Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy education and the integration of MLE in Chinese primary schools

1 23

Asia Pacific Education Review ISSN 1598-1037Volume 15Number 3 Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2014) 15:459-471DOI 10.1007/s12564-014-9321-1

Teachers’ stages of concern for medialiteracy education and the integration ofMLE in Chinese primary schools

Hui Zhang, Chang Zhu & Guoyuan Sang

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Education

Research Institute, Seoul National University,

Seoul, Korea. This e-offprint is for personal

use only and shall not be self-archived

in electronic repositories. If you wish to

self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy educationand the integration of MLE in Chinese primary schools

Hui Zhang • Chang Zhu • Guoyuan Sang

Received: 12 October 2013 / Revised: 10 February 2014 / Accepted: 18 April 2014 / Published online: 3 May 2014

� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2014

Abstract Media literacy is an essential skill for living in

the twenty-first century. School-based instruction is a

critical part of media literacy education (MLE), while

research on teachers’ concerns and integration of MLE is

not sufficient. The objective of this study is to investigate

teachers’ stages of concern (SoC), perceived need, school

context, and teacher practices of the integration of MLE in

primary schools. For this purpose, a survey was setup and

392 primary school teachers participated in this study. The

results show that teachers’ concerns of integration of MLE

were generally oriented at the level of self-concerns. In the

meanwhile, the integration of MLE was significantly

related to teachers’ concerns and perceived need for MLE.

Based on the results of regression analysis, teachers’ inte-

gration of MLE was significantly influenced by their SoC

for MLE, school professional development support, and

leadership support.

Keywords Media literacy education � Stages of conern �Integration of MLE � Priamry education � Teacher

education

Introduction

Media literacy is an essential skill for living in the

twenty-first century. In our current media-saturated

environment, educators and administrators recognize that

teaching media literacy skills is a critical part of edu-

cation in today’s world (Fedorov 2007; Feng 2008; Scull

and Kupersmidt 2011; Torres and Mercado 2006; Wan

and Gut 2008a). Scholars and organizations attempted to

define media literacy from different perspectives. For

example, the European Commission defines media liter-

acy as the ability to access the media, to understand and

to critically evaluate different aspects of the media and

media contents, and to create communications in a

variety of context. Ofcom (2009) defines media literacy

as the ability to access, understand, and create commu-

nications in a variety of contexts concerning the rela-

tionship among texts, competence, and power.

Livingstone and Bovill (1999) define media literacy as

reaching the original source of information, and the

ability to understand the power, limitations, and shape of

the content presented in the media. Although there are

different definitions of media literacy, three elements are

commonly stressed in media literacy: (1) technical

knowledge and skills, (2) critical understanding, and (3)

communication and creation. Media literacy education

(MLE) explores the processes of teaching and learning

associated with these knowledge, skills, and competences

(Hobbs 2004), which emphasizes not only technical

knowledge and skills, both also analyzing media and

creating media products (Buckingham 2003). In general,

media literacy relates to all media, including print media,

television and film, radio and recorded music, the

Internet, and all other new digital media. In the present

study, we refer to media literacy education covering all

types of media, but with a focus on digital media.

Scheibe and Rogow (2008) point out that media literacy

education is crucial in the current society. School-based

initiatives play a vital role in the process of media literacy

H. Zhang � C. Zhu (&)

Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and

Educational Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2,

1050 Brussels, Belgium

e-mail: [email protected]

G. Sang

Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

123

Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2014) 15:459–471

DOI 10.1007/s12564-014-9321-1

Author's personal copy

education (Feng 2008; Hobbs 2004). Media literacy edu-

cation was first introduced into China in 1997. Since then,

some Chinese educators and researchers have conducted

research and experimental courses on MLE. In the early

period, the research centered on the introduction of media

literacy education from western countries in China and

theoretical research on media literacy. With the develop-

ment of media literacy research moved into the second

period, researchers began to do some quantitative studies

on measuring media literacy of students (e.g., Tan et al.

2012). At the present period, which can be classified as the

third period of media literacy education in China, both

theoretical research on media literacy education and prac-

tical experimental MLE courses have become important

focuses (Feng 2008; Wan and Gut 2008b; Xu 2009; Zhang

and Xu 2011).

At the current stage, MLE is not yet included in the

Chinese national curriculum, but is an experimental or pilot

course in some schools. The integration of MLE in the

curriculum is often linked to the concept ‘new literacy’

with the aim of enhancing students’ knowledge and expe-

riences with new media (Cheung and Xu 2014). With

regard to the content of MLE integration, often technical

knowledge, media analysis, communication through media,

and media ethics were included in the course content.

With regard to teachers’ perceptions of MLE, on the one

hand, teachers find that media literacy is important as

students are living in a new society in which media,

especially new media is playing a very important role; on

the other hand, teachers are concerned about the negative

effects of new media and how school education can help

students to tackle these issues (Cheung and Xu 2014;

Zhang and Xu 2011). Research on MLE is an emerging

research area, and empirical findings are urgently needed in

order to provide suggestions and recommendations for

school leaders, policy makers, and educators regarding the

implementation and integration of MLE in school

curriculum.

Despite the growing recognition of media literacy

education as an important field of study, introducing

change and new elements in the curriculum is not an easy

process. Teachers’ concerns and attitudes have been

indicated as major predictors of the adoption of new

curriculum in instructional settings. In addition, an inno-

vation without a supporting school context, such as

facilities and school leadership, cannot be successful

(Tanrıverdi 2008). Available literature shows that research

on the concerns and implementation of MLE is not suf-

ficient (Hobbs 2004; Stein and Prewett 2009). Therefore,

more empirical research is necessary with regard to

teachers’ concerns and perceived need for MLE in school

contexts, and the factors related to the integration of MLE

in the school curriculum.

Theoretical background

In this section, we first review the available literature

regarding the internal (teachers’ stages of concern (SoC)

and perceived need) and external variables (school context)

related to the integration of MLE. Based on the literature

review, an integrated model is presented that illustrates the

integration of MLE into the school curriculum.

Teachers’ stages of concern

Peoples’ attitudes toward an innovation are a key element

in innovation diffusion (Rogers 2003). Change is not a

finite event. Teachers’ attitudes have been indicated to be

major predictors of the adoption of new curriculum in

instructional settings (Albirini 2006; Higgins and Moseley

2007; Sang et al. 2010). Numerous studies pointed out that

the adoption of particular teaching activities largely

depended on teachers-related attitudes and beliefs (Clark

2000; Mumtaz 2000; Mwalongo 2011; Sang et al. 2010).

The SoC, as a part of concerns-based adoption model

(CBAM), was developed to identify teachers’ current

attitudes, beliefs, and concerns about adopting such an

innovation (Hall and Hord 1987; Hollingshead 2009;

Roach et al. 2009; Hord et al. 1989; Tunks and Weller

2009). It asserts that a set of characteristic concerns

emerges during the change processes that are common to

most innovations. The SoC are defined into seven stages,

namely awareness, informational, personal, management,

consequence, collaboration, and refocusing (details in

Table 1). At the stage 0 (awareness), teachers show little

concern or involvement in the innovation. At the stage 1

(informational), teachers show interest in identifying more

information about the innovation. At the stage 2 (personal),

teachers are concerned how they can play a role in the

innovation. At the stage 3 (management), teachers are

concerned about how to manage the new subject. At the

stage 4 (consequence), teachers are concerned about the

impact of the innovation on student learning outcomes. At

the stage 5 (collaboration), teachers are concerned about

sharing information and knowledge with others. At the

stage 6 (refocusing), teachers are concerned about

improving the innovation. Fuller (1969) proposed that

these concerns follow a hierarchical pattern; one advances

through the stages by addressing and resolving perceived

problems at each consecutive stage. It also proposed four

developmental dimensions. The first is unrelated concern,

which refers to teacher showing little concern or involve-

ment in the innovation. The second is the concern for self,

which refers to the questions we ask when we hear about

something new, and how it might affect us. The third is the

concern for tasks, which is described as the concern about

the teaching task, such as the instructional methods,

460 H. Zhang et al.

123

Author's personal copy

delivery of the curriculum, and in particular, perceived

obstacles to effective teaching. Finally, the impact concern

describes thoughts on how we can make a program work

better for learners, how to make it work better by actively

working on it with colleagues, and ultimately, being suc-

cessful with the program and seeking out a new and better

change to implement (Poynton et al. 2008).

The SoC theory have been adopted widely (Alshammari

2000; Donovan et al. 2001; Hollingshead 2009; Roach et al.

2009). Previous studies indicated that significant relation

existed between education innovations and the reported SoC.

Teachers who had no experience with education innovation

had higher concerns at the dimensions of ‘self’ (lower SoC),

while teachers who had more experience in adopting educa-

tion innovation reported higher at the dimension of ‘task’ and

‘impact’ (higher SoC) (Alshammari 2000; Donovan et al.

2001). Teachers who reported higher ‘collaboration concern’

had more adoption practices than teachers with lower levels of

concerns (at the stages of awareness, informational and per-

sonal concerns) (Scharmann and McLellan 1992).

Teachers’ perceived need

Teachers’ perceived need refers to teachers’ attitudes about

the necessity of a curriculum or instructional method. Previ-

ous studies indicated that if teachers perceive no need to

change their professional practices, they are unlikely to adopt

innovations, such as the integration of media literacy educa-

tion (Buabeng-Andoh 2012; Cox 2008; Namita 2010; Peeraer

and Petegem 2000). However, if they perceive innovations to

be useful to their teaching and students’ learning, then they are

more likely to have a positive attitude to adopt innovations

according to the empirical evidence of previous studies (Becta

2004; Cox 2008; Hermans et al. 2008). Previous studies also

indicated that teacher perceptions regarding the variety of

media literacy competencies are important for teachers’

educational practices (Namita 2010).

Integration of MLE in the curriculum

Based on the curriculum theory of Harden and Stamper

(1999), two important elements need to be included in

curriculum: content and examination. Other theories also

include a third important element in curriculum: objective

(Lunenburg 2011; Tyler 1949). Regarding the integration

of MLE in the curriculum, we focus on the integration of

all the three elements.

Objective

Objectives are usually stated in terms of expected out-

comes. The real contribution of stating objectives for

learning is to think of how each objective can be achieved

by students through the content or subject matter they learn

(Lunenburg 2011). Tyler (1949) in his now classic text,

‘Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction,’ has

devised a two-dimensional chart for specifying varied

types of objectives according to the subject-matter content

and the behavioral aspects of the objectives.

Regarding the hierarchical objectives of MLE, it can

generally be classified into four main dimensions: skills

and knowledge, analysis and understanding, creation and

communication, and citizenship (Buckingham 2003; Hobbs

2004; Livingstone 2004a). In addition, the objectives can

also be grouped into three categories: protection,

Table 1 Stages of concern

Dimensions Stages Individual’s behavior

Unrelated 0-awareness Teacher shows litter concern on or

involvement in the innovation

Self 1-informational How does it work? Teacher is

interested in identifying more

information about the

technological innovation

2-personal How does using this innovation

affect or impact the teacher?

What is the teacher’s role in this?

The teacher is concerned about

his/her role and possible

difficulties

Task 3-management How can teacher fit it all in? The

teacher is concerned about

managing and organizing the

lessons on the new subject

Impact 4-consequence How is the teacher’s use of the

innovation affecting learners?

How can the teacher refine it to

have a greater influence? The

teacher is concerned about the

impact of the innovation on the

students’ learning and its

relevance to them

5-collaboration How can teachers relate what they

are doing to what others are

doing? How do others do this?

What is the maximum potential

of doing this? The teacher is

concerned about the requirement

to share information and

knowledge with others while

implementing the innovation

6-refocusing The teacher has some ideas about

something that would work even

better. Does a better means

exist? (proactive) The teacher is

concerned about suggesting

initiatives for improving the

innovation, including the

possibility of major changes or

replacement with more powerful

alternatives

Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy education 461

123

Author's personal copy

empowerment, and combining protection and promotion

(Graber and Mendoza 2012; Halliday and Blackburn 2003;

R. Hobbs 1998, 2004; Stein and Prewett 2009).

Content

Curriculum content refers to information to be learned at

school. It is an element or a medium through which the

objectives are accomplished (Lunenburg 2011; Morris and

Hamm 1976; Pratt and Conrad 1983; Zwolak 2011).

According to the objectives of MLE, three dimensions

should be included during the curriculum of media literacy

education: technical competencies, critical reception, and

content product (Kellner and Share 2005; Livingstone

2004b; Vanwynsberghe et al. 2011). In addition, Chang and

Liu (2011) stressed three elements of media literacy for

primary school students: media application skills, attitude

toward media, and learning with media. In addition, there are

some subjects areas have been identified as having highly

related to MLE in K-12 context, such as social studies,

English languages, health education (Hobbs 2004).

Assessment

Assessment is an important element through which teacher

can obtain information about the students learning process

(Tyler 1949). Efficient assessment can enrich teaching and

facilitate learning process (Zohrabi 2008; Zwolak 2011).

Assessment refers to identify what students know,

understand, can do, and value at different stages in the

teaching and learning process. Assessment of media literacy

necessarily varies with the learning objective (Martens

2009). Scholars pointed out that the assessment of media

literacy is a big challenge in MLE (Hobbs and Frost 2003;

Vanwynsberghe et al. 2011). An authentic assessment scale,

or rubric, can be extremely useful for teachers, students, and

their parents throughout the process of teaching and learning

about media. For example, previous research indicates that it

is difficult to assess students’ creation of product as it is not in

a traditional written format (Arter and Spandel 1992; Ozgur

and Kaya 2011). Therefore, teachers sometimes avoid

assigning media production work, such as videos, posters, or

Web pages (Worsnop 2011). In the Chinese setting, the

assessment in the experimental MLE curriculum is mainly

focused on students’ knowledge about media and how stu-

dents critically understand media (Cheung and Xu 2014).

School context

Change must be seen as having a comprehensive influence on

all areas of the school context; the development of a supportive

school context would facilitate the change process (Boyd

1992). Boyd (1992) further identified factors of the school

context that either foster or inhibit the process of effective

change. Boyd believes that school context consists of two

dimensions: (a) school ecology, which includes the physical

surrounding (school size), policies and rules, and resource

availability; and (b) school culture, including attitudes and

beliefs, school norms, and relationships both within the school

and between the school and the surrounding community.

Access to resources and facilities

An innovation without resources, such as funding, tools, and

materials, to support its implementation, will not be successful

(Becta,2004; Buabeng-Andoh 2012; Ely 1990; Pelgrum

2001). Access to resources refers to the things that are required

to implement the teaching and learning tasks. It includes

hardware, software, publications, audiovisual media, and

other teaching materials, such as the access to a copy machine

or instructional supplies. This condition is linked to commit-

ment, leadership, and rewards and incentives of the school

(Buabeng-Andoh 2012; Ely 1990; Gulbahar 2007).

School professional development support for teachers

The critical way to bring about the adoption of an innovation

in schools is to engage the whole school in a democratic

process of planning change (Zhu 2013). Professional training

plays an importance role in implementing the new teaching

instruction, which not only provides teachers with the

knowledge and skills to integrate new instruction into their

curriculum, but also affects teachers’ concerns and attitudes

to their teaching and learning strategies (Davis et al. 2009;

Hew and Brush 2006; Mueller et al. 2008).

Leadership support

It is of critical importance that school leadership support new

ways of teaching and learning (Becta 2003; Buabeng-Andoh

2012; Fullan 2001). The school leaders’ expectations and

commitment have a great impact on the process of imple-

mentation of innovation (Lai and Pratt 2004; Zhu 2013).

Therefore, an important element of the change is a school leader

who is dedicated to fostering a new culture with shared

leadership.

Toward an integrated model

Based on the literature review, we integrated previous

studies and the findings regarding the relationship between

teachers’ perceptions and practices of MLE (Fig. 1). With

regard to the integration of MLE, three elements are essential

including objective, content, and assessment. MLE focuses

on the processes of teaching and learning related to media

literacy. Objective was considered as the central factor of

462 H. Zhang et al.

123

Author's personal copy

teaching and learning. Based on the objective, curriculum

content was selected and organized in the class. Assessment

can gain information about student learning process.

Therefore, objective, content, and assessment of curriculum

were taken into account in the present study.

With regard to the internal variables related to MLE

integration, teachers’ SoC and perceived need are key vari-

ables. The SoC is a model developed to identify teachers’

attitudes or perceptions about the innovation (Hall and Hord

1987; Hollingshead 2009). MLE is an emerging field in

Chinese school context. Therefore, in the present study, SoC

is adopted to examine teachers’ perceptions of MLE. Fur-

thermore, there is solid evidence that teachers’ perceived

need is related to teachers’ adoption of innovation (Buabeng-

Andoh 2012; Namita 2010). Therefore, teachers’ perceived

need was considered as important internal variables.

With regard to external variables related to MLE inte-

gration, the school context includes access to resources,

professional development support and leadership support.

A large number of study indicated that school context can

influence implementation of curriculum (Boyd 1992; Davis

et al. 2009; Zhu 2013). Previous study pointed that access

to resources and facilities can be seen as the precondition

of implementation of curriculum (Gulbahar 2007). Pro-

fessional training can influence teachers’ perception and

implementation of a new teaching instruction (Hew and

Brush 2006; Mueller et al. 2008). The school leaders’

expectations and commitment also can affect teaching

process (Lai and Pratt 2004). Therefore, access to resources

and facilities, school professional development support for

teachers, leadership support were considered as important

external variables related to the integration of MLE.

Research questions

The objective of this research is to investigate teachers’ SoC,

perceived need, school context, and teachers’ practices of the

integration of media literacy education in primary schools.

The specific research questions include: (1) What are teach-

ers’ SoC about MLE integration in primary education? (2)

What are teachers’ perceived needs for MLE in primary

education? (3) What are the practices of teachers’ MLE

integration in primary education? (4) What relationships exist

between teachers’ stage of concerns of MLE, perceived need,

and their integration of MLE in the curriculum? (5) How

teachers’ SoC, perceived need, and school context are asso-

ciated with teachers’ integration of MLE in the curriculum?

Method

Sample

A total number of 500 paper-and-pencil survey question-

naires were distributed to teachers in eight primary schools

in Beijing. A total of 392 respondents, representing a

Stages of concern

Management

Personal

Awareness

Refocusing

Informational

Collaboration

Consequence

Perceived need

School context

External variable

Internal variable

PDS

Access

LS

Integration

Objective

Content

Assessment

Fig. 1 The conceptual

framework of this research

Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy education 463

123

Author's personal copy

response rate of 78.4 %, completed the survey. The sample

schools were selected based on cluster sampling focusing

on three districts in Beijing (Chaoyang, Haidian, Fengtai),

which represent the different levels of economic develop-

ment of the districts (high, medium, low) in Beijing.

Among all the respondents, 82.7 % teachers were

female and 17.3 % male teachers. With regard to the age

groups, 27.6 % of them were 20–29 years old, 48.5 % of

them were 30–39 years old, 21.4 % of them were

40–49 years old, and 2.6 % of them were 50–59 years old.

With regard to their educational background, 7.1 % had an

associate degree, 89.8 % had an undergraduate degree, and

3.1 % had a Master degree. With regard to their years of

teaching experience, 4.1 % of the teachers had \ 1 year of

teaching experience, 8.2 % of the teachers had 1–3 years

teaching experience, 15.8 % had 4–6 years teaching

experience, 14.8 % teachers had 7–9 years teaching expe-

rience, and 56.1 % teachers had more than 10 years

teaching experience. The teaching subjects of the teachers

include: Chinese (30.1 %), English (11.2 %), Mathematics

(23.0 %), Biology (1 %), Information Technology (4.3 %),

Arts (9.2 %), Social Science (9.5 %), and Physical edu-

cation (10.2 %).

Instrument

A survey instrument was designed to collect data from

primary school teachers about the large set of variables.

The questionnaire comprising 84 items includes three main

parts: (1) general background questions (gender, age, level

of higher education, teaching experience, teaching grade,

and teaching subjects), (2) teachers’ stage of concerns of

MLE and their perceived need for MLE, and (3) the

practices of MLE in the school curriculum and the school

context factors.

Teachers’ stages of concern (SoC) of MLE

The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) is part of the

CBAM, which is a research-based framework that explains

the process individuals follow as they undergo change

(Hall and Hord 1987; Tunks and Weller 2009). In this

research, the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) is

designed to capture teachers’ current concerns about

adopting an innovation, and in this case MLE. SoCQ

comprises 35 items. Analysis of the data places the subject

at one of seven levels of concern: (0) awareness, (1)

informational, (2) personal, (3) management, (4) conse-

quence, (5) collaboration, and (6) refocusing (Hall and

Hord 1987; Roach et al. 2009; Tunks and Weller 2009).

The five-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants were

asked to choose the appropriate level which best expresses

their concerns. High scores indicate high concern, and low

scores indicate low concern. The score 0 indicates very low

concern or complete irrelevance. Each of the seven stages

has five statements. All 35 items appear in the instrument

in a mixed order. The reliability of the scales of SoCQ is

(0) awareness (5 items, a = .80), (1) informational (5

items, a = .81, (2) personal (5 items, a = .94), (3) man-

agement (5 items, a = .89), (4) consequence (5 items,

a = .94), (5) collaboration (5 items, a = .95), and refo-

cusing (5 items, a = .91).

Teachers’ perceived need of MLE

This part is designed to measure teachers’ perceived need

of MLE in primary school curriculum. This scale includes

5 items (a = .96). Two samples of the questions include ‘I

believe in the need for the introduction of MLE in my

teaching practice.’ ‘I believe a progressive introduction of

MLE in primary education responds to our society’s

changing needs.’

The integration of MLE into the school curriculum

This part includes 24 items. It inquires how MLE is

implemented in the school curriculum. It includes three

scales: objective (13 items, a = .97), content (5 items,

a = .92), and assessment (6 items, a = .95) of MLE.

Example questions include ‘MLE is to develop an appre-

ciation, perception, and understanding and analysis of

media texts,’ ‘MLE is to teach a person to express himself/

herself with the help of media,’ and ‘I teach students to

distinguish advertisements from other content.’

School environment scale

The school environment scale is designed to measure

school context, which includes three subscales: access to

infrastructure/facilities (3 items, a = .86), school support

for teacher professional development (4 items, a = .85),

and leadership support (4 items, a = .92). One example

question is ‘My school has sufficient facilities to conduct

MLE.’

Data analysis

The following data analyses were conducted: (1) scale

reliability analyses, (2) analyses of descriptive statistics,

(3) bivariate correlation, and (4) regression analyses. The

regression analyses were used to investigate the interrela-

tions between the independent variables (teacher back-

ground, SOC, perceived need for MLE, and school

support) and dependent variables (integration of MLE in

school curriculum).

464 H. Zhang et al.

123

Author's personal copy

Results

Teachers’ SoC of MLE, perceived need for MLE,

and the integration of MLE

The mean scores of the SOC are presented in Fig. 2.

Among the SoC, teachers’ concern of awareness is the

lowest (M = 2.90, SD = .93), while the highest stage of

concerns is stage 1 informational (M = 3.99, SD = .81),

followed by stage 5 collaboration (M = 3.94, SD = .87),

stage 6 refocusing (M = 3.89, SD = .85), stage 3 man-

agement, and stage 4 consequence (M = 3.55, SD = .90).

With regard to the four dimensions of SoC, the results

show that the score of the first dimension ‘unrelated con-

cerns’ (stage 0 awareness) is the lowest; the second

dimension ‘self-concerns’ (stage 1 informational and stage

2 personal) is the highest; the fourth dimension ‘impact

concerns’ (stage 4 consequence, stage 5 collaboration, and

stage 6 Refocusing) are relatively high; while the third

dimension ‘task concerns’ (stage 3 management) is lower

than ‘self-concerns.’

The results of the t-tests show that there were no sig-

nificant differences between female and male teachers for

all SoC scales (tSoA = 1.56, tS1I = .80, tS2P = .65,

tS3M = .18, tS4C = .18, tS5c = -1.31, t6R = -.94,

p [ .05). The results were confirmed by conducting Bon-

ferroni correction tests.

Regarding the relations between the SoC and teachers’

background characteristics, ANOVA tests were conducted

(Table 2). The ANOVA tests show that there were signif-

icant differences in stage 0 awareness among different age

groups (FS0A = 2.68, p \ .05), in which teachers of

50–59 years old scored higher than other age groups. No

significant differences were found in other SoC among

different age groups (FS1I = .58, FS2P = 2.03,

FS3M = .36, FS4C = .36, F5C = .68, F6R = .80, p [ .05).

Furthermore, significant differences were found in stage

0 awareness, stage 5 collaboration, and stage 6 refocusing

with regard to teachers’ educational levels. Teachers with

associate degree scored higher than other two educational

levels in stage 0 awareness (FS0A = 6.16, p \ .05), how-

ever, they scored lower for stage 5 collaboration and stage

6 refocusing (FS5C = 3.65, FS6R = 3.95, p \ .05) than the

other two groups.

With respect to teaching experience, significant differ-

ences were found in stage 2 personal (FS2P = 3.42,

p \ .05). Teachers with 4–6 years teaching experience

reported the highest score (M = 4.20, SD = .76), while

teachers with more than 10 years teaching experience

reported the lowest score (M = 3.85, SD = .97). No sig-

nificant differences were found among other SoC

(FS0A = .20, FS1I = 2.11, FS3M = .60, FS4C = .60,

F5C = 1.61, F6R = 1.86, p [ .05).

The results also show that significant differences were

found regarding teachers’ teaching subjects for stage 0

awareness, stage 1 informational, stage 2 personal, stage 5

collaboration, and stage 6 refocusing (FS0A = 2.47,

FS1I = 3.10, FS2P = 3.28, FS5C = 4.39, FS6R = 3.32,

respectively, p \ .05). With regard to stage 0 awareness,

nature science teachers’ scores were the highest (M = 3.85,

SD = .47), while ICT teachers’ scores were the lowest

(M = 2.39, SD = .83). ICT teachers reported the highest

score, while nature science teachers reported the lowest score

for stage 1 informational (MSC = 2.85, MICT = 4.16), stage

2 personal (MSC = 3.40, MICT = 4.68), stage 5 collabora-

tion (MSC = 3.25, MICT = 4.58), and stage 6 refocusing

(MSC = 3.25, MICT = 4.58). No differences were found in

stage 3 management (FS3M = 1.40, p [ .05) and stage 4

collaboration (FS4C = 1.40, p [ .05) with respect to teach-

ers’ teaching subjects.

With regard to MLE integration practices, significant

differences were found in teachers’ assessment practices

according to teachers’ age and teaching experiences

(FA = 4.42, FA = 2.65, p \ .05) (Table 3). With regard to

assessment practices of MLE integration, 20–29-year-old

teacher reported highest score (M = 3.46, SD = 1.05),

while 30–39-year-old teacher reported lowest score

(M = 2.94, SD = 1.26). In addition, teachers with

1–3 year teaching experience reported highest score on

assessment of MLE (M = 3.47, SD = 1.09), and teachers

with more than 10 years’ teaching experience reported

lowest score on assessment of MLE (M = 2.97,

SD = 1.22). There were no significant differences for the

subscale of assessment of MLE according to teachers’

education level (F = .34, p [ .05) and teaching subject

(F = 1.23, p [ .05).

The results show that significant differences were found

regarding the subscale of the objectives of MLE integration

among teachers who teach different subjects (F = 2.21,

p \ .05). Among them, English teachers reported highest

score on the objectives of MLE (M = 4.07, SD = .83),

while nature science teacher reported the lowest score

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2.9

3.893.8

3.55 3.55

3.943.99

Fig. 2 Stages of concern for MLE of primary teachers

Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy education 465

123

Author's personal copy

(M = 3.35, SD = .85). No significant differences were

found according to teachers’ age (F = .76, p [ .05), edu-

cational level (F = 1.42, p [ .05), and teaching experience

(F = 1.03, p [ .05).

No significant differences were found for the subscale of

the content of MLE according to teachers’ background,

such as age (F = .92, p [ .05), education level (F = .63,

p [ .05), teaching experience (F = 2.10, p [ .05), and

teaching subject (F = 1.57, p [ .05).

With regard to teachers’ perceived need for MLE, sig-

nificant differences were found among teachers of different

education levels (F = 3.90, p \ .05). Teachers with Master

degree reported the highest scores (M = 3.90, SD = .61),

while teachers with associate degree reported the lowest

score (M = 3.39, SD = .60). No differences were identi-

fied between male and female teachers (p [ .05).

Relationship between teachers’ SoC, perceived need,

and integration of MLE

Table 4 gives an overview of the correlation analyses

between the SoC, perceived need, and teachers’ integration

of MLE. The results show that all dimensions of the inte-

gration of MLE have a significant positive correlation with

almost all SoC, except for stage 0 awareness. Furthermore,

the objective of integration of MLE had a greater number

of significant correlations with SoC and perceived need for

MLE compared with the content and assessment dimen-

sions of the integration of MLE. The results also showed

that all elements of integration of MLE were significantly

correlated with the stage 5 collaboration and stage 6 refo-

cusing. Regarding the seven SoC, stage 6 refocusing had

the strongest correlation with each elements of the inte-

gration of MLE, namely the objective (r = .541,

p \ .001), the content (r = .428, p \ .001), and the

assessment (r = .372, p \ .001). In addition, teachers’

perceived need had a significant correlation with all ele-

ments of integration of MLE.

The effect of internal and external variables

on teachers’ integration of MLE in their curriculum

In order to examine the relationship between teachers’ internal

variables (background variables, SoC, and perceived need),

Table 2 Teacher background variables and SoC for MLE

Independent variable N (%) S0A S1I S2P S3 M S4C S5C S6R

M F M F M F M F M F M F M F

Age

20–29 108 (27.6) 2.96 2.68* 3.86 .58 4.14 2.03 3.56 .36 3.56 .36 4.02 .68 3.98 .80

30–39 190 (48.5) 2.80 3.81 3.96 3.52 3.52 3.93 3.85

40–49 84 (21.4) 2.95 3.71 3.95 3.62 3.62 3.91 3.90

50–59 10 (2.6) 3.56 3.68 3.54 3.42 3.42 3.68 3.66

Education level

Associate degree 28 (7.1) 3.37 6.16* 3.54 1.58 3.81 .65 3.50 .55 3.50 .55 3.56 3.65* 3.47 3.95*

Undergraduate degree 352 (89.8) 2.88 3.83 4.01 3.56 3.56 3.96 3.92

Master degree 12 (3.1) 2.32 3.75 3.95 3.30 3.30 4.25 4.07

Teaching experience

\1 year 16 (4.1) 2.86 .20 3.91 2.11 4.06 3.42* 3.45 .57 3.45 .57 4.06 1.61 3.76 1.86

1–3 years 32 (8.2) 2.89 3.84 4.15 3.39 3.39 4.06 4.01

4–6 years 62 (15.8) 2.95 3.90 4.20 3.65 3.65 4.05 4.02

7–9 years 58 (14.8) 2.81 4.01 4.20 3.61 3.61 4.10 4.07

More than 10 years 220 (56.1) 2.91 3.70 3.85 3.53 3.53 3.85 3.80

School subject

Chinese 118 (30.1) 2.94 2.47* 3.68 3.10* 3.84 3.28** 3.50 1.40 3.50 1.40 3.83 4.39** 3.79 3.32**

English 44 (11.2) 3.04 3.80 4.00 3.53 3.53 4.01 4.02

Maths 90 (23.0) 2.92 3.91 4.08 3.74 3.74 4.01 3.39

Biology 4 (1.0) 3.85 2.85 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.25 3.25

Politics 1 (0.3) 3.40 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

ICT 17 (4.3) 2.39 4.16 4.68 3.41 3.41 4.58 4.58

Art 36 (9.2) 2.56 4.05 4.28 3.31 3.31 4.31 4.06

PE 40 (10.2) 2.69 3.49 3.71 3.37 3.37 3.48 3.53

Other 36 (9.2) 3.09 3.93 4.02 3.74 3.74 3.97 3.91

466 H. Zhang et al.

123

Author's personal copy

external variables (school context), and the integration of

MLE, regression analyses were conducted. Based on the

correlation analyses, no significant correlations were found

between stage 0 awareness and the integration of MLE.

Therefore, stage 0 awareness was not included in the regres-

sion analysis.

Table 5 summarizes the regression analyses results

predicting the integration of MLE from the SoC, perceived

need, school environment scale, and teacher background

variables. The results indicate that the objective of inte-

gration of MLE was positively predicted by four SoC

(adjusted R2 = .374, bS3M = .264**, bS4C = .264**,

bS5C = .023*, bS6R = .002*), perceived need (adjusted

R2 = .578, b = .761*), and three school environment

scales (adjusted R2 = .188, bhardware = .148*, badm_sup =

.125*, blead_sup = .238**). Therefore, stage 3 management,

stage 4 consequence, stage 5 collaboration, stage 6 refocusing,

teachers’ perceived need, infrastructure/facilities, school

support for professional development, and leadership

support were identified as significant predictors of objec-

tive of integration of MLE.

The content of integration of MLE was positively

predicated by stage 6 refocusing (adjusted R2 = .180,

bS6R = .335**), perceived need (adjusted R2 = .077,

b = .282**), two elements of school environment sca-

le (adjusted R2 = .180, bpd_sup = .360**, blead_sup =

.318**), and teachers’ teaching experience (adjusted

R2 = .624, b = -.188*). Stage 6 refocusing, teachers’

perceived need, school support for professional develop-

ment, leadership support, and teachers’ teaching experi-

ence were identified as significant predictors of the

integration of the content of MLE.

Moreover, the assessment of integration of MLE was

positively predicted by two SoC (adjusted R2 = .155,

bS1I = -.165*, bS6R = .532**), perceived need (Adjusted

R2 = .017, b = .141**), two elements of school environ-

ment scale (adjusted R2 = .400, bpd_sup = .546**,

blead_sup = .176*), and teachers’ teaching experience

(adjusted R2 = .020, b = -.151*). Stage 1 informational,

stage 6 refocusing, teachers’ perceived need, school sup-

port for professional development, leadership support, and

teachers’ teaching experience were identified as significant

predictors of the assessment dimension of MLE

integration.

Discussion

Teachers’ stages of concern for MLE

and the integration of MLE

This research is a unique empirical study on examining

teachers’ SoC for media literacy education and the inte-

gration of MLE in Chinese primary school setting. There

are, till now, no other studies have been conducted with

this focus on MLE in primary schools. Therefore, this

research provides unique empirical findings regarding pri-

mary teachers’ concerns and their perceptions of the inte-

gration of MLE in the region of Beijing, China.

The findings indicate that teachers’ concerns were

generally oriented to ‘self-concern’ (stage 1–2). This

finding is consistent with a number of previous studies,

which found that teachers tended to focus on self-concerns

at the beginning of the implementation process (Christou

et al. 2004; Overbaugh and Lu 2009; Roach et al. 2009;

Tunks and Weller 2009). However, in our research,

teachers also reported lowest at stage of ‘awareness’. This

was quite different from the findings of most previous

studies (Hall and Hord 1987; Hollingshead 2009; Overb-

augh and Lu 2009; Poynton et al. 2008). For example, Hall

and Hord (1987) pointed that the concerns of individuals

develop from being highest at awareness, informational

Table 3 Teacher background variables and integration of MLE in the

curriculum

Independent variable Integration of MLE into curriculum

Objective Content Assessment

M F M F M F

Age

20–29 3.95 .76 3.77 .92 3.46 4.42*

30–39 3.83 3.58 2.94

40–49 3.88 3.61 3.17

50–59 3.52 3.46 3.30

Education level

Associate degree 3.57 1.42 3.49 .63 3.21 .34

Undergraduate degree 3.89 3.64 3.13

Master degree 3.86 3.87 3.40

Teaching experience

\1 year 3.77 1.03 3.78 2.10 3.39 2.65*

1–3 years 3.78 3.80 3.47

4–6 years 4.01 3.79 3.37

7–9 years 4.03 3.83 3.29

More than 10 years 3.81 3.51 2.97

School subject

Chinese 3.83 2.21* 3.53 1.57 3.07 1.23

English 4.07 3.51 2.84

Maths 4.04 3.75 3.23

Biology 3.35 3.25 3.25

Politics 4.00 4.00 4.00

ICT 3.92 4.28 3.77

Art 3.90 3.58 2.98

PE 3.37 3.49 3.24

Other 3.92 3.77 3.14

Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy education 467

123

Author's personal copy

and personal, to highest at management, and finally to

highest at consequence, collaboration, and refocusing when

they take the role as facilitator in the implementation of the

innovations. This finding can partly be explained by

teachers’ extensive exposure to media-saturated environ-

ment, therefore teachers involved in this study probably

have a relatively high awareness of MLE and have moved

to a higher level of the SoC instead of the basic level of the

stage of concern (awareness).

In addition, in our research, 50–59 year old teachers

reported highest score in stage 0 awareness. This indicates

that elder teachers are still at the lower level of the stage of

concern compared with the younger teachers. This might

be related to the trend that elder generation use digital

media much less than younger generations (CGF 2011).

This study also found that there were significant dif-

ferences among teachers’ teaching subjects. ICT teachers

reported highest in stage 1 informational, stage 2 personal,

stage 5 collaboration, stage 6 refocusing, while lowest in

unrelated concern (stage 0 awareness). This indicates that

ICT teachers were already at a higher level of SoC com-

pared with teachers teaching other subjects. This supports

the findings of previous studies that there were significant

differences in teachers’ general beliefs among different

teaching subjects (e.g., Sang et al. 2009).

Relationships between teachers’ stages of concern,

perceived need, and integration of MLE

in the curriculum of primary education

Based on the findings of this study, each element of inte-

gration of MLE was found to be correlated with teachers’

SoC and teachers’ perceived need for MLE. The results show

clearly that each element of integration of MLE was signif-

icantly related to teachers’ perceived need and was corre-

lated with six of teachers’ SoC, except the stage 0 awareness.

The results provide more insights regarding our

understanding of teachers’ concerns and perceptions. Pre-

vious studies examined the different levels of teachers’

perceptions and perceived need of MLE (Namita 2010;

Schmidt 2013), while this study not only examined teachers’

perceptions, but also added to previous findings and exam-

ined the relationships between teachers’ concerns, teachers’

perceived need, and their integration of MLE.

The effect of internal and external variables

on teachers’ integration of MLE in their curriculum

The results of this research indicated that both internal and

external factors were identified as significant predictors for

the integration of MLE. Among the predictors, SoC (stage

6 refocusing), school support for teacher professional

development, and leadership support have significant

impact on all dimensions of MLE integration, namely

objective, content, and assessment. Internal and external

variables both can influence teachers’ integration of MLE.

The results support previous studies that MLE needs

teachers with knowledge, skills, and concerns to carry out

proper MLE, while providing systematical and effective

teacher training must be facilitated for the development of

MLE (EAVI 2011; Scull and Kupersmidt 2011).

Implications and limitations

A couple of limitations of the present study need to be

noted. First, the sample of this study was limited. This

study was only conducted in Beijing (China), therefore, the

sample was not representative of the Chinese primary

teacher population. The reasons that schools and teachers

in Beijing were chosen are that the objective of the

research is to examine the relationship between teachers’

concerns and practices of MLE integration, while the latter

is not possible for less or least developed regions in China.

Nevertheless, future studies should involve more primary

Table 4 Correlation analyses of teachers’ SoC, perceived need, and integration of MLE into curriculum (N = 392)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(1) Awareness .198** .015 .388** .388** -.099 -.017 .061 -.052 .007

(2) Informational .811** .389** .389** .634** .619** .451** .271** .102*

(3) Personal .324** .324* .753** .693** .464** .319** .160**

(4) Management 1.000** .271** .289** .416** .064 .054

(5) Consequence .271** .289** .416** .064 .054

(6) Collaboration .865** .531** .400** .292**

(7) Refocusing .541** .428** .372**

(8) Objective .373** .284**

(9) Content .721* .721*

(10) Assessment

(11) Need .761** .282** .141**

468 H. Zhang et al.

123

Author's personal copy

schools in different regions and contexts in order to deepen

and widen our knowledge on this topic. Additionally, the

primary schools were selected at random, and the ques-

tionnaires were distributed to each of the sample school.

There were more female teachers than male teachers in the

sample. Although the sample proportion reflects the actual

teacher population distribution in Chinese primary schools,

the gender factor may have an influence on the findings of

this research, which could be investigated further in follow-

up studies.

Furthermore, the quantitative research was mainly based

on self-report measures, which may be not sufficient to

obtain comprehensive information of digital media literacy

education. Future studies should also build on qualitative

research, such as interviews with teachers and classroom

observations. Another note is that the current research

focused on teacher variables and the school environment

variables as predictors for teachers’ integration of MLE.

However, national level factors (such as national policy on

curriculum development and integration) may also influ-

ence teachers’ integration of media literacy education.

Follow-up research is needed including multilevel factors.

Lastly, since media literacy education is an emerging

research area, longitudinal studies are needed to gather

more related information about the integration of media

literacy education in order to assess the effects of MLE on

children’s development of media literacy.

Despite the limitations, the current study contributes

greatly to our understanding and research in MLE. First,

this research provides a comprehensive perspective to

understanding the integration of MLE both from teacher

and from school variables. The findings are not only sig-

nificant for understanding the integration of MLE in the

Chinese context, but also contribute significantly for the

literature related to media literacy education in the inter-

national context. Secondly, the findings of the research can

provide practical recommendation for schools and policy

makers regarding the integration of MLE in school cur-

riculum. For example, teachers of different teaching sub-

jects had different SoC and practices of MLE integration.

This can be useful for schools and policy makers to know

which subject teachers would be more prepared to integrate

MLE in the curriculum. This can be considered when

policy makers or schools make plans for integration of

MLE. Thirdly, some teacher and school factors were

identified as significant predictors for the integration of

MLE. Based on the findings of this study, teachers’ SoC,

perceived need, school support for teacher professional

development and leadership support should be paid atten-

tion to if curriculum innovations such as MLE is encour-

aged to be integrated into the school curriculum. Therefore,

this research provides a framework of studying MLE in

school settings.

More specifically, our study provides a profile of

teachers’ concerns and practices regarding integration of

MLE in the Chinese school context in Beijing. The findings

not only can contribute to the policy makers who make

decisions about MLE, but also raise the importance of the

conditions for integrating MLE such as the professional

development of teachers for MLE. Only with a favorable

school supportive environment and increased level of SoC

of the teachers, can the integration of media education

integration in schools be more successful. These findings

are relevant for MLE integration in schools beyond the

specific context of this study.

Table 5 Regression analyses of the effect of teachers’ SoC, per-

ceived need, teaching experience, school support, and integration of

MLE

Scale Integration of MLE

Objective Content Assessment

Stages of concern

F 47.514 18.127 15.318

b .066S1I -.001S1I -.165S1I

.000S2P .030S2P -.058S2P

.264S4C -.071S4C -.012S4C

.201S5C .107S5C -.016S5C

.250S6R .335S6R .532S6R

Sig. .345S1I .989S1I .046S1I*

1.000S2P .743S2P .535S2P

.000S3M** .159S3M .818S3M

.000S4C** .159S4C .818S4C

.023S5C* .290S5C .877S5C

.002S6R* .000S6R** .000S6R***

Adjusted R2 .374 .180 .155

Teachers’ perceived need

F 536.402 33.714 7.857

b .761 .282 .141

Sig. .015* .000** .000**

Adjusted R2 .578 .077 .017

School support

F 33.130 100.019 87.538

b .148hardware .006hardware -.083hardware

.125pd_sup .360pd_sup .546pd_sup

.238lead_sup .318lead_sup .176lead_sup

Sig. .011hardware* .170hardware .096hardware

.044pd_sup* .000pd_sup** .000pd_sup**

.001lead_sup** .000lead_sup** .003lead_sup*

Adjusted R2 .188 .180 .400

Teaching experience

F .241 5.423 9.041

b -.025 -.188 -.151

Sig. .624 .020* .003*

Adjusted R2 -.002 .624 .020

Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy education 469

123

Author's personal copy

References

Albirini, A. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward information and

communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers.

Computers & Education, 47(4), 373–398. doi:10.1016/j.com

pedu.2004.10.013.

Alshammari, B. S. (2000). The developmental stages of concern of

teachers towards implementation of information technology

curriculum in Kuwait. Doctoral dissertation, University of North

Texas. Retrieved from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/

metadc2662/m2/1/high_res_d/Dissertation.pdf.

Arter, J. A., & Spandel, V. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in

instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues

and Practice, 11(1), 36–44.

Becta. (2003). Primary Schools—ICT and standards a report to the

DfES on Becta’s analysis of national data from OFSTED and

QCA (pp. 1–67). Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1635/1/

becta_2002_ictstandards_analysisreport.pdf.

Becta, B. E. C., & T. A. (2004). A review of the research literature on

barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Retrieved from http://

dera.ioe.ac.uk/1603/1/becta_2004_barrierstouptake_litrev.pdf.

Boyd, V. (1992). Creating a context for change. Southeast Educa-

tional Development Laboratory, 2(2), 1–10.

Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2012). Factors influencing teachers’ adoption

and integration of information and communication technology

into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of

Education and Development Using Information and Communi-

cation Technology, 8(1), 136–155.

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education. London: Polity.

CGF, T. C. G. F. (2011). Older people, technology and community.

Retrieved from http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/wp/

ps/Report.pdf.

Chang, C., & Liu, E. Z. (2011). Exploring the media literacy of

Taiwanese elementary school students. The Asia-Pacific Educa-

tion Researcher, 20(3), 604–611.

Cheung, C. K., & Xu, W. (2014). Promoting media literacy education

in China: A case study of a primary school. International Journal

of Adolescence and Youth. doi:10.1080/02673843.2013.821078.

Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2004). Teachers’

concerns regarding the adoption of a new mathematics curriculum:

An application of CBAM. Educational Studies in Mathematics,

57(2), 157–176. doi:10.1023/B:EDUC.0000049271.01649.dd.

Clark, K. D. (2000). Urban middle school teachers’ use of instruc-

tional technology. Journal of Research on Computing in

Education, 33(2), 178–195.

Cox, M. J. (2008). Researching IT in education. International

Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary

Education, 20, 956–981.

Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). ICT teacher training:

Evidence for multilevel evaluation from a national initiative.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 135–148.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00808.x.

Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler, N. (2001). Teacher Concerns

During Initial Implementation of a One-to-One Laptop Initiative

at the Middle School Level, 39(5), 263–286.

EAVI. (2011). Development of the factors favouring media literacy.

Retrieved from http://www.eavi.eu/joomla/images/stories/Publi

cations/Study1_Current_Trends/developmentofthefactorsml.pdf.

Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of

educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305.

Fedorov, A. (2007). Media education: Sociology surveys. Taganrog:

Kuchma Publishing House.

Feng, L. (2008). Achievements and difficulties. Review Ten Years of

Media Literacy Education in China, 4(6), 1–10.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change by Michael Fullan.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Wiley.

Fuller, F. (1969). Concern of teachers: A developmental conceptu-

alization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226.

Graber, D., & Mendoza, K. (2012). New media literacy education

(NMLE) a developmental approach. Journal of Media Literacy

Education, 4(1), 82–92.

Gulbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful

technology integration in schools. Computers & Education,

49(4), 943–956. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.002.

Hall, G., & Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the

process. Curriculum inquiry (Vol. 27). NY: Stage University of

New York Press. doi:10.1111/0362-6784.00057.

Halliday, A., & Blackburn, D. (2003). Media literacy for global

citizenship. Canada: World Vision Canada.

Harden, R. M., & Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum?

Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143.

Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). The

impact of primary school teachers’ educational beliefs. Com-

puters & Education, 51, 1499–1509.

Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12

teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommen-

dations for future research. Educational Technology Research

and Development, 55(3), 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-

9022-5.

Higgins, S., & Moseley, D. (2007). Teacher development: An

international journal of teachers’ professional development

Teachers’ thinking about information and communications

technology and learning: Beliefs and outcomes Teachers’

Thinking about Information and Communications Technolo,

(April 2013), 37–41.

Hobbs, R. (1998). The seven great debates in the media literacy

movement. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 16–32. doi:10.

1093/joc/48.1.16.

Hobbs, R. (2004). A review of school-based initiatives in media

literacy education. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(1), 42–59.

doi:10.1177/0002764204267250.

Hobbs, R., & Frost, R. (2003). Measuring the acquisition of media-

literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 330–355.

Hollingshead, B. (2009). The concerns-based adoption model: A

framework for examining implementation of a character educa-

tion program. NASSP Bulletin, 93(3), 166–183. doi:10.1177/

0192636509357932.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Leslie Huling-Austin, G. E. H.

(1989). Taking charge of change. Health management quarterly:

HMQ (Vol. 11, p. 1987). Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development, Alexandria. Retrieved from http://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22787742.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core

concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies

in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 369–386. doi:10.

1080/01596300500200169.

Lai, K., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication

technology (ICT) in secondary schools: The role of the computer

coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4),

461–475.

Livingstone, S. (2004a). Media literacy and the challenge of new

information and communication technologies. The Communica-

tion Review, 7(1), 3–14. doi:10.1080/10714420490280152.

Livingstone, S. (2004b). What is media literacy? Intermedia, 32(3),

18–20.

Livingstone, S., & Bovill, M. (1999). Young people and new media.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Key components of a curriculum plan:

Objectives, content, and learning experiences. Schooling, 2(1), 1–4.

470 H. Zhang et al.

123

Author's personal copy

Martens, H. (2009). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts,

theories and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy

Education, 2(1), 1–22.

Morris, R. C., & Hamm, R. (1976). Toward a curriculum theory.

Educational Leadership, 33(4), 299–300.

Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., & Specht, J. (2008).

Identifying discriminating variables between teachers who fully

integrate computers and teachers with limited integration.

Computers & Education, 51(4), 1523–1537. doi:10.1016/j.

compedu.2008.02.003.

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and

communications technology: A review of the literature factors

affecting teachers’ use of information and communications.

Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3),

319–342.

Mwalongo, A. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions about ICT for teaching,

professional development, administration and personal use

Alcuin Mwalongo Dar es Salaam University College of Educa-

tion. Tanzania, 7(3), 36–49.

Namita, Y. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of media education in BC

secondary schools: Challenges and possibilities. Kelowna: The

University of British Columbia.

Ofcom. (2009). UK children’s media literacy. http://stakeholders.

ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-lit11/chil

drens.pdf.

Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2009). The impact of a federally funded

grant on a professional development program: Teachers’ stages

of concern toward technology integration. Journal of Computing

in Teacher Education, 25(2), 45–55.

Ozgur, A. Z., & Kaya, S. (2011). The management aspect of the

E-portfolio as an assessment tool: Sample of Anadolu Univer-

sity. Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 296–303.

Peeraer, J., & Petegem, P. (2010). Factors influencing integration of

ICT in higher education in Vietnam. In Z. Abas et al. (Eds.),

Proceedings of Global Learn 2010 (pp. 916–924). AACE.

Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in

education: Results from a worldwide educational assessment.

Computers & Education, 37, 163–178.

Poynton, T. A., Schumacher, R. A., & Wilczenski, F. L. (2008).

School counselors’ attitudes regarding statewide comprehensive

developmental guidance model implementation. Professional

School Counseling, 11(6), 417–422. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-11.

417.

Pratt, E. A. M., & Conrad, F. (1983). Making decisions about the

curriculum. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 16–30.

Roach, A. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Frank, J. L. (2009). School-based

consultants as change facilitators: Adaptation of the concerns-

based adoption model (CBAM) to support the implementation of

research-based practices. Journal of Educational and Psycho-

logical Consultation, 19(4), 300–320. doi:10.1080/10474410

802463304.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York:

Free Press.

Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2009).

Investigating teachers’ educational beliefs in Chinese primary

schools: Socioeconomic and geographical perspectives. Asia-

Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(4), 363–377.

Sang, G., Valcke, M., Van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student

teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of

prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology.

Computers & Education, 54(1), 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.com

pedu.2009.07.010.

Scharmann, L. C., & McLellan, H. (1992). Enhancing science-

technology-society (STS) instruction: An examination of teacher

goal orientations. School Science and Mathematics, 92(5),

249–252.

Scheibe, C. & Rogow, F. (2008). 12 basic ways to integrate media

literacy and critical thinking into any curriculum. Division of

Interdisciplinary and International Studies.

Schmidt, H. C. (2013). Media literacy education from kindergarten to

college: A comparison of how media literacy is addressed across

the educational system. Journal of Media Literacy Education,

5(1), 295–309.

Scull, T. M., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (2011). An evaluation of a media

literacy program training workshop for late elementary school

teachers. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(3),

199–208. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/

articlerender.fcgi?artid=3530162&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=

abstract.

Stein, L., & Prewett, A. (2009). Meida literacy education in the social

studies: Teacher perceptions and curricular challenges. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 36(1), 131–148.

Tan, Q., Xiang, Q., Zhang, J., Teng, L., & Yao, J. (2012). Media

literacy education in mainland China: A historical overview.

International Journal of Information and Education Technology,

2(4), 381–385.

Tanrıverdi, B. (2008). Culture and language teaching through

media. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504866.

pdf.

Torres, M., & Mercado, M. (2006). The need for critical media

literacy in teacher education core curricula. Educational studies.

A Journal of the American Education Studies Association, 39(3),

260–282. doi:10.1207/s15326993es3903_5.

Tunks, J., & Weller, K. (2009). Changing practice, changing minds,

from arithmetical to algebraic thinking: An application of the

concerns-based adoption model (CBAM). Educational Studies in

Mathematics, 72(2), 161–183. doi:10.1007/s10649-009-9189-x.

Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Vanwynsberghe, H., Paulussen, S., & Verdegem, P. (2011). Towards a

conceptual framework for media literacy. Retrieved from http://

emsoc.be/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/EMSOC_IAMCR_PAPER_

3.pdf.

Wan, G., & Gut, D. (2008a). Roles of Media and Media Literacy

Education: Lives of Chinese and American Adolescents, 56(2),

28–42.

Wan, G., & Gut, D. (2008b). Roles of media and media literacy

education: Lives of Chinese and American Adolescents. New

Horizons in Education, 56(2), 28–42. Retrieved from http://

www.ln.edu.hk/osl/newhorizon/abstract/v56n2/3.pdf.

Worsnop, C. (2011). How to do assessment and evaluation in media

literacy. Retrieved from http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/

workshop-report-how-do-assessment-and-evaluation-media-

literacy.

Xu, W. (2009). Opportunities and challenges for media education in

Mainland China. In: C.-K. Cheung (Ed.), Media education in

Asia (pp. 157–163). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-

4020-9529-0.

Zhang, J., & Xu, W. (2011). The obstacles for the development of

media literacy education in China: An experience from teacher

training. Hongkong: GCRA.

Zhu, C. (2013). The effect of cultural and school factors on the

implementation of CSCL. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 44(3), 484–501. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.

01333.x.

Zohrabi, M. (2008). Researching into curriculum components. Pan-

Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 49–69.

Zwolak, A. (2011). A call for common content. American Educator,

35(1), 41–45. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/american

educator/spring2011/ASI.pdf.

Teachers’ stages of concern for media literacy education 471

123

Author's personal copy