Characteristic features of media education in the USSR during perestroika period

Citation: Muryukina E, Voychenko V. Characteristic features of media education in the USSR during Perestroika period . Media. Information. Communication [Electronic resource], 2020, vol. 34. URL: http://mic.org.ru/vyp/34-nomer-2020/characteristic-features-of-media-education-in-the-ussr-during-perestroika-period/ .

In this article we present the main characteristic features of media educational activities in the perestoika period in the USSR, justifying them. Their identification and formulation was based on the analysis of works of such media educators as E.N. Graschenkova, E.N. Goryukhina, G.A. Polichko, T.U. Svistelnikova, Yu. Smelkova, E.S. Levin, P.D. Genkin, I.A. Rudenko, F.M. Kozlov, I.S. Levshina, I.V. Weisfeld, S.N. Penzin, O.F. Nechai, A.V. Sharikov, E.A. Cherkashin, N. Yakovleva and others.

In the sphere of media education of the period of “perestroyka” we observe the visual changes in the methodological basis, conception theories, content and so on. In the process of the investigation work we researched media educational models by many authors, such as O. A. Baranov, Y. I. Bozhkov, P. D. Genkin, G. A. Vlaskina, I. N. Gutova, F. M. Kozlov, Y. I. Kudina, S. N. Penzin, G. A. Polichko, I. A. Rudenko, A. Z. Saydashev, L. N. Trofimova, Y. N. Usov, A. V. Fedorov, E. A. Cherkashin, N.N. Yakovleva. On the basis of their analysis the media education of the “perestroyka” times specific peculiarities were distinguished:

• 1.    The media educationalists majority’s models (G. Y. Vlaskina, P.D. Genkin, L.N. Trofimova, Y. N. Usov, A.V. Fedorov’s ones) were notable for variability that helped to transform their projects from school media education to leisure out-of-school institutions without the loss of their logical, functional, and contextual content.;

• 2.    Methodological basis of the developed and put into practice in 1984 – 1991 media educational models was grounded on ideological, aesthetic, practical theories, the theory of critical thinking development. The media educationalists’ practice analysis lets us claim that these theories were the essential ones, and were used in synthesis with other theories: semiotic, sociocultural, culturological ones. We suppose, that in the period analyzed these theories couldn’t spread widely enough due to some reasons:

• •    Multi-faceted ideological pressure stopped semiotic theory’s development as it included diversity of opinions, points of view, the analysis of not only the author’s vision, but also of symbols, signs that can contradict “the image on the surface”.

• •    Educational system in the USSR was based on the single one labour polytechnic school, which implied great turn to technical sciences and underestimated the Humanities. In the educational system reformation period scientists tried to improve the situation, but the culturological theory wasn’t used widely enough in media educational research work.

• •    Sociocultural theory is an innovation, introduced into media educational theory and practice by A.V. Sharikov [Sharikov, 1990]. According to A.V. Fedorov, [Fedorov…, 2016], sociocultural theory is the result of the Western experience comprehension and the attempt to integrate it into the Russian educational system. This means that the work with media texts during the media educational activity implied not only the appeal to their artistic, aesthetic value, but the analysis in the context of social, ideological and other qualities.

• 4.    The governmental tutelage was reflected in relatively branchy media educational practice existence, including centers in Moscow, Voronezh, Kurgan, Taganrog, Tver and other cities; in high quality education problems research by means of mass communication where both the methodological grounds of this pedagogic phenomenon and practical working outs generalization and their adaptation to the changing conditions of life and education were regarded.

• 5.    Media education support by the specialists in the field of media, culture and art representatives such as film directors, journalists, actors, art experts and others. S. N. Penzin [Penzin, 1987] claimed that cinema education was possible only under certain conditions: 1) pupils cohort; 2) teachers stuff; 3) means of education; 4) the theory; 5) the organizations concerned. All of them are interconnected, making a complex unity. If one component falls out the unity will break down and cinema education will become impossible. Among the organizations concerned we can distinguish as the government itself, so film directors, actors and the others. Media educational practice from 1984 to 1991 analysis enables us to claim that the media educationalists were supported by cinematograph, photography, journalism representatives. Media pedagogics was a truly synthetical science on the boundaries of cinematology, pedagogics, and aesthetics. It played a special part in the pedagogical system as it was unrivalled on level of its effect on scholars, its methods brought in novelty and science logics. Moreover, media education was aimed at aesthetic, moral upbringing of pupils and the learning youth.

• 6.    Major media educationalists stuck to the point of view that implied the appeal to high cinematograph samples that could be connected with the awareness of irregular low-grade media products flood danger. Y. N. Usov, O. A. Baranov, S.N. Penzin, A.V. Fedorov, G. A. Polichko and other scientists considered that promoting the best production is the opportunity “to accustom the audience to analytical attitude towards cinema art (and vice versa to break from the incogitant)”. Most people by choosing a film are ruled by accidental factors (the cinema closeness, friends’ advice and others). Serious films turn out to be beyond their vision; the goal of media pedagogics is to help them navigate in movie schedule [Penzin, 1987, p. 148 – 149].

• 7.    We suppose that during the period under discussion (1984 - 1991) active new terms introduction into media education was taking place. Working with the investigation material we touched upon such terms as “cinema upbringing”, “upbringing by screen culture”, “media pedagogics”, “media education” and so on. It can be concluded that education reformation promoted theoretical grounds of media education systematization, media educationalists’ practical experience generalization. The reflection of media educational activity content was expressed in the fundamental works of S.N. Penzin, Y. N. Usov, I.S. Levshina, I.V. Weisfeld and others. Monographs, curricula, thesis research investigation makes us acknowledge the worked out methodological basis; generalize the media educational practice experience analysis in different regions of the country; reveal the tendencies of media pedagogics development in connection with the educational reforms in the USSR.

• 8.    Media educational practice means widening from traditional one – cinematograph, radio, press, to a wider variety of media texts – television, video, computer technologies, advertisement and so on.

The analysis of literature on the investigation problem, legal acts, thesis research and authors’ abstracts showed that in the period from 1984 to 1991 media educational practice was actively supported by the government and private enterprises. Versatile longitudinal tutelage was conducted, which found its reflection in legal, material, technical and other aspects. For example, Cinema College in Moscow was financed by commercial enterprise “ViKinG” (VideoCinemaLiteracy). “ViKinG” dealt with film distribution, trade, publishing activities, the profit was pointed at the College keeping – teachers’ salaries, equipment, international seminars. Then “ViKinG” went bankrupt as many other little enterprises and the funding were lowly conducted from the state budget…” [Polichko, 2006, p. 82].

Many media educationalists call the period from the middle 1980-s to the end of 1990-s “the golden age of media pedagogics” for a reason. This is connected with the ideological tutelage in education weakening, the opportunity of the media pedagogical world experience appeal.

Yet, the other opinion existed, for instance, D. N. Abramyan based his investigation on the audience’s motives and demands by choosing movies. He emphasized the necessity of moving from the low to the high. The system conception creativity based on media texts building displayed “the significance of “vertical” over “horizontal” connections analysis in the constructions of the investigated phenomenon research, and also of the analysis of “the low” by means of new knowledge about “the high” finding heuristicity”. Thus, in general, the traditional “horizontal” form “game - art” in the process of its real investigation appeared to be the diametrically opposite vertical form “art - game” [Abramyan, 1994, p. 152].

Pedagogical conclusions made by D. N. Abramyan [Abramyan, 1992, 1994], A. V. Spichkin [Spichkin, 1997, 1999], A. V. Sharikov [Sharikov, 1989, 1990, 1991], signify the effectiveness and the necessity of different kinds of media culture at school lessons usage (photographs, cinematograph, television and others). Media educationalists pushed the boundaries urging media teachers to use only the products with aesthetic and artistic potential. The scientists supposed that during the work with pupils it was necessary to rest on their interests and needs (specific, genre and others) trying to raise them, also through the critical thinking development towards the rapidly growing informational flood.

• D.    N. Abramyan proved his point of view not only from the position of pedagogics but justified it from the psychological view. The scientist explained his position by the fact that the concept “feeling in” has heuristic relevance in itself while opening specific peculiarities of extensional arts (originating from labour), and the concept “identification” makes it more optimal to open specific peculiarities of visual arts, originating from ritual games, ceremonial acts and prehistoric scenes. Thus, if art helps to open more effectively the category of subject activity, then extensional arts reveal the category of dialogue communication” [Abramyan, 1992, p. 27].

Acknowledgment

This research was funded by the grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR, project No. 19-013-00597) at the Moscow Pedagogical State University. Project theme: «Transformation processes in the domestic media education of the period of "perestroika"». Head of the project is E.V. Muryukina.

The article was received by the editors: 07.10.2020