Drawing on Media Studies,Gender Studies,and Media Literacy Education to Develop an Interdisciplinary Approach to Media and Gender Classes

Media Representations, the Gender Binary, and Media Literacy

Although it is difficult to say with precision where the first media and gender classes were taught and by whom, it would be safe to assume that these efforts were inspired by feminist media studies (Van Zoonen, 1994). Today, the majority of media scholars who study issues of gender point out that, although media representations of gender can be problematic, people have a certain degree of freedom as they interpret them (e.g., Bobo, 2002; Cooper, 1999; Gill, 2007). This means that people are not brainwashed by media messages and on some occasions can negotiate and reject their dominant meanings (Hall, 1980); yet their interpretations are limited by available media texts and by the culture that created those (Bird, 2003).

Studies based on reception theories (Hall, 1980) find that interpretations produced by audience members with different backgrounds and life experiences are quite different (Bobo, 2002), and that the growing sophistication of media texts allows for multiple uses and interpretations (DeVane & Squire, 2008). Some say that, as media representations are becoming increasingly nuanced and ironic, it is more difficult to claim that a certain text can influence people’s perceptions of gender in a certain way (Gauntlett, 2002). However, even though the image of endless consumer creativity is appealing, “we must come to grips with the fact that audience activity and creativity is not always an option” (Bird, 2003, p. 171). Although media representations have seemingly become more sophisticated, we should be careful distinguishing between nuanced media texts and ones that foster ambivalence in order to please as many audience members as possible, and to obtain maximum revenue as a result. Media and gender classes should elucidate this complexity in order to make sure that students do not privilege the media effects paradigm but also do not uncritically celebrate their power as media consumers.

Discussing representations, it is important not to describe them as accurate, realistic versus bad, and inaccurate, or advocate for creating non-stereotypical portrayals (D’Acci, 2004; Dyer, 1999; Shaw, 2014). Media scholars note that defining representations as good or bad might be a gross oversimplification (Shaw, 2014). D’Acci (2004) critiqued the search for realistic media texts noting that people view the world only through categories they create, and that any “reality” is always socially constructed. Students in media and gender classes should not simply compare media portrayals to “reality,” yet they need to ask whose realities are privileged, and whose realities are hidden or diminished. Analyzing gender stereotypes in the media, Dyer (1999) argued that rejecting some representations as stereotypical is unhelpful: using stereotypes in narratives is inevitable because this is how people understand the world. It is also important to remember that stereotypes are an essential storytelling tool, which people need in order to communicate. Although it might be unproductive to criticize media portrayals for containing stereotypes, educators should encourage students to ask how certain stereotypes are used and by whom (Dyer, 1999).

While media studies tease out the complexity of media representations, gender studies give us tools to discuss why dominant ideologies contained in media texts (Lemish, 2008) can be problematic. Two concepts developed within gender studies seem particularly useful: the gender binary and intersectionality.

According to Butler (1990), discursive practices that we encounter on a daily basis present ideals of masculinity and femininity as something to strive for, leaving out everything that does not fall into this dualism. The gender binary is also reinforced through everyday performances that we engage in while interacting with other people, often through the media. Historically, gender differences have been connected to biological differences between sexes and proclaimed natural (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). Butler argued that both kinds of differences are socially constructed. Moreover, she pointed out that the gender binary creates the sex binary, not the other way around. Taking into consideration Butler’s conceptualization of gender, educators should be careful not to reinforce these binaries through the simple act of discussing portrayals of men and women. Instead, they should explicitly talk to students about the gender binary and describe gender as a continuum.

Another way to disrupt this dualism is to introduce the concept of intersectionality, pointing out the multiplicity of masculinities and femininities (Connell, 2005). Scholarship on intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991; Grzanka, 2014) is helpful for questioning available gender scripts as it allows us to recognize gender as only one aspect of people’s identity that always intersects with sexuality, race, religion, physical ability, age, class, and so on. Because of intersectionality, “we very rarely ever belong exclusively to one homogenous and monolithic community … for most of us, everyday life is a matter of passing through, travelling between and negotiating a plurality of different spaces” (Mercer, 1993, p. 240). Discussions about intersectionality will help students understand that men and women are not two homogenous groups, but rather a combination of unique individuals that experience different limitations and privileges based on different characteristics. This will allow educators to complicate the gender binary and make the analysis of media representations more nuanced.

While media studies and gender studies provide a theoretical framework for conversations that should happen in media and gender classes, media literacy education scholarship offers useful practices that have been selected through analysis of actual classroom interactions (Buckingham, 2003). I argue that one media literacy approach that is particularly relevant for media and gender classes is the AACRA model (Hobbs, 2011). According to this model, media literacy instruction is the most effective when it contains five elements—Access, Analyze, Create, Reflect, and Act.

The first element of the AACRA model—Access—is fairly basic: media literacy skills begin with the ability to read media texts (comprehension), to look for information online, to turn on a computer, to write an email, to use a DVD player for watching films, and so forth. The second element—Analyze—suggests that people need to question media texts in a systematic way in order to expose their constructed nature, purpose, embedded values, and information that is omitted. Media analysis should help students develop an ability to critically engage with media texts outside of the classroom (Hobbs & Frost, 2003). The next element—Create—suggests that media production can help students better understand the constructed nature of media texts, express their voices (Fleetwood, 2005), and share with peers opinions about the importance of equality and diversity (Goodman, 2003). Critical analysis and media production should be followed by reflection on the role that the media play in shaping students’ identities, and in their interactions with others—the Reflect element. Finally, the Act element of media literacy education classes is informed by critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970) and the philosophy of progressive education (Dewey, 2008[1916]). This last element is the culmination of the model, as it allows students to think of strategies of civic engagement and encourages them to see themselves as active participants in a democratic society. I argue that Act is especially important in media and gender classes, as it should help students to trouble the status quo of gender inequalities.

In order to develop the interdisciplinary approach for media and gender classes, I set out to analyze a sample of educational materials that were designed to help students learn about issues of gender in the media. My main question was the following: How can drawing on principles of media literacy education, gender studies and media studies help us improve approaches used in media and gender classes? More specifically, I asked the following questions: What media literacy skills are these educational materials designed to develop? How do they help students reflect on the complexity of media texts, and of audiences’ interactions with them? What are their strategies, if any, of discussing the gender binary and intersectionality?

Methods

In order to answer these questions, I analyzed materials provided by three nonprofit organizations with media literacy agenda: Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media, Common Sense Media, and MediaSmarts: Canada’s Center for Digital and Media Literacy. All of them offer educational materials produced in the 2010s. These materials were chosen as a convenience sample as they are available online free of charge and thus easily accessible for educators.

I was not able to find any published scholarly research on popularity of these organizations among educators who teach media and gender classes. However, it must be noted that no research exists on materials commonly used in media and gender classes in general. Rather, the three organizations were chosen because of their general recognition and status. Choosing this convenience sample, I relied on my experience as a media literacy educator and on information provided by the organizations themselves. The lack of research on educational materials commonly used in media and gender classes prevented me from triangulating this information, which is a limitation of the current study.

Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media describes itself as “the only research-based organization working within the media and entertainment industry to engage, educate, and influence the need to dramatically improve gender balance, reduce stereotyping and create diverse female characters in entertainment targeting children 11 and under” (About Us [Geena Davis Institute], n.d.). The Institute amasses research on negative effects of gender representations and works with communities, media policy makers, and content creators to advocate for “establishing a gender-balanced media landscape” (About Us [Geena Davis Institute], n.d.), especially in children’s media. Geena Davis Institute points out that their “three-tiered approach of research, education and advocacy has brought the Institute to leading media and entertainment companies, organizations, educational institutions and multinational companies” (About Us [Geena Davis Institute], n.d.).

Common Sense Media is known to educators and parents as a nonprofit organization “dedicated to helping kids thrive in a world of media and technology” (Our Mission, n.d.). It “offer[s] the largest, most trusted library of independent age-based and educational ratings and reviews for movies, games, apps, TV shows, websites, books, and music,” “provides teachers and schools with free research-based classroom tools to help students harness technology for learning and life,” and “works with policymakers, industry leaders, legislators, and a grassroots community of concerned parents and teachers to improve the media and technology landscape for all kids, families, and schools” (Our Mission, n.d.). In their 2014 to 2015 annual report, Common Sense Media notes that nearly 100,000 schools deliver their Digital Literacy curriculum (View Our 2014 Annual Report, n.d.).

MediaSmarts is a not-for-profit charitable organization for digital and media literacy that aims to help children and youth develop critical thinking skills in order to help them become active and informed digital citizens. The website of this organization states: “Through our work we support adults with information and tools so they can help children and teens develop the critical thinking skills they need for interacting with the media they love” (About Us [MediaSmarts], n.d.). MediaSmarts has been producing award-winning resources and programs for the last 15 years (Awards and Recognitions, n.d.).

While Geena Davis Institute, Common Sense Media and MediaSmarts are not the only three institutions that provide English-language lesson plans and curricula, they appear to be easily accessible and well-established resources, as their websites indicate.

Geena Davis Institute provides a set of eight lesson plans for middle and high school (Gender Equality Lessons for Schools, n.d.), and a curriculum titled “Guess Who?” for 6–9 year-olds accompanied by five videos (Guess Who? Video Learning Series, n.d.). Common Sense Media offers eight lesson plans titled “Girls, Boys, and Media: A Gender and Digital Life Toolkit for Schools” (Girls, Boys, and Media, n.d.). These lesson plans are divided into three sets: for elementary, middle, and high school. MediaSmarts provides a variety of materials for different school grades under the rubric “Gender Representation” (n.d.), where I found 18 lesson plans that address media and gender issues.

Describing coding techniques, Strauss (1987) recommended rereading data and analyzing it into emerging conceptual categories. I used Strauss’ technique as I wanted to find the main themes that characterize the educational materials I was analyzing and discuss how well these themes fit into the interdisciplinary approach that I propose. As I was going through the educational materials, I referred to my theoretical framework and the questions that I had posed. More specifically, I wanted to see whether the educational materials in question challenge or reinforce the gender binary, whether they employ the concept of intersectionality to complicate the dualism of sexuality and gender, whether they are designed to equally develop different media literacy skills, and whether they elucidate the complexity of people’s relationship with the media. Having formulated emerging themes, I used them for further coding. The rest of the data analysis consisted of looking for examples that would align with or contradict the themes that I had found.

Protectionism Versus Empowerment

Media literacy strategies are sometimes described according to the place they occupy on the protectionism-empowerment continuum (Buckingham, 1998; Hobbs & Tuzel, 2015). Educators who lean toward protectionism are inspired by media effects paradigm, while empowerment approach is based on the belief that audiences are agentic.

Geena Davis Institute initiatives are based on research that connects the lack of gender balance in the media to gender inequalities in society (e.g., Smith & Cooke, 2008). Consequently, Geena Davis Institute education initiatives are fuelled by protectionist concerns. This is evidenced by the wording used in these educational materials. The “Guess Who?” curriculum directly states that “the media is a huge influence on kids’ beliefs” (p. 2). The titles of the first two lesson plans are formulated as questions: “Do TV Shows and Movies Influence Careers Held by Women and Men?” (n.d.) and “Do TV Shows and Movies Make Sexual Harassment a ‘Normal’ Part of the School Experience?” (n.d.). Although students could potentially answer these questions negatively, the contents of the lesson plans imply that instructors will expect the affirmative answer. For instance, the “Extend Your Learning” section of the second lesson plan encourages students to explore the research that Geena Davis Institute has amassed and “determine whether the media has [sic] a positive or negative impact on sexual harassment in schools” (p. 5). Knowing the research used by Geena Davis Institute, one can assume that students are supposed to conclude that the impact is mostly negative.

Common Sense Media lesson plans occupy a more balanced position between protectionism and empowerment. On the one hand, teachers are instructed to talk to students about problematic media influence. On the other hand, students learn that they have power to interpret media messages in different ways: “Students should acknowledge that media messages can be powerful and can shape our ideas and our behavior, but we can make choices about how much we allow these messages to influence us” (The Reality of Digital Drama, n.d., p. 5). Relationship between the media and people’s attitudes is not described as a simple cause and effect one. “Gender Stereotypes Online” (n.d.) lesson plan instructs teachers to tell students that “[t]he media aren’t solely responsible for creating gender stereotypes, but they certainly can encourage them with images and messages” (p. 4). And “Teacher Backgrounder, Grades 9–12” (n.d.) states: “Teens need to think critically about common attitudes that can fuel issues such as digital drama, cyberbullying, and sexting. Quite often, these issues are rooted in social attitudes, not the technology itself” (p. 1).

MediaSmarts lesson plans often describe the media as reinforcing problematic gender norms. For example, a text included in “Female Action Heroes” (n.d.) states that “media messages about gender stereotypes … perpetuate traditional male and female roles” (p. 4). At the same time, one of the objectives of “Gender Messages in Alcohol Advertising” (n.d.) is for students to learn that the media “reflect and reinforce existing beliefs and attitudes” toward gender (p. 4). This phrasing suggests that media texts do not only shape attitudes but are also shaped by them.

Media literacy education strategies that can be classified as primarily protectionist often obscure the complexity of the relationship between people, media texts they consume, and media tools they use. Drawing on scholarship that elucidates this complexity and challenges the simplistic notion of uniform media effects will help educators make discussions in media and gender classes more nuanced.

Media and Reality

All the educational materials I analyzed at some point compare or contrast media and reality. In “Picture Perfect” (n.d.) by Common Sense Media, teachers are instructed to “have students imagine a magazine filled with real, unaltered photographs of people who look like those they see every day in the real world” (p. 5). In “Gender Stereotypes Online” (n.d.), teachers are instructed to “have students note the similarities and differences between the real people and their avatars” (p. 5), and so forth.

The first Geena Davis Institute lesson has students discuss media representations, and then introduces a rubric titled: “The Real World,” thus contrasting the two. The third lesson plan states that the media “portray false images about what is normal physical appearance for males and females” (How Do I Look?, n.d., p. 2). Although the word “reality” is not used here, this activity appears to describe photoshopped images as unrealistic.

In MediaSmarts lesson plan “Comic Book Characters” (n.d.), students learn that “stereotypes are less real… than their real-life counterparts” (p. 4). In “Female Action Heroes” (n.d.), teachers are instructed to ask students whether characteristics portrayed in a video “accurately reflect the qualities of real boys and girls” (p. 2). One of the objectives of the “Learning Gender Stereotypes” (n.d.) is to “understand the importance of distinguishing between fantasy (what happens on television, in the movies and in ads) and reality (what really goes on in [students’] lives)” (p. 1).

According to D’Acci (2004), if we judge media texts based on how close they come to representing “reality,” we will miss the complexity of multiple realities that people inhabit. It is important to remember that all media texts are constructed, and in this sense, there are no “real” and “unreal” photos or films. Comparing the media to reality is a common trope that makes sense to many people. However, by using the binary “media vs. reality” to describe media representations, media and gender classes run the risk of obscuring this complexity. Drawing on literature that problematizes the notion of reality in relation to media texts will help make media and gender classes more effective for understanding the role the media play in our lives.

Stereotypes

All the three sets of educational materials criticize gender stereotypes in the media. MediaSmarts lesson plans describe stereotypes as problematic: “When we unconsciously try to live up to the impossible standards of stereotypes, we can do physical and emotional harm to ourselves” (Gender Messages in Alcohol Advertising, n.d., p. 2). “Gender Stereotypes and Body Image” (n.d.) lesson is designed to help students understand “the potentially damaging effects of living up to stereotypes, and how they can lead to abuse and violence against ourselves and others” (p. 1).

Geena Davis Institute educational materials stress that gender stereotypes are rampant in the media. For example, “How Do I Look?” (n.d.) lesson plan states: “Stereotypes that focus on male and female body image continue to flood TV and movie screens, even in programming targeted at young children” (p. 1). The lesson plan proceeds to describe stereotypes as “untrue” or “partially true” (p. 1). Same as MediaSmarts, the lesson plans provided by Geena Davis Institute speak about stereotypes mostly negatively, describing them as something fake that needs to be substituted with “realistic” representations.

Common Sense Media lessons plans talk about stereotypes in a slightly more nuanced way. For example, “Selling Stereotypes” (n.d.) states that “gender stereotypes sometimes can be limiting” (p. 1). The lesson plan explains that “stereotypes can make some people feel like they don’t fit in, or that they should try to be something that they are not” (p. 4). Careful wording—“sometimes” and “can”—allows for a more sophisticated discussion. In a similar way, “Gender Stereotypes Online” (n.d.) states that “[s]ome people’s personalities and interests might match up with gender stereotypes; others’ might not” (p. 3). This nuanced explanation is important because it suggests that stereotypes are not always “fake” and cannot be outright rejected.

Dyer (1999) noted that stereotypes are not intrinsically “good” or “bad.” It is the way they are used that matters. By rejecting stereotypes, we delegitimize some people’s reality. Same as in the case with “media vs. reality,” most educational materials that I analyzed do not go into such details. It is important to remember that by not problematizing the notion of stereotypes, we might turn media and gender classes into a mere propaganda against “stereotypical” gender representations, instead of developing students’ critical thinking and helping them to think deeper about their world.

The Gender Binary

The educational materials offered by Geena Davis Institute never complicate the binary. The main problem, as these materials portray it, is that women are misrepresented, not that people are divided into two distinct non-overlapping groups: men and women. The lesson plans and the curricula often encourage students to compare media representations of men to those of women. The complexity of gender spectrum and the variety of femininities and masculinities are not discussed.

The lesson plans provided by MediaSmarts also discuss gender roles and stereotypes in a way that may inadvertently reinforce the gender binary. For example, in “Gender Stereotypes and Body Image,” students fill in two boxes “Act Like a Man” and “Be Ladylike,” and then talk about cultural expectations and limitations for both men and women without discussing the binary. In “Gender Messages and Alcohol Advertising,” students learn that “women and girls metabolize alcohol differently, which means that alcohol passes more quickly into their bloodstreams. As a result, they get drunk faster, hooked more easily, and suffer consequences of drinking more severely than males” (p. 8). This statement both reinforces the gender binary and implicitly puts blame on women.

Although the Common Sense Media lesson plans often juxtapose boys and girls, one activity (Gender Stereotypes Online, n.d., p. 2) appears to be designed to help students think about gender as a continuum. Students are encouraged to discuss how “different interests, subjects, and activities that teens might pursue” can be placed of the gender scale (see Figure 1). OPEN IN VIEWER

At the same time, “Teacher Backgrounder” does not say anything about the gender binary, so it is unclear whether instructors will be indeed prepared for having this discussion with their class. In addition, the continuum offered by this lesson plan can be further criticized for its simplicity and linearity. For example, it does not show how gender intersects with other identity aspects, such as race, sexuality, physical ability, and so forth.

If we take into consideration Butler’s (1990) conceptualization of gender and sex, we will notice that Common Sense Media materials have another possible limitation: they describe gender as social and sex as biological: “Gender is about how a culture defines terms like ‘masculine,’ ‘feminine,’ and everything in between. One’s sex, on the other hand, is a matter of anatomy and biology” (Teacher Backgrounder, Grades 9–12, n.d., p. 2). It is true that some people are born with penises, and some others—with vaginas (some also have different combinations of biological characteristics traditionally connected with the sex binary). But should we use these in-born characteristics to divide everybody into two clear-cut groups (Fausto-Sterling, 2000)? According to Butler, sex is as socially constructed as gender. Using the comparison of biological sex to socially constructed gender as a way to combat the gender binary might not be productive.

Although it is close to impossible to talk about media representations of gender without analyzing portrayals of “men” and “women,” it is important to remember that this analysis can reinforce the gender binary. To deal with this problem, media and gender classes should include discussions about the diversity of masculinities and femininities. Instructors should clearly explain what the gender binary is, and why it is important to see gender as a continuum.

Intersectionality

Discussion about intersectionality is practically absent in the analyzed educational materials. Race, sexuality, and class are sometimes mentioned, but not in a way that would explain how these axes of identity intersect with gender. These educational materials also do not mention transgender people.

Every Geena Davis Institute lesson plan has an illustration in its header, and some of these illustrations show children of different races, which suggests that the creators cared about racial diversity. However, the first lesson plan features a problematic statement. It has a text about the wage gap that argues: “Women and people of color do not choose to earn less” (Do TV Shows and Movies Influence? p. 1). This quote seems to imply that women can be only White. The only time sexuality is mentioned is in the second lesson plan, in an activity that encourages students to say whether they have seen/heard someone being called gay or lesbian in a derogatory way in the media. This particular exercise might be seen as problematic not only because it does not mention intersectionality but also because bisexuality, transsexuality, pansexuality, and other sexualities are omitted.

People of different races are shown in videos that come with the “Guess Who?” curriculum, but race is not explicitly discussed in any curriculum activities. The “Guess Who?” curriculum finishes with an empowering statement: “It doesn’t matter if you are a boy or a girl, you can be and do and play and like whatever you want!” (p. 11, Bolded in original). This statement fails to note that some boys and girls are more privileged than others because of their race, sexuality, socioeconomic status, physical ability, religion, and so forth.

MediaSmarts lesson plans talk about race, class, and sexuality on several occasions. For example, “Comic Book Characters” (n.d.) states: “Culture and class stereotypes are also prevalent on television. Traditionally, blacks were portrayed as either happy-go-lucky servants or dangerous criminals, and while these stereotypes linger, we are now seeing what might be described as upright, intelligent, middle-class black characters” (p. 4). “The Impact of Gender Role Stereotypes” ask students to answer the following question: “Sometimes we do use our ‘membership’ [in a certain social group] to hurt others, without even knowing it. Can you think of examples (either with race, gender, or any other social disparity) where you have done this?” (p. 10). “Learning Gender Stereotypes” (n.d.) includes an article that quotes a sociology scholar on the prevalence of heterosexual romance in advertising. At the same time, discussions about heteronormativity in media representations of gender are absent.

“Teacher Backgrounder, Grades 9–12” (n.d.) provided by Common Sense Media suggests: “Have students research how attitudes about boys and girls have changed over time, and the extent to which these differences relate to race, class, and community culture” (p. 2). Apart from this statement, sexuality, race, and other identity axes are not explicitly discussed in Common Sense Media lesson plans.

My analysis revealed that discussions about intersectionality are absent from educational materials I analyzed. While it is true that intersectionality might be challenging to bring up with younger students, at the level of high school, these discussions are possible and recommended. Moreover, I argue that educators can and should discuss the multiplicity of masculinities and femininities with younger students as well, despite “the hegemonic discourses around childhood innocence” (Robinson, 2008, p. 114).

The AACRA Model

In this last section, I discuss how the analyzed educational materials address different skills of the AACRA model. Ideally, these classes should not focus only on media analysis but help students to become self-aware media consumers and producers who are knowledgeable about media tools, can use them to create their own messages, and understand the importance of civic engagement. Although it might be impossible to work on Access, Analyze, Create, Reflect, and Act skills in equal measure, media and gender classes should strive to address all of them at least to some extent.

MediaSmarts lesson plans prioritize media analysis, as students are encouraged to pick apart a variety of media texts. On a number of occasions, students are asked open-ended questions about texts in question. However, in some lesson plans, they are expected to divide media representations into several categories provided by the instructor (e.g., in “Advertising and Male Violence,” n.d.). Although such categories offer a good foundation for media analysis, they might limit students who would like to categorize media representations differently.

Several of MediaSmarts lesson plans have activities where students create media messages, or at least put themselves in the shoes of media producers. For instance, in “Female Action Figures” young people “assume the role of television producers who wish to create a television series about male or female superhero free of gender and other stereotypes” (p. 1). In terms of Access, some MediaSmarts lesson plans have students read a text and show their comprehension by discussing it or answering questions about it. These educational materials also offer prompts for reflection. For example, in “Gender Stereotyping and Body Image” students need to write a journal entry using a following prompt: “Have you ever experienced a situation where you were expected to act a certain way because you were a girl or a boy, even though it may not have been the way you felt like acting?” (p. 4). Later in the same lesson, students “reflect on what has been discussed … How do they feel about these issues?” (p. 6). The importance of civic engagement is briefly discussed in “TV Dads: Immature and Irresponsible?” (n.d.) where one of the lesson outcomes is for students to be able to demonstrate “an understanding that, as informed and empowered people, they can use their own skills and tools to bring about positive change” (p. 1).

The educational materials produced by Geena Davis Institute prioritize media analysis in a similar fashion. The curriculum aims to “foster active inquiry and critical thinking about the messages we receive and create” (p. 2). However, the purpose of this analysis is, first of all, to communicate to students a very specific message: media representations of women are stereotypical and damaging for girls.

Only the second lesson plan includes a media production activity, encouraging students to create a PSA against sexual harassment. Students are prompted to think about target audience, develop their message and choose a way of distributing it in their community. This exercise can potentially help students be more socially active:

Think about what you would want students and adults in your school community to know and do about sexual harassment in your school. Follow the steps below to create your own PSA and share what you have to say about sexual harassment in your school. (Do TV Shows and Movies Make? p. 4, Bolded in the original)

Common Sense Media lessons are the most balanced ones in terms of the AACRA model, although they also offer many media analysis exercises. Media production plays a prominent role in these lesson plans. “The Reality of Digital Drama” (n.d.) explains how to “[e]ngage students in a long-term, media-creation project” (p. 5). “Overexposed: Sexting and Relationships” (n.d.) tells instructors to have students “create a short online, multimedia presentation explaining how they would use social media to teach teens about sexting” (p. 5). Students are consistently encouraged to think about themselves not only as media consumers but also as producers, who can use media tools to share their messages with others.

Media production in Common Sense Media is advocated for but is not shown uncritically. Instructors are encouraged to think about students as media producers who may use digital tools for empowerment but may reinforce gender stereotypes in texts they create. For example, “Teacher Backgrounder, Grades 3–5” (n.d.) states: “and because kids today are not only media consumers but also media creators, they may mirror these stereotypes while texting, messaging, posting comments, or developing their own digital works” (p. 1). Thus, the purpose of these lesson plans is to help students become not only active consumers but also responsible producers of media texts.

Common Sense Media lesson plans have some assignments that fall under the rubric of Access. Several lesson plans have viewing comprehension activities or encourage students to look for information online, offering specific websites for exploration. A number of exercises foster students’ reflection abilities. Each lesson has a similarly structured closing activity: “You can use these questions to assess your students’ understanding of the lesson objectives. You may want to ask students to reflect in writing on one of the questions, using a journal or an online blog/wiki” (e.g., Picture Perfect, n.d., p. 5). In Feeling on Display students “reflect on their own experiences with photo editing, posting, commenting, and tagging – and draw connections between these experiences and broader social messages about gender” (p. 1).

In Common Sense Media lesson plans, I found only one assignment that is aimed to develop Act skills. Picture Perfect (n.d.) tells students about a girl who “started an online petition called ‘Seventeen Magazine: Give Girls Images of Real Girls!’ for people to sign. In it, she asks Seventeen Magazine to promise to always include some real photos – ones that are not altered” (p. 5). The teacher is instructed to have students think of how Internet can be used for social action: “[Engage] students in a discussion of how Julia stood up for what she believed, and how the Internet gives people the chance to share important messages with others across the world” (p. 5).

As media and gender classes developed from feminist media scholarship, is it not surprising that they prioritize media analysis. It is also true that not all instructors have enough resources or experience to engage in less “traditional” activities, such as media production. And although encouraging young people to become civically engaged social actors is highly desirable, some educators might feel that helping students to realize their potential for civic engagement is beyond their expertise. At the same time, I argue that if media and gender classes are to help students trouble gender inequalities, educators should have students engage in media production, self-reflection, and social action.

Creating an Interdisciplinary Approach

The analysis of media and gender educational materials revealed several challenges that the proposed interdisciplinary approach should address. Using the frameworks of media studies, gender studies, and media literacy education, I was able to articulate a number of pitfalls that media and gender educators should avoid.

Well-meaning educators who want to shield their students from problematic ideologies might draw too much on the media effects discourse and lean too far toward protectionism, thus missing out on the complexity. I argue that media and gender classes need to engage the rich media studies scholarship that discusses how agentic audiences interact with ideologies of gender embedded in the media environment. Moving away from criticizing media texts will help educators draw students’ attention to problematic ideologies that exist not only through but also outside of the media.

The second pitfall comes from the tendency to rely too much on analysis of media representations. Educators should expand the repertoire of activities that they are using in the classroom and draw more on best practices developed by media literacy education, such as the AACRA model. This should allow media and gender classes to help students recognize their potential to trouble dominant ideologies through their everyday actions, which, ideally, should be the outcome of these educational initiatives.

The final challenge comes from the danger of reinforcing the gender binary in the act of discussing problematic representations of masculinity and femininity. Everybody who has ever taught media and gender classes knows that it is virtually impossible not to talk with students about representations of men and women. However, when we use this discourse without questioning it, we might reinforce gender differences instead of challenging them. Drawing on such notions of gender studies as the gender binary and intersectionality, educators can avoid this pitfall.

This article does not claim to offer the definitive version of the interdisciplinary approach to media and gender classes. Instead, in it, I hoped to provide a foundation for future research that will refine my suggestions and test their applicability to media and gender classrooms in different contexts. This approach could help students understand the complexity of the media environment, uncover dominant ideologies that shape their gender identities, become aware of how these ideologies are transmitted, and reflect on the need to engage in social action to trouble gender inequalities. Further research will determine nuances this approach would need to have in different cultural contexts and educational settings.