This study focuses on exploring teachers' media literacy (hereinafter, ML), including their competencies and practices of ML in the classrooms in Kazakhstan. In the 21st century children increasingly use digital tools and are exposed to different unfiltered media messages daily, wherein they have access to the Internet at home and communicate media messages regularly (Murray, 2021; OECD, 2020). The major concern is that a substantial number of children access media platforms in breach of age limitations and many of them actively use social media (Setyarini et al., 2023; Hill, 2022). This, in turn, requires teachers to develop ML competencies, so as to support their students’ ML who are largely susceptible to media influence (Reimers, 2009; Bystray et al., 2023). Studies also indicate that teachers’ ML competencies, socialisation and intercultural interaction are key to integrating ML into curriculum (Korona, 2020; Skantz-Åberg et al., 2022; Villacrez-Cuadros et al., 2023). Although the support for the development of teachers’ ML competencies has grown in the recent decade, few educators seem to use it in curricula development and lesson planning. 

Teachers are identified as the most significant factor in enhancing students’ learning outcomes (Ingvarson et al., 2005). Teachers’ understanding of ML has a significant effect on the effectiveness of their teaching (Simons et al., 2017; Rohs et al., 2019; Saptono, 2022). Therefore, ML merits a place in teacher education, as it encourages an understanding of culture, connects educators, institutions, and society (Schwarz, 2001). In a similar vein, the studies highlight the importance of integrating language and ML into teacher education to facilitate socialisation and intercultural communication (Felini, 2014; Meehan et al., 2015; Schwarz, 2001). 

Teachers’ ML competencies 

The definition of  media literacy as social phenomena focuses on technical, cognitive competencies and sociocultural pragmatics (Yeh & Swinehart, 2020). The technical competencies include functional skills as access, create, navigate, order, and distribute social media content (Daneels & Vanwynsberghe, 2017). Cognitive competencies refer to understanding, assessing, and critically analysing social media content for credibility and application (Daneels & Vanwynsberghe, 2017, Christ & Abreu, 2020). Socialcultural pragmatics provides awareness about social and cultural norms of behaviour, values, beliefs, language usage and discourses in media contexts (Yeh & Swinehart, 2020). Tandoc et al. (2021) claim that there could be four types of competencies such as technical, social, privacy related and informational in which social media literacy functions. Lately three themes were identified as teachers' perspectives of media literacy: assessing the validity of media messages, interacting with media, and safety issues (Von Gillern et al., 2024).

Teacher practices of ML

Inquiry is a strategy for implicitly teaching media literacy concepts that enables learners to “construct” new knowledge for themselves by adjusting new data with their prior knowledge (Brunner & Tally, 1999). This constructivist approach is complemented by media decoding, which means analysing and evaluating the messages conveyed by various forms of media (Scheibe & Rogow, 2011). Evidence-based practices are those which ensure high rates of proficiency and have a record of achievement that is valid and true (Gambrell et al., 2011). Critical inquiry is the core of constructivist media analysis, which means the ability to analyse media by asking key media literacy questions (Mason, 2016). Using the combination of inquiry and reflection is used extensively and is considered the basic way of integrating media literacy into any curriculum, constructivist media decoding strategy suggests the engaging acquisition of media literacy competencies (Scheibe & Rogow, 2011). 

The aim of this study is to explore teachers’ media literacy in secondary schools in Kazakhstan. The study was structured around the following research questions:

1. What is the state of teachers' media literacy competencies?

2. How do teachers practise media literacy in their classrooms?

This paper presents a small-scale pragmatically-guided study employing a mixed-method research approach. The integration of both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods enabled me to ensure validity of the findings and understand the complex issues in social research (Creswell, 2014). Data collection tools included: (1) a small-scale questionnaire, (2) in-depth and semi-structured interviews, and (3) observations. The research participants represent teachers from public secondary schools located both in urban and rural areas of Kazakhstan. The purposeful sampling was used to carefully select teachers, who could offer relevant-to-the-topic information. As a result, qualitative data consisted of interviews and lesson observations of 9 teachers from 3 secondary schools in Kazakhstan. Also, 112 teachers filled in a small-case questionnaire, which assessed teachers’ ML competencies. Data analysis Qualitative data were analysed through thematic analysis and abductive coding (Pope, 2000). Thematic analysis was conducted in six phases: (1) becoming familiar with data; (2) generating codes; (3) looking for themes; (4) reviewing themes; (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) creating a report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). All interviews were transcribed, coded and grouped into the themes employing both inductive and deductive approaches (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014). Quantitative research data were analysed descriptively and referentially, whereby multiple linear regression, assumptions, variables, and validity were tested. Items were developed based on the previous valid instrument of Simons et al. (2017), which was designed to measure teachers’ ML competencies. I decided to adopt this instrument as it was credible, and helped to measure both personal and pedagogical-didactic skills of teachers. A total of 44 items indicated in a questionnaire were grouped into 3 factors, whereby scale reliability statistics showed mean = 3.20, standard deviation = .78, Cronbach’s α = .97, and McDonald’s ω= .97. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation was conducted using data. All factors showed a sufficient to good internal consistency (Field, 2013) and content reliability. Throughout the study I ensured ethical consideration, whereby the participants took part in research on a voluntary basis and signed a written consent form, which clearly stipulated their rights to withdraw at any time of the research. I also coded participants’ details and safeguarded the data in my computer through setting passcodes. The University also sent an official letter to local educational departments to grant access to schools and inform about the potential outcome of the study.

The qualitative data results indicate that teachers are concerned about the importance of including ML components in their day-to-day lessons, though they highlight certain barriers. The challenges that teachers experience with ML include selecting appropriate resources, teaching methods as well as attitudes of other stakeholders of education. Four major themes were identified from the qualitative data analysis: (1) evaluating the validity of media messages and assessing them; (2) communicating media messages; and (3) safety; (4) ML practice in the classroom and ethics in pedagogy. Teacher’s practice of media literacy varied based on their preparation and policy guidelines in their respective schools. The learning curve was facilitated and supported: ‘I know that our republic in 2012 started the work on facilitating the formation of literacy in the field of media education’ (Teacher_1). However, teachers criticized the lack of practice and post-course support ‘However, students learn how to think critically about media through practice. We do not have much practice in media literacy’ (Teacher_9). The key findings from the questionnaire show that teachers’ personal competencies rated higher compared to pedagogical-deductive ones. Most of the teachers could operate different media devices in a technical sense (n=76), they could choose them consciously based on different functions (n=74), but the confidence in using Artificial Intelligence for educational purposes was lower (n=62). Overall the study outcomes indicate that teachers have a general understanding of ML and are willing to facilitate students’ ML skills in their classrooms. However, there is little to no policy or guidance for teachers to promote ML in their classrooms in an ethical manner.

Brunner, C., & Tally, W. (1999). The new media literacy handbook: An educator's guide to bringing new media into the classroom. Doubleday. Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy analysis archives, 8, 1-1. Felini Ed D, D. (2014). Quality Media Literacy Education. A Tool for Teachers and Teacher Educators of Italian Elementary Schools. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 6(1), 3. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. Toronto: OISE press. Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2011). Evidence-based best practices for comprehensive literacy instruction. Best practices in literacy instruction, 4, 11-56. Hargreaves, A. & Evans, R. (1997). Teachers and educational reform. In Hargreaves, A. and Evans, R. (Eds.) Beyond Educational Reform: bringing teachers back in. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hill, J. (2022). Policy responses to false and misleading digital content: A snapshot of children’s media literacy. Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers' knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Korona, M. (2020). Evaluating online information: Attitudes and practices of secondary English Language Arts teachers. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-2020-12-1-4 Manfra, M., Holmes, C. (2020). Integrating media literacy in social studies teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 121-141 Mason, L. (2016). McLuhan's challenge to critical media literacy: The City as Classroom textbook. Curriculum inquiry, 46(1), 79-97. Meehan, J., Ray, B., Wells, S., Walker, A., & Schwarz, G. (2015). Media literacy in teacher education: A good fit across the curriculum. Journal of Media Literacy Education. https://doi.org/10.23860/jmle-7-2-8 Murray, J. (2021). Literacy is inadequate: young children need literacies. International Journal of Early Years Education, 29(1), 1-5. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2020b. Early Learning and Child Well-Being: A Study of Five-Year-Olds in England, Estonia, and the United States. https://doi.org/10.1787/3990407f-en Pederson, R. (2023). An Argument for Including Critical Media Literacy in EFL Curriculum and Pedagogy. English Teaching, 78(1). Reimers, F. (2009). 14 Educating for Global Competency. International perspectives on the goals of universal basic and secondary education, 22, 183-202. Robertson, L., &; Hughes, J.M. (2011). Investigating pre-service teachers’ understandings of critical media literacy. Language and Literacy, 13(2), 37-53.