In many European countries, the consideration of media in curricula has been advanced in recent years (cf. e.g. (Godhe 2019), (Ptaszek and Lysik 2019), (Hipfl 2019), (Kanizaj 2019), (Barnes et al. 2007)). With the consideration of media in curricula, the focus is not on teaching with media, but on teaching about media. In this respect it is controversially discussed whether teaching about media should be anchored in the curriculum as a cross-curricular topic or as a separate subject. Less controversial is the focus on media literacy as a central concept. Theoretical analyses have repeatedly shown that despite different cultural and theoretical contexts in which authors argue, there is often a broad consensus on the matter (Trültzsch-Wijnen 2014). This consensus can be marked with references to the Frankfurt School, Cultural Studies and typical terms like emancipation, democracy, creativity and maturity.

But in recent years, this common core has been challenged by two developments. The first development is the intervention of political and economical initiatives in the field. The second development is an understanding of algorithms as epistemic actors.

Political and economical initiatives can be identified in the context of educational policy activities at European and national levels. These initiatives foreground the potential of digital media and often cite economic and societal justifications (Clifford et al. 2020; McDougall et al. 2018; www.emls.eu). With the 4C model (21^st Century Skills), promoted by the P21 partnership (https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/), and with the DigComp model (Ferrari, Punie, and Brečko 2013), concepts for the design of curricula have been proposed that are not primarily based on the concept of media literacy, but on political interests. Therefore, it is not surprising that an orientation towards economic interests has an higher priority in those concepts than concepts like media literacy. However, the economically oriented concepts are made relevant for media education practice, not least by political decisions.

A second challenge is the understanding of algorithms as epistemic actors (Jörissen and Verständig 2017) that shape communities and societies. Both challenges assume actors (economy and algorithms) that inevitable do shape education, thus can not be rejected and have in turn to be acknowledged as a basis for curricula. With the assumption of societies and algorithms as actors, the two approaches share a common perspective, with which the previous consensus in media pedagogy is questioned.

In the justifications of both positions, little attention has been paid to approaches that consider digital technologies in general and algorithms in particular not as not neutral, but as tools to exercise power that are shaped by people (Barberi and Swertz 2020). In the approaches that consider algorithms as tools to exercise power, it is assumed that in addition to the power-driven structures created by the dominant platform providers (GAFAM or Big Five), algorithms as such have normative connotations (Rubel, Castro, and Pham 2020). The accompanying forms of implementation of norms and normalisations in education are often not reflected.

The round table aims at discussing perspectives to reflect these connotations that are expressed with algorithmic structures. The key question is, if media educators should provide means to analyse the normative connotations of algorithms, provide means to shape the normative connotations or create algorithms in order to promote critical media literacy. It will be discussed whether and how an educational position, that is informed by media educational reflections, can be developed and applied to curricula. The discussion will be focused by considering the different ethics that are effective or used in media education theories and curricula. This concentration is intended to promote a confrontation of the different media educational approaches in order to advance the discussion.

Barberi, Alessandro, and Christian Swertz. 2020. ‘Doing Digital – Ein Beitrag Zur Medienkompetenzvermittlung Für Entscheidungsimpulse Setzende Akteurinnen’. In , edited by Valentin Dander, Patrick Bettinger, Estella Ferraro, Christian Leineweber, and Klaus Rummler, 77–96. Opladen: Budrich. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvvb7n3h.8. Barnes, Cliona, Farrek Corcoran, Flanagan Brian, and Brian O’Neill. 2007. Final Report: Critical Media Literacy in Ireland. Dublin: Technological University Dublin. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cserrep/19/. Clifford, Ian, Stefano Kluzer, Sandra Troia, Mara Jakobsone, and Uldis Zandbergs. 2020. DigCompSat: A Self Reflection Tool for the European Digital Framework for Citizens. Luxemburd: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/77437. Ferrari, Anusca, Yves Punie, and Barbara N. Brečko. 2013. DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://dx.publications.europa.eu10.2788/52966. Godhe, Anna-Lena. 2019. ‘Digital Literacies or Digital Competence: Conceptualizations in Nordic Curricula’. Media and Communication 7 (2): 25–35. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1888. Hipfl, Brigitte. 2019. ‘Media Literacy in Austria’. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy, edited by Renee Hobbs and Paul Mihailidis, 1st ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238. Jörissen, Benjamin, and Dan Verständig. 2017. ‘Code, Software und Subjekt: Zur Relevanz der Critical Software Studies für ein nicht-reduktionistisches Verständnis „digitaler Bildung“’. In Das umkämpfte Netz, edited by Ralf Biermann and Dan Verständig, 37–50. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-15011-2_3. Kanizaj, Igor. 2019. ‘Media Literacy in Coratia’. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy, edited by Renee Hobbs and Paul Mihailidis, 1st ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238. McDougall, Julian, Marketa Zezulkova, Barry van Driel, and Dalibor Sternadel. 2018. NESET II: Teaching Media Literacy in Europe : Evidence of Effective School Pratices in Primary and Secondary Education : Analytical Report. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/613204. Ptaszek, Grzegorz, and Marta Lysik. 2019. ‘Media Literacy in Poland’. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy, edited by Renee Hobbs and Paul Mihailidis, 1st ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238. Rubel, Alan, Clinton Castro, and Adam Pham. 2020. ‘Algorithms, Agency, and Respect for Persons’. Social Theory and Practice 46 (3): 547–72. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract202062497.