media digitais

7/23/2019 media digitais

1/6

52 Kappan November 2012

Election 2012

Thinkstock/iStockphoto

Oct. 11 was A Day of theGirl Child in part due to agroup of 12-year-old girlsin Maryland who usedsocial media to connect

with like-minded womenin the U.S., Canada, and Africa. Thesegirls, known as School Girls Unite,mobilized more than 70 girls organiza-tions throughout the U.S. in supportof a United Nations initiative to setaside one day a year to recognize theneed for girls to be educated aroundthe world. And their efforts continue.Recently, School Girls Unite deliveredover 11,000 e-petitions urging actionon the child marriage prevention billbeing considered in Congress.

And they did it almost exclusivelythrough email and Facebook.

Consider 18-year-old Michelle RyanLautos campaign to protest schoolfunding cuts in New Jersey. She sent aFacebook message to 600 friends sayingthat students should protest threatenedschool funding cuts and asked them topass her message on. Ultimately, 18,000students accepted her invitation, stag-ing one of the largest grassroots protests

in New Jerseys history (Hu, 2010).Or consider the response to last

springs release of a 30-minute videoby a San Diego-based group that ex-posed warlord Joseph Konys abuses inUganda. Within a few days of its post-ing, the Kony 2012 video on YouTubehad been viewed more than 76 mil-lion times. A survey found that almost60% of youth and young adults (underage 30) who knew about the video hadlearned about it through Facebook,

Twitter, or other social media. Just asrapidly, social media alerted the publicabout questions about the accuracy ofthe video and whether the proposed ac-tions made sense.

Outlets for youth activism and civicparticipation arent new, but two thingsdistinguish these recent examples fromtraditional ones: They are peer createdand directed, and they rely on social me-dia. Almost overnight, youth civic par-ticipation has become a different ballgame. Social media is a phenomenonthat could dramatically change how andhow much young people participatecivically, including voting. Schools willcontinue to play a vital role in preparingstudents to be citizens. But educatorsmust be prepared to play by differentrules and on this different field.

To better understand these new re-alities, together with Cathy Cohen,Ben Bowyer, and Jon Rogowski, wesurveyed 3,000 youth between ages 15

and 25 as part of the MacArthur Foun-dation Research Network on Youth andParticipatory Politics. The Youth andParticipatory Politics Survey providesone of the most complete pictures todate of how young people are using newmedia to engage politically.

New ways to engage

Substantial numbers of youth areengaging in political life through par-ticipatory politics which is like tra-ditional political activity because theyaddress issues of public concern. But,unlike traditional political activity, par-ticipatory politics are interactive, peer-based, and not guided by traditionalinstitutions like political parties ornewspaper editors. Young people mightstart a new political group online, writeand disseminate a blog about a politicalissue, forward a political video to theirsocial network, or take part in a poetryslam. We found that 41% of all youthparticipated in at least one of these ac-tivities during the past year. This is thesame percentage that said they voted,or said they intended to vote if they

were then under 18. It is just below the45% who said they engaged in formsof politics more directly tied to insti-tutions by, for example, working on apolitical campaign or donating money.In short, participatory politics are animportant part of overall youth politi-

Digital media shapes

youth participation in politicsSocial media are changing how youth involve themselves in politics. Educators also must change how they prepare

students to be involved citizens.

JOSEPH KAHNE([email protected]) is a pro-

fessor of education at Mills College, Oakland,

Calif., and chair of the MacArthur Foundation

Research Network on Youth and Participa-

tory Politics. ELLEN MIDDAUGHis research

director of the Mills College Civic Engagement

Research Group.


2/6

V94 N3 kappanmagazine.org 53

cal activity. If we ignore it, we will missmany of the ways youth are engaged.

Those concerned about the future ofAmerican politics should consider howsuch social media and participatory pol-itics could change the landscape. Forexample, participatory politics give

youth independence from traditionalkeepers of information and politicalparticipation such as political parties,interest groups, textbook authors, andnewspaper editors. Youth can put outtheir own narratives about what is ontraditional media and share amongtheir networks, and their commentshelp shape how their peers think aboutthe information. Indeed, we found that45% of youth reported getting newsat least once a week from family and


3/6


likely than those in middle-incomeclassrooms to have civic learning op-portunities, such as service learningand classroom discussions of currentevents, that promote political engage-ment (Kahne & Middaugh, 2008). Ed-

ucators must not add to this problemby inequitably delivering supports forengagement in participatory politics.

Can Facebook cause an American

Spring or will it lead to a political

winter?

Some observers argue that youngpeoples use of social media will helpspur activism, as in the Arab Spring;others worry that social media distract

youth from the world around them.What we found is somewhere in be-tween.

Social interaction with friends onsites like Facebook what Mimi Itoand colleagues call friendship-drivenactivity (2009) was unrelated to po-litical activity. But we also found thatabout one-third of young people partic-ipate every week in online communitiestied to their interests in hobbies, sports,or entertainment. While in these com-munities, they engage in nonpolitical,interest-driven activity such as posting,linking to, or forwarding information,giving help to others or posting com-ments about someone elses messages.

About one in six young people are moreintensely involved (e.g., organizing anonline group, discussion, or web site).

Those who frequently engage in these

That said, rates of participatory poli-tics, including voting, are still far lowerthan one would like. Educators can help

youth understand the value of politicalactivity as well as the ways (includingbut not limited to voting) that these

new opportunities for voice can lead toinfluence.

Will the digital divide foster a new

form of political inequality?

The racial breakdown of youth usingdigital media to engage in participatorypolitics also holds some surprises, es-pecially given widespread discussionsof the digital divide. Young peopleacross racial and ethnic lines have ac-cess to the Internet and regularly use

online social media to stay connected.Access to the Internet varies only afraction among the four racial groups

we studied all above 94%. Almost80% reported sending messages, shar-ing links, or chatting online daily orat least once a week with friends and/or family. Moreover, blacks and Asian-

Americans are frequently the mostengaged in this domain. In addition,

when it comes to practicing participa-tory politics, the difference in engage-ment between those with the highestrate of activity (whites at 43%) and thelowest rate of activity (Asian-Ameri-cans at 36%) is only 7%. For votingin 2008, the difference between thosemost likely to have voted in 2008 (black

youth at 52%) and those least likely(Latino youth at 27%) was 25%. Evenif one accounts for citizenship status,the difference in voting between thesetwo groups was still 17% (U.S. CensusBureau, 2008).

None of this means that unequal ac-cess to broadband is not a problem, norshould it diminish concern regardingunequal technology in schools. But itdoes mean that widespread engagement

with digital media among youth can bean asset teachers can tap. Moreover, ascivic education increasingly employsthese media, educators must take careto ensure that all students have accessto these opportunities. In prior work,

we found that students in high-incomeclassrooms were 1.5 to 2 times more

friends via Twitter and Facebook. Thisrivals the 49% of youth who reportedgetting news at least once a week fromnewspapers and magazines.

In addition, social media opens waysfor youth to help shape the flow of infor-

mation and to be creative. For example,a political speech used to be over whenthe candidate stepped down from theplatform. Now, in many ways, only afterthe speech ends does the engagementbegin. Youth can tweet about it, watch iton YouTube, circulate it, and post com-ments about it. Those especially sup-portive or outraged can also remix ormash up the original speech and createtheir own personalized material for dis-tribution. Youth can (as Michelle RyanLauto did) reach vast audiences and

mobilize many participants at no costthrough their social networks. In earliereras, they needed power holders to givethem a platform.

While these practices clearly createnew opportunities for voice, for agency,and potentially for influence, they cre-ate risks as well. And heres where edu-cators come in. We have no reason toassume that engagement with participa-tory politics will inevitably or organi-cally develop in positive ways. Thats

where schools come into the picture,playing their traditional role of prepar-ing students to be citizens.

Will those who tweet, vote?

Many worry that those who en-gage in participatory politics will real-ize voice more than influence. Indeed,some have postulated that these prac-tices are a response to alienation fromtraditional politics and that youth seethese practices as alternatives to tradi-tional ways of being involved in politics(Bennett, 1998). Some worry that thesepractices will distract youth by focus-ing them on communicating with peersrather than on the corridors of power.Given these concerns, it was striking tolearn that those who engaged in at leastone act of participatory politics were ac-tually twice as likely to report voting asthose who did not. These participatoryacts seem to supplement rather thansupplant traditional political activity.


4/6

V94 N3 kappanmagazine.org 55

tion or different points of view on a so-cietal issue, students were more likelyto engage in online political activity andto be exposed to differing viewpointsduring their discretionary time (Kahne,Lee, & Feezell, 2012).

Information . . . or misinformation?

While democracy requires manysupports in order to work effectively,citizens certainly need to be reasonablyconfident that theyre able to make de-cisions based on accurate information.How else can they assess or discuss var-ied arguments about key issues? Andthere are reasons for concern. A recentsurvey in England and Wales, for ex-ample, found that one-third of teens

believe that if a search engine providesinformation, then it must be reliableand that many youth do not fact-checktheir online sources and are unableto recognize bias and propaganda. Infact, 47% of teachers reported havingobserved arguments within lessons orschoolwork that contained inaccurateInternet-based content they regard asdeliberately packaged by the producersto be misleading or deceitful, e.g., ho-locaust denial (Bartlett & Miller, 2011).

As part of our U.S. survey, we askedyoung people if they thought they andtheir friends would benefit from learn-ing more about how to tell if online in-formation was trustworthy. Eighty-four

of Facebook and apps for iPads andiPhones to steer users into certaingroupings might be expected to ex-acerbate this problem. However, in aseparate study with Namjin Lee and

Jessica Timpany Feezell (2011), we

found that only 5% of young peoplereported that they interacted onlineonly with those whose views aligned

with their own. Moreover, we foundthat frequent engagement in nonpoliti-cal, interest-driven online communities

was associated with wider exposure withdifferent viewpoints. Similarly, a studyof adult use of social media found that53% of adults in online groups wherediscussions centered on sports, enter-tainment, hobbies, and other interests,reported that they wound up exchang-

ing perspectives on political issues. Inaddition, discussions in these nonpo-litical interest-driven forums were theplaces where dialogues across ideologi-cal differences were the most common(Wojcieszak & Mutz, 2009).

A larger problem than the echochamber that our survey uncovered isthat of the empty chamber. Our sur-

vey found that 63% of all young peoplerarely or never discuss political issues

with others face to face, and 87% rarelyor never discuss politics online. Thesefigures indicate that a very large num-ber of young people arent interestedin politics. Similarly, the National Con-ference on Citizenship reported that55% of those under 30 years of age werenot interested in civic/political life, and64% of voting-age young people (18-29) said they were not at all interestedin campaign news (2008). Disengage-ment is a real concern.

Clearly, civic education broadly con-ceived provides part of the needed re-sponse. Studies show that a variety ofpractices ranging from service learningto discussions of controversial issues inan open classroom climate to simula-tions of civic and political processes canpromote greater interest and engage-ment (Gibson & Levine, 2003; Kahne,Crow, & Lee, 2011). Media literacy ef-forts can help as well. Indeed, in a re-lated study, we found that when teachersrequired students to create somethingonline or to go online to find informa-

nonpolitical interest-driven communi-ties are five times as likely to engage inparticipatory politics as those who in-frequently do so. Just as bowling leagueshave been found to foster social capi-tal and to spur civic and political en-

gagement, these online interest-drivennetworks also appear to have benefits.These interest-driven networks fosterdigital social capital. In other words,

youth learn norms for working effec-tively in groups, acquire digital andleadership skills they can use in thepolitical sphere, and become part ofnetworks through which they oftenhear about ways to get involved in thebroader society.

For schools and teachers, the impli-cations are many. These findings make

clear that schools should not see them-selves as the only game in town when itcomes to civic education. Schools havelong recognized the value of interest-driven extracurricular activities such asthe band or the French Club in pre-paring students to participate in theircommunities and their world. Interest-driven online communities can play asimilar role. Adults automatic responseto the vast amount of time that youthspend online is often simply to try tolimit screen time. But it matters a lot

what youth are doing when theyre infront of the screen. We found that muchof the socializing or friendship-drivenactivity that goes on online (like muchof it that goes on face to face) had littleeffect, but we see signs that engagingones interest online in networked com-munities teaches valuable skills. More-over, once educators see the value ofthese opportunities, they can find waysto create educational spaces that mir-ror these features spaces where youthinteract as part of communities, work-ing collaboratively on topics of com-mon interest and creating content foran audience.

Will participatory politics promote

echo chambers or empty chambers?

Some commentators fear that youthare caught in an echo chamber wherethey choose to only connect with peo-ple holding similar views. The ability


5/6


References

Bartlett, J. & Miller, C. (2011). Truth, lies, and

the Internet: A report into young peoples digital

fluency.London, England: Demos.

Bennett, L. (1998). The uncivic culture:

Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle

politics. PS: Political Sciences and Politics, 31(4), 740-61.

Cohen, C., Kahne, J., Bowyer, B., Middaugh,

E., & Rogowski, J. (2012). Participatory politics:

New media and youth political action. Oakland,

CA: Mills College School of Education,

MacArthur Network on Youth Participatory

Politics.

Gibson, C. & Levine, P. (2003). The civic

mission of schools. New York, NY: The

Carnegie Corporation of New York and

CIRCLE.

Hu, W. (2010, April 27). In New Jersey, a

civics lesson in the Internet age. The New YorkTimes.

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D.,

Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., . . . Tripp, L.,

(2009). Hanging out, messing around, and

geeking out: Kids living and learning with new

media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kahne, J. & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy

for some: The civic opportunity gap in high

school. CIRCLE Working Paper No. 59.

College Park, MD: CIRCLE.

Kahne, J., Crow, D., & Lee, N. (in press).

Different pedagogy, different politics: High

school learning opportunities and youthpolitical engagement. Political Psychology.

Kahne, J., Lee, N., & Feezell, J. (2012). Digital

media literacy education and online civic and

political participation. International Journal of

Communication, 6, 1-24.

Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Lee, N., & Feezell,

J.T. (2011). Youth online activity and exposure

to diverse perspectives. New Media and

Society, 14(3), 492-512.

National Conference on Citizenship. (2008).

Americas civic health index 2008: Beyond the

vote. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2008, November).

Current population survey: Table 2. Reported

voting and registration, by race, Hispanic

origin, sex, and age for the United States.

Washington, DC: Author.

Wojcieszak, M. & Mutz, D. (2009) Online

groups and political discourse: Do online

discussion spaces facilitate exposure

to political disagreement?Journal of

Communication, 59,40-56.

uting author of the new Common CoreState Standards on education, youthmust learn to read like a detective and

write like an investigative reporter.

Concluding thoughts

Rather than prevent or ignore digi-tal media use within schools, educatorsshould embrace the media as tools foracademic as well as civic/political en-gagement. Moreover, while media lit-eracy may be talked about a lot, K-12curriculum and district/state policiesrarely focus on it. This may change asstates implement the Common CoreState Standards since media literacy isincluded in the standards.

In undertaking this work, teachers

and those working in after-school envi-ronments will need support as well. Forexample, we see a significant need to fundthe development of a digital civic infra-structure places where youth can usedigital media to learn about and mobilizearound regional, political, environmen-tal or social issues. Puget SoundOff inSeattle (http://pugetsoundoff.org/), forexample, is an online hub where teen-agers can blog, share, and comment ondigital sources and connect with friends

while learning how they can act on issuestogether. Others have created digital re-sources like factcheck.org or platformslike the Black Youth Project for youthto create, share perspectives, and ac-cess information about topics that mat-ter to them. In addition, out-of-schoolprograms like YOUmedia enable youthto pursue their passions in a media-richenvironment where they create, share,learn, and teach. The societal issues

youth care about are often front andcenter in this effort. Such platforms are

just emerging, but we believe they offervaluable opportunities, providing an au-thentic audience for content that youthproduce as well as for dialog, network-ing, and information exchange.

It will be a challenge for researchers,teachers, and education policy makersto keep pace with the rapid use of digi-tal media by youth to communicate andultimately find ways to become civic-minded. But it seems clear that the virtual

world can be good for the real world.K

percent said, yes. In massive numbers,youth are saying they need help. Weview it as promising that young peopleknow media literacy is an issue and animportant one. Indeed, theres a strongargument to be made that youth aremore clued into the significance of digi-tal media literacy and its relationship todemocracy than adults. Media literacyis such a low priority that there is nonational data on how much attentionschools pay to this topic.

We dont need to give kids course-work on how to tweet or text. If we wantyouth to be able to assess the credibilityof what they find online and be able toproduce and circulate information in

ways that are thoughtful and compel-ling, then we must teach them the skillsthey need for digital media literacy. Inthe words of David Coleman, contrib-

The Youth and ParticipatoryPolitics Survey includes data from

just under 3,000 respondents ages

15-25. The survey examines the

civic and political participation of

youth as well as detailed items

on their engagement with digital

media. The survey is nationally

representative and includes

large samples of black, Latino,

Asian-American, and white (non-

Hispanic) youth enabling detailed

analysis of these demographicgroups as well as of the

population as a whole.

The principal investigators were

Cathy Cohen and Joseph Kahne.

Funding was provided by the John

D. and Catherine T. MacArthur

Foundation.

A detailed report on the survey

can be found at

http://ypp.dmlcentral.net.


6/6

Copyright of Phi Delta Kappan is the property of Phi Delta Kappa International and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

media digitais

Documents