مطالعات دینی رسانه

مطالعات دینی رسانه

تحلیل مدل‌های سواد رسانه های اجتماعی به عنوان پارادایم نوین سواد رسانه ای با تمرکز بر واکاوی مدل‌های SoMeLit و SMILE

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده
استادیار گروه مهندسی کامپیوتر و فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده فنی و مهندسی، دانشگاه سید جمالالدین اسدآبادی، اسدآباد، همدان، ایران
چکیده
هدف: با ظهور رسانه‌های اجتماعی که منجر به کاربرد سازه‌های وب 2 در رسانه‌ها شده است، نوع استفاده از این ابزار و محتوای تولیدشده توسط کاربر به دغدغه مهمی برای جوامع تبدیل شده است؛ به‌گونه‌ای که استفاده از پتانسیل‌ها و اجتناب از آسیب‌ها مستلزم ایجاد و کاربست مفهومی تحت عنوان سواد رسانه‌های اجتماعی است. هدف این تحقیق واکاوی مفاهیم، ابعاد و مدل‌های سواد رسانه‌های اجتماعی است.
روش‌شناسی پژوهش: در این تحقیق ابتدا سواد رسانه‌ای و سواد رسانه‌های اجتماعی مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. سپس کلیه مدل‌های سواد رسانه‌های اجتماعی طی دو دهه اخیر شناسایی و واکاوی شده است. برای مفهوم‌سازی دقیق سواد رسانه‌های اجتماعی نیز از دو مدل کاربردی و معتبر SoMeLit و SMILE استفاده شده است.
یافته‌ها: یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد طی دو دهه اخیر مدل‌های سواد رسانه‌ای اجتماعی شامل مدل یکپارچه چندبعدی فاف و رودیگر، مدل خودمختاری SDT، مدل مبتنی بر مهارت و فرآیند محور فستل، مدل CSML و PSML تام‍پلین، مدل SoMeLit، مدل SMILE و مدل هابز ایجاد و به‌منظور توصیف ساختار ایستا و فرآیند پویای سواد رسانه‌های اجتماعی به کار گرفته شده‌اند.
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: مدل‌های سواد رسانه‌های اجتماعی با بررسی ساختارهای شناختی و عاطفی از طریق رویکردهای مختلف به دنبال ایجاد مهارت‌های رمزگشایی، ارزیابی و ایجاد ارتباط در حوزه‌های بازنمایی و تعامل هستند و نقش خود را در انتخاب و درگیر شدن با محتوای رسانه‌های اجتماعی تصدیق می‌کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها

  1. Festl, R. (2020). Social media literacy & adolescent social online behavior in Germany. J. Child. Media 2020, 15, 249–271. DOI:10.1080/17482798.2020.1770110
  2. Aufderheide, P. (1993). Media Literacy: A report of the national leadership conference on media literacy. Communications and Society Program, the Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C. https://www.worldcat.org/title/media-literacy-a-report-of-the-national-leadership-conference-on-media-literacy-the-aspen-institute-wye-center-queenstown-maryland-december-7-9-992/oclc/28814884
  3. Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media and technology 2018. Retrieved from

http:// www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018.

  1. Pfaff-Rüdiger, S., & Riesmeyer, C. (2016). Moved into action. Media literacy as social process. Journal of Children and Media, 10(2), 164–172. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2015.1127838
  2. van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2014). Digital skills: unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137437037.
  3. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230. DOI:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
  4. Goldfine, E. (2011). Best practices: The use of social media throughout emergency & disaster relief (Vol. 28). Washington, DC: A Capstone Project submitted to Faculty of the Public Communication Graduate Program, School of Communication, American University.

http://www.american.edu/soc/communication/upload/Erica-Goldfine.pdf.

  1. Nasrullah, R. (2015). Media sosial: Perspektif komunikasi, budaya, dan sosioteknologi (Vol. 2016, p. 2017). Simbiosa Rekatama Media.
  2. Gordon CS, Rodgers RF, Slater AE, McLean SA, Jarman HK, Paxton SJ. (2020). A cluster randomized controlled trial of the SoMe social media literacy body image and wellbeing program for adolescent boys and girls: Study protocol. Body Image. 33:27-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.003.
  3. Nagle, J. (2018). Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: A review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education. 76. 86-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.014.
  4. Kleemans, M., Daalmans, S, Carbaat, I., & Anschütz, D. (2018). Picture perfect: The direct effect of manipulated Instagram photos on body image in adolescent girls. Media Psychology, 21, 93-110. DOI:10.1080/15213269.2016.1257392.
  5. Tamplin, N., Mclean, S. A., & Paxton, S. J. (2018). Social media literacy protects against the negative impact of exposure to appearance ideal social media images in young adult women but not men. Body Image, 26, 29-37.

DOI:10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.05.003

  1. Jeong, S., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62, 454-472.

DOI:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2012.01643.x

  1. Cho, H., Cannon, J., Lopez, R., Li, W. (2022). Social media literacy: A conceptual framework, new media & society, 1-20,

DOI: 10.1177/14614448211068530

  1. Daneels, R., & Vanwynsberghe, H. (2017). Mediating social media use: Connecting parents’ mediation strategies and social media literacy. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11. DOI:10.5817/CP2017-3-5
  2. PotterJ. (2019) s. 9th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  3. McLean, S. A. Paxton, S. J., & Wertheim, E. H. (2016). Does media literacy mitigate risk for reduced body satisfaction following exposure to thin-ideal media? Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 45, 1678-1695.

DOI:10.1007/s10964-016-0440-3

  1. van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2016). Development and validation of the Internet Skills Scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 804–823. DOI:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834
  2. Street BV (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Literacy_in_Theory_and_Practice.html?id=R0UdWQ5thf8C

  1. Street BV (2003) What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education 5(2): 77–91.https://web.archive.org/web/20180510133903/http://www.tc.columbia.edu/cice/pdf/25734_5_2_Street.pdf
  2. Pangrazio, L. (2016). Reconceptualising critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 37(2), 163–174.

DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2014.942836

  1. Hutchison, A., Nadolny, L., & Estapa, A. (2016). Using coding apps to support literacy instruction and develop coding literacy. The Reading Teacher, 69(5), 493–503. DOI: 10.1002/trtr.1440
  2. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611–634). London, UK: Routledge.

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781410618894-27/cognition-literacy-massively-multiplayer-online-games-constance-steinkuehler.

  1. Gleason, B. (2018). Thinking in hashtags: Exploring teenagers’ new literacies practices on twitter. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2), 165–180.

DOI:10.1080/17439884.2018.1462207

  1. Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: Tweeting as a new literacy practice. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 464–478.

DOI:10.1080/00131725.2012.709032

  1. DeSchryver, M. D., & Yadav, A. (2015). Creative and computational thinking in the context of new literacies: Working with teachers to scaffold complex technology mediated approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 411–431. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/151572/.
  2. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2014). Handbook of research on new literacies. London, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781410618894
  3. Manca, S.; Bocconi, S.; Gleason, B. (2021).“Think globally, act locally”: A glocal approach to the development of social media literacy. Comput. Educ. 160, 104025. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104025
  4. Jenkins (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001

  1. Hobbs (2010). Digital and Media Literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. https://books.google.com/books/about/Digital_and_Media_Literacy.html?id=VB469RDHRhcC
  2. Mihailidis (2018). Civic media literacies: re-imagining engagement for civic intentionality. Learning, Media, and Technology 43(2): 152–164.

DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2018.1428623

  1. Potter, W. J. (2004). Argument for the need for a cognitive theory of media literacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 266–272.

DOI: 10.1177/0002764204267274

  1. Vanwynsberghe, H. (2014). How users balance opportunity and risk: A conceptual exploration of social media literacy and measurement. Ghent University. Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Ghent, Belgium. https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5780342
  2. Lang, A. (2017). Limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing. In C. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1-9). Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2018.1534551.
  3. Livingstone, S. (2014). Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on social network sites. Communications, 39(3), 283–303. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/62129.
  4. Müller, C. R., Pfetsch, J., & Ittel, A. (2014). Ethical media competence as a protective factor against cyberbullying and cybervictimization among German school students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 644–651. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0168
  5. Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kroehne, U., Hartig, J., & Goldhammer, F. (2015). Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy: First evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 149–160.

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.008

  1. Kimmons, R., Carpenter, J. P., Veletsianos, G., & Krutka, D. G. (2018). Mining social media divides: An analysis of K-12 US school uses of twitter. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(3), 307–325. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2018.1504791
  2. Gleason, B. (2013). Occupy Wall Street: Exploring informal learning about a social movement on twitter. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(7), 966–982. DOI: 10.1177/0002764213479372
  3. Greenhow, C., Menzer, M., & Gibbins, T. (2015). Re-thinking scientific literacy: Arguing science issues in a niche Facebook application. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 593–604. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.031
  4. O’Byrne, W. I. (2019). Educate, empower, advocate: Amplifying marginalized voices in a digital society. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4), 640–669.

https://citejournal.org/volume-19/issue-4-19/english-language-arts/educate-empower-advocate-amplifying-marginalized-voices-in-a-digital-society/.

  1. Pfaff-Rüdiger, S., Riesmeyer, C., & Kümpel, A. S. (2012). Media literacy and developmental tasks: A case study in Germany. Media Studies, 3(6), 42–56. https://doaj.org/article/bd3da4a169ba463882bda9653d45b8ad.
  2. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. DOI: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  3. Riesmeyer, C., Pfaff-Rüdiger, S., & Kümpel, A. S. (2016). Wenn Wissen zu Handeln wird: Medienkompetenz aus motivationaler Perspektive [When knowledge becomes action: Media literacy from a motivational perspective]. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 64(1), 36–55.

https://www.ls1.ifkw.uni-muenchen.de/forschung/publikationen/fz_artikel/wenn_wissen_zu_handel.html

  1. Martens, H. (2010). Evaluating media literacy education: Concepts, theories and future directions. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(1), 1–22.

DOI: 10.23860/jmle-2-1-1

  1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
  2. Livingstone, S., Ólafsson, K., Helsper, E. J., Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Veltri, G. A., & Folkvord, F. (2017). Maximizing opportunities and minimizing risks for children online:

The role of digital skills in emerging strategies of parental mediation. Journal of Communication, 67(1), 105–182. DOI:10.1111/jcom.12277

  1. Glüer, M., & Lohaus, A. (2018). Elterliche und kindliche Einschätzung von elterlichen Medi enerziehungsstrategien und deren Zusammenhang mit der kindlichen Internetnutzungskompetenz [Parents’ and children’s perspectives of parental mediation strategies in association with children’s Internet skills]. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 67(2), 181–203.

DOI: 10.13109/prkk.2018.67.2.181

  1. Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, L., & Parker, K. (2015). Teens, social media, and technology overview 2015. Smartphones facilitate shifts in communication landscape for teens.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/.

  1. Borca, G., Bina, M., Keller, P. S., Gilbert, L. R., & Begotti, T. (2015). Internet use and developmental tasks: Adolescents’ point of view. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 49–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.029.
  2. Hefner, D., Knop, K., & Klimmt, C. (2017). Being mindfully connected – Encountering the challenges of adolescents living in a POPC world. In P. Vorderer, D. Hefner, L. Reinecke, & C. Klimmt (Eds.), Permanently online, permanently connected (pp. 176–187). New York: Routledge.

DOI: 10.4324/9781315276472-17

  1. Knop, K., Hefner, D., Schmitt, S., & Vorderer, P. (2015). Mediatisierung mobil: Handy- und mobile Internetnutzung von Kindern und Jugendlichen [Mobile mediatisation: mobile phone and mobile Internet use by children and young people]. Düsseldorf: Schriftenreihe Medienforschung der Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (Band 77). LfM.

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/11640648

  1. Bosancianu, C. M., Powell, S., & Bratović, E. (2013). Social capital and prosocial behavior online and offline. International Journal of Internet Science, 8(1), 49–68. https://www.ijis.net/ijis8_1/ijis8_1_bosancianu_et_al_pre.html
  2. Erreygers, S., Vandebosch, H., Vranjes, I., Baillien, E., & De Witte, H. (2018). Development of a measure of adolescents’ online prosocial behavior. Journal of Children and Media, 12(4), 448–464. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2018.1431558.
  3. Vossen, H. G. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Development of the Adolescent Measure of Empathy and Sympathy (AMES). Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 66–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.040
  4. Caldarella, P., & Merell, K. W. (1997). Common dimensions of social skills of children and adolescents: A taxonomy of positive behaviours. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 264–278. DOI: 10.1080/02796015.1997.12085865
  5. Cho H, Li W, Shen L, et al. (2019). Mechanisms of Social Media Effects on Attitudes Toward E-Cigarette Use: Motivations, Mediators, and Moderators in a National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Medical Internet Research 21(6): e14303. DOI: 10.2196/14303
  6. Moreno MA, Kota R, Schoohs S, et al. (2013). The Facebook influence model: a concept mapping approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking 16(7): 504–511. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2013.0025.
  7. Zheng A, Duff BRL, Vargas P, et al. (2020). Self-presentation on social media: when self-enhancement confronts self-verification. Journal of Interactive Advertising 20(3): 289–302. DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2020.1841048
  8. Boczkowski PJ, Matassi M and Mitchelstein E (2018). How young users deal with multiple platforms: the role of meaning-making in social media repertoires. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23(5): 245–259.

DOI: 10.1093/jcmc/zmy012

  1. Bargh J, McKenna K and Fitzsimons G (2002). Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the internet. Journal of Social Issues 58(1): 33–48. DOI: 10.1111/1540-4560.00247
  2. Hu C, Zhao L and Huang J (2015). Achieving self-congruency? Examining why individuals reconstruct their virtual identity in communities of interest established within social network platforms. Computers in Human Behavior 50: 465–475. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.027
  3. Jin SAA (2013). Peeling back the multiple layers of Twitter’s private disclosure onion: the roles of virtual identity discrepancy and personality traits in communication privacy management on Twitter. New Media & Society 15(6): 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/1461444812471814
  4. Postmes T, Spears R and Lea M (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE effects of computer mediated communication. Communication Research 25(6): 689–715. DOI: 10.1177/009365098025006006
  5. Yee N and Bailenson J (2007). The proteus effect: the effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research 33(3): 271–290. DOI: 10.1177/0093650208330254
  6. Schreuers L and Vandenbosch L (2021). Introducing the social media literacy (SMILE) model with the case of positivity bias on social media. Journal of Children and Media 15(3): 320–337. DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2020.1809481
  7. Schreurs, L., Meier, A. & Vandenbosch, L. Exposure to the Positivity Bias and Adolescents’ Differential Longitudinal Links with Social Comparison, Inspiration and Envy Depending on Social Media Literacy. Curr Psychol (2022). DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-03893-3
  8. Byrne, S. (2009). Media literacy interventions: What makes them boom or boomerang? Communication Education, 58, 1-14.

DOI:10.1080/03634520802226444

  1. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63, 221-243. DOI:10.1111/jcom.12024
  2. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299. DOI:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
  3. Buunk, B. P., Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., VanYperen, N. W., & Dakof, G. A. (1990). The affective consequences of social comparison: Either direction has its ups and downs. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 59, 1238-1249. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1238
  4. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication: a review. New York: Free Press. DOI: 10.1177/107769904902600403
  5. Trepte, S., & Reinecke, L. (2011). Privacy online: Perspectives on privacy and self- disclosure in the social web. New York: Springer.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-21521-6.

  1. Lup, K., Trub, L., & Rosenthal, L. (2015). Instagram #Instasad?: Exploring associations among Instagram use, depressive symptoms, negative social comparison, and strangers Followed. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18, 247-252. DOI:10.1089/cyber.2014.0560
  2. Vraga, E., Bode, L., & Troller-Renfree, S. (2016). Beyond self-reports: Using eye tracking to measure topic and style differences in attention to social media content, Communication Methods and Measures, 10, 149-164.

DOI:10.1080/19312458.2016.1150443

  1. Hobbs, R. (2011). The state of media literacy: A response to Potter. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 55, 601-604.

DOI:10.1080/08838151.2011.597594

  1. Valkenburg, P. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Hermanns, J., & de Leeuw, R. (2013). Developing and validating the perceived parental media mediation scale: A self-determination perspective. Human Communication Research, 39, 445-469. DOI:10.1111/hcre.12010
  2. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7.

  1. Grusec, J. E., & Hastings, P. D. 2015. Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York, London: The Guilford Press.

https://www.guilford.com/books/Handbook-of-Socialization/Grusec-Hastings/9781462525829.

  1. Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/understanding-family-process/book2998.
  2. Chakroff, J. L., & Nathanson, A. I. (2011). Parent and school interventions: Mediation and media literacy. In S. L. Calvert & B. J.

DOI: 10.1002/9781444302752.ch24

  1. Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm https://www.routledge.com/Beyond-Learning-Democratic-Education-for-a-Human-Future/Biesta/p/book/9781594512346