, therefore, third, the media’s undeniable impact on the psychology and culture of society. These reasons seem to be more than enough to consider media education as an urgent concern.

Unlike other concepts rooted in school tradition, such as mathematics or arts education, the conception of what media education is remains ambiguous. Much of the responsibility for this situation lies with local authorities and institutions, which have not viewed the media as a cultural experience, but rather as a repertoire of devices used only to facilitate and motivate the learning experience.

Recent studies clearly show that early learning teachers want media education to be part of their training and would like it to be addressed more specifically in the teacher training curriculum. Although lack of infrastructure must be considered, training media education teachers from the earliest stages should also be a priority. The reasons that future Peruvian teachers offer to include media education in schools are favorable, but they seem to be stuck in an instrumental approach (considering the media only as didactic aids), rather than as an object of study in itself (Mateus, Hernandez-Breña, 2019). As Jesús Martín Barbero (2009) said, technology is much more than just a few devices, it is applied to new modes of perception and language, to new sensibilities and writings that must be considered in schools. There is a long way to go for media education to become part of the Peruvian educational agenda, but the first steps are beginning to be felt.

New Competencies and Ways of Bridging Pedagogies

CML’s approach to media literacy, utilizing evidence-based frameworks, is a “short cut” that incorporates the underlying conceptual understanding needed to navigate the media world and to explore how the media operate as a global symbolic system.  But though the CML frameworks are useful for mobile learning and for guiding pedagogical decisions, more research and development work in formal education settings needs to be done to identify competencies, provide professional development, implement media literacy programs, and evaluate pedagogical approaches.  Such research and development work are now being done throughout the world. 

One proposal calls for six dimensions through which to measure competencies, including languages (visual, textual, aural), technology, interaction processes, production and dissemination processes, ideology and values, and the aesthetic dimensions.  These competency dimensions are structured around the traditional ideas of production of media messages by oneself and one’s relationship/interaction with outside messages (Ferrés, Piscitelli, 2012).

It is a major challenge to build in these competencies into educational standards, curriculum and assessments, and overall evaluations of student performance.  Yet these are the requirements for formal learning today.

While such development work is being done, CML’s evidence-based methodology helps improve student knowledge, attitudes and behaviors when reinforced and integrated into existing curriculum. Basically, teachers connected the formal curriculum with the Five Core Concepts/Key Questions in lessons that use a process of inquiry to explore a particular subject, whether that subject is in language arts, science, health, or social studies. This gives a teacher maximum flexibility in ensuring that lessons are fresh and relevant to students, but teachers need to be highly trained in using frameworks so that they can easily relate the subject matter to the appropriate Concepts and Questions while guiding the students.

3. Results

It was the effectiveness of this teacher training that would be reflected in how the students responded to the post-tests conducted by Medios Claros and the participating schools in 2009 and in 2019. This Medios Claros data will contribute to the sparse research available on implementing media literacy programs and being able to compare results over time — both from a pedagogical standpoint and also from a youth perspective.  But at the same time, such comparisons have limitations for a number of reasons:

1. Teachers only received one two-day training in 2009, and this training was not repeated.  This means that there was not reinforcement of training through the years from administrators, nor were new faculty receiving training.  Furthermore, it means that teachers had no opportunity to deepen their own skills in both learning and teaching.
   
   
2. Media literacy, since it was not part of the formal curriculum, was probably taught most often by those teachers who recognized the need to address media amongst their students. One dedicated teacher sent student work examples to CML seven years after the 2009 training!
   
   
3. There were significant technological shifts and subsequent usage shifts during the 10-year time span between the media literacy surveys (2009-2019). For example, some popular applications, such as Snapchat or TikTok or Instagram, were nonexistent in 2009. And the growth of some online services was exponential during this 10-year time period. The following chart (Figure 2) shows the difference in millions in usage (Hootsuite, 2020):
   
   
   
   According to Hootsuite, social media use is now used by half the global population, and the mix of social media platforms used has changed dramatically through the years. But one statistic is constant: the number of hours of media usage per day per user is rising every year. For example, in 2008, users in the United States spent less than three hours per day using digital media; in 2018, that number increased to more than six hours per day, virtually doubling. (Bono Internet Trends, 2019; Pew Research Center, 2020). 
   
   There is no doubt that this level of usage is influencing how people think, how they interact with each other, and how they participate with society at large.  The youth who took part in the Medios Claros study in 2009 were not influenced by the media in the same ways as they were in 2019, not only because of age, but because of rapid technology development.
   
   
4. Although CML’s Core Concepts and Key Questions apply to any form of media, the students and teachers alike undoubtedly needed practice in applying the Concepts and Questions to social media and the technology enhancements available through smart phones. With social media, individuals went from primarily being receivers of messages — such as on accessing websites — to being producers of media, who could comment or forward media messages with their own opinions or emoji’s attached.
   
   This means that additional biases can be easily introduced to a message, and in some cases, the “likes” or “dislikes” are comments unto themselves.  The entire context of media has changed in a few short years, making the participatory culture first identified by Henry Jenkins (Jenkins et al, 2004) a reality. For the first time, production in classrooms is available at the touch of a finger on a smartphone — a far cry from the slumberous equipment required before.
   
   Indeed, in response to these significant changes inside the classroom and without, in 2009 the CML introduced its “Five Key Questions for Construction,” told from the point of view of Producers of media messages: (Authorship) What am I authoring?  (Format) Does my message reflect understanding in format, creativity and technology?  (Audience) Is my message engaging and compelling for my target audience?,  (Framing/Content) Have I clearly and consistently framed values, lifestyles and points of view in my content?, and (Purpose) Have I communicated my purpose effectively?

Regardless of the technological and pedagogical advances made in the interim, some specific themes emerged regarding youth media literacy from examining the post-survey results between 2009 – 2019, and some questions yielded significant changes in responses through the years. For example, the youth of 2019 seemed more susceptible to a sales pitch than their younger selves from 2009:  in 2009, 98.2% of the students said that the main goal of an ad was to “Sell,” whereas in 2019, only 89.6 percent answered in kind. This same susceptibility applied to a question on “Which is the best question to ask after seeing a commercial message that advertises a new lipstick?”  In 2019, only 35.6 % said the answer is to ask “Why was this message sent” compared to 65% in 2009 — and 55% in 2019 wanted to know “Where can I get this lipstick?”  Additionally, in 2019, when asked “How important is it to wear whatever my friends are wearing,” 58.4% said “The most important thing,” whereas in 2009, 56.8% answered similarly. 

4. Discussion from Post-Survey Results, 2009-2019

On the other hand — perhaps through the influence of using social media to reach certain friends or groups — youth in 2019 seemed to have a more intuitive understanding of targeting audiences.  In answering the question:  “It is important to consider who created the advertising message in order to: Find the bias,” 93.1 correctly identified “Find the bias” in 2019 vs. 82.5 in 2009. Similarly, when responding to the question:  “A target audience is the group of people for whom something is created,”  83.7% responded True in 2019, vs. 79.3 in 2009.  Students in 2019 also had a slight edge in responding correctly to the question “Our point of view influences how we react to media messages,” with 92.1% responding “True” in 2019 vs. 88.6 in 2009. 

Overall, it was indeed encouraging to see that 89.1% of students in 2019 — an 18% overall increase over the 71.1% of students who responded in 2009 — said that “It is important to ask questions about what advertising tells us because asking questions helps us make better choices.” Since media literacy rests on a process of inquiry, this is a highly promising outcome of the students’ education.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Today, students everywhere must be equipped with the skills of critical thinking to understand media messages, especially since smartphones are so ubiquitous. Mobile learning is needed to accompany mobile phones. Disinformation and misinformation abound, and with intense propaganda campaigns affecting elections and public health, it is more important than ever that every citizen be educated to function effectively in this new media environment.  Students need to be taught to “read” and “write” the context as well as the content of media messages so that they can readily identify bias and understand the differences between opinions and facts, between fiction and non-fiction, while understanding the underlying motivations that propel media globally.

Since the national curriculum for Peru does not call for media literacy education, this gap is reflected in the Medios Claros survey results.  Once the initial Medios-Claros sponsored training was conducted in 2009, no further formal training was done, nor was any expected. However, students did demonstrate more understanding of audience reactions and perceptions due to their own media usage, and this understanding, intuitive though it is, shows itself in the students’ knowing that audiences are affected by messages.  Since some results, particularly around the Core Concepts, were stronger after the initial training in 2009, it is easy to conclude that teachers formally taught the Concepts and that students therefore had a better understanding. 

Before teachers can teach, they need training — and they need reinforcement for using what they have learned through professional development.  The combination of more teacher training and incorporating media literacy into the national curriculum can be powerful drivers for introducing media literacy into the education system of Peru.  There is a timely opportunity to recover the educomunicación approach in contrast to utilitarian, functional and tool-oriented approaches to media education and placing the emphasis on dialogue, reciprocity, critical thinking, participation, and awareness instead (Lombana, 2021).

In the meanwhile, the global applicability of CML’s Five Core Concepts and Key Questions — for consumers, producers and participants in media systems regardless of geography —  provide a ready pedagogical short-cut and heuristic for helping youth and adults interpret and share media messages today and tomorrow.

References

Bond Internet Trends (2019)– Bond Internet Trends (2019).  Daily Hours Spent with Digital Media, United States, 2008-2018. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-hours-spent-with-digital-media-per-adult-user

Buckingham, D. (2018)– Buckingham, D. (2018). Media literacy policy in Europe: where are we going? Retrieved from https://davidbuckingham.net/2018/05/18/media-literacy-policy-in-europe-where-are-we-going/

Bulger, M., Davison, P. (2018) – Bulger, M., Davison, P. (2018). The Promises, Challenges and Futures of Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(10), 1-21. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2018-10-1-1

Díaz, H. (2015)– Díaz, H. (2015). Formación docente en el Perú. Realidades y tendencias. Lima: Santillana.

Fingar, K., Jolls, T.  (2013) – Fingar, K., Jolls, T.  (2013). Evaluation of a School-Based Violence Prevention Curriculum. Injury Prevention, 20(3). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040815

Fingar, K., Jolls, T. (2019) – Fingar, K., Jolls, T. (2019). Evidence-Based Frameworks: Key to Learning and Scaling Globally. In: Pérez Tornero, J.M.; Orozco, G. & Hamburger, E. (Eds.) Media and information literacy in critical times: Re-imagining learning and information environments. UNESCO MILID Yearbook 2018-2019. https://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/MILIDYearbook2018-19%20copy%202.pdf

Ferrés, J., Piscitelli, A. (2012) – Ferrés, J., Piscitelli, A. (2012). Media competence. Articulated proposal of dimensions and indicators. Comunicar, 38, 75-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3916/C38-2012-02-08

Freire, P.  (1970)– Freire, P.  (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press, 1970.

Hootsuite (Jan. 2020). – Hootsuite (Jan. 2020). The World’s Most-Used Social Platforms. https://www.hootsuite.com/newsroom/press-releases/digital-2020-social-media-use-spans-almost-half-global-population

Jenkins, H., et. al. (2004)– Jenkins, H., et. al. (2004). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture. Chicago: The MacArthur Foundation. https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/jenkins_white_paper.pdf

Jolls, T., Wilson, C. (2014).  – Jolls, T., Wilson, C. (2014). The Core Concepts: Fundamental to Media Literacy Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(2), 68-78. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle/vol6/iss2/6

Lombana, D. (2021)– Lombana, D. (2021). “Educomunicación”: The Media Education (and literacy) Approach from Latin America. Retrieved from https://andreslombana.net/blog/2021/02/11/educomunicacion-the-media-education-and-literacy-approach-from-latin-america/

Martín-Barbero, J. (1998) – Martín-Barbero, J. (1998). Inheriting the future. Thinking education from communication. Culture and Education, 10(1), 17-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1174/113564098760604947  

Mateus, J.C., Suárez-Guerrero, C. (2017) – Mateus, J.C., Suárez-Guerrero, C. (2017). La competencia TIC en el nuevo currículo peruano desde la perspectiva de la educación mediática. EDMETIC, 6(2), 129-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21071/edmetic.v6i2.6908

Mateus, J.C., Quiroz, M.T (2017) – Mateus, J.C., Quiroz, M.T. (2017). Educommunication: A Theoretical Approach of Studying Media in School Environments. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias de la Comunicación, 14(26), 152-163. http://revista.pubalaic.org/index.php/alaic/article/view/915

Mateus, J., Hernández-Breña, W. (2019) – Mateus, J., Hernández-Breña, W. (2019). Design, Validation, and Application of a Questionnaire on Media Education for Teachers in Training. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 8(1), 34-41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7821/naer.2019.1.329

Mateus, J-C., et al.  (2019) – Mateus, J-C., Andrada, P., Quiroz, M-T.  (2019). Media Education in Latin America. London and New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429244469

Ministry of Education, Peru (2017) – Ministry of Education, Peru. (2017). Currículo Nacional de la Educación Básica. Lima: Minedu. http://www.minedu.gob.pe/curriculo/

National Council of Education (2016) – National Council of Education (2016). Encuesta Nacional a Docentes de Instituciones Educativas Estatales y No Estatales – ENDO 2014. Lima: CNE.

Pew Research Center (2020) – Pew Research Center (2020).  Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet.  https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/

UNESCO (2011). – UNESCO. (2011). Media and information literacy curriculum for teachers. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000192971_eng