CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY IN DIGITAL BASIC EDUCATION IN TEACHER TRAINING: A CASE STUDY FROM AUSTRIA

Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 15 2025, vol. 12, issue 2, 15-31 RESEARCH ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17870647 CRITICAL MEDIA LITERACY IN DIGITAL BASIC EDUCATION IN TEACHER TRAINING: A CASE STUDY FROM AUSTRIA Kobra MOHAMMADPOURKACHALAMI Department of Education, University of Vienna, Austria ORCID: 0009-0000-3361-9633 Abstract Due to the implementation of digital basic education in teacher education programs at many institutions in Austria, this study aims to examine the integration of critical media literacy in teacher preparation for digital basic education (Digitale Grundbildung). An online survey was conducted using a critical media literacy framework, and the results revealed that many dimensions of critical media literacy were integrated into the course instruction, albeit to varying degrees. Despite the challenges, the promising results demonstrate the potential of incorporating critical media literacy into media education training for teachers. Keywords: Media, critical media literacy, teacher training, ideology critique 1. Introduction Given the impact of contemporary media on democracy, education, and society (Kellner, 2021), critical media literacy can engage individuals in their concrete situations, challenging them to question their role and empowering them to engage as active meaning-makers in future situations (Gennaro et al., 2024). However, practicing critical media literacy requires more than teaching with and through media. Rather, it requires a critical understanding of media within their social, political, economic, and cultural contexts. This understanding enables individuals to explore human interaction with media objects, texts, and structures by critically questioning representation, ideology, and economic issues of media (Gennaro et al., 2024). Media literacy education begins with teachers (Butler, 2019). In fact, for media literacy to become part of the school experience, teachers need to be literate first , as they can not teach what they have not learned (Goetze et al., 2005). In this context, Austria has initiated the systematic integration of media education into teacher training programs in 2023, along with the implementation of digital basic education (Digitale Grundbildung) as a compulsory subject in the school curriculum, effective from September 2023. Consequently, many teacher training programs at universities and university colleges of teacher education (Pädagogische Hochschule) have begun offering training and further education for in-service and pre-service teachers under the title "Digital Grundbildung" (digital basic education). To date, little research has examined the integration of critical media literacy into teaching practices in teacher education programs and Digital Grundbildung training in Austria. Additionally, there is a lack of research investigating whether any changes have occurred in trainees’ perspectives regarding media education after receiving training. This study addresses the issues of teacher training in media education by examining a teacher training seminar on digital basic education (Digital Grundbildung) offered by the Teacher Education Center at the University of Vienna in Austria for pre-service teachers. It will explore whether critical media literacy is integrated into instructional practices in the training. Furthermore, given that the majority of relevant research and literature on media education in Austria is grounded in theories originating from Germany and that there is a scarcity of applying international approaches (Trültzsch-Wijnen, 2013, 2019), this study also aims to address this gap. Using the critical media literacy approach proposed by Kellner and Share (2019), this study will investigate the incorporation of critical media literacy in a seminar on Digital Grundbildung in teacher education. This research could contribute to developing critical media literacy in teacher training programs and schools. Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 16 2. Media literacy in teacher training A substantial body of research on media education in teacher training programs has revealed that these programs tend to focus on how to use media in the classroom rather than on teaching about media (Gretter &Yadav, 2018; Salomaa, Palsa, & Malinen, 2017; Tiede & Grafe, 2016; Tiede, Grafe, & Hobbs, 2015). In Austria, Swertz’s (2015) study of secondary teacher education curricula indicates that media literacy is scarcely addressed and not recognized as a distinct subject. Technology-enhanced learning is acknowledged only in limited instances, primarily to familiarize teachers with using media in their instruction. Teaching about media, fostering media literacy, and equipping educators to impart media literacy skills have been neglected in these programs. Tiede, Grafe, and Hobbs (2015) found comparable results in their study. They analyzed teacher education programs at 316 colleges and universities in the United States and 64 in Germany, using a survey of pre-service teachers enrolled in these colleges and universities. A significant proportion of U.S. pre-service teachers reported a focus on media use in teaching practice. Their German counterparts showed a similar trend, albeit with a greater emphasis on media education (Tiede & Grafe, 2016). In Finland, a research conducted by Salomaa, Palsa, and Malinen (2017) revealed that teacher training programs focus more on the educational applications of information and communication technologies and digital learning environments than on media and sociocultural perspectives related to media. In a survey involving 448 teacher education students from Finnish universities, the participants expressed the view that the teacher education programs in Finland offered insufficient media education, with 48.4% indicating it was too little and 23% stating it was much too little. In the United States, Gretter and Yadav (2018) conducted research that included semi-structured interviews with 19 pre-service elementary and secondary educators enrolled in a teacher education program at Midwestern University. The findings revealed a significant deficiency in preparation for teaching media and information literacy pedagogy. However, the majority of pre-service teachers acknowledged the importance of media and information literacy in enhancing their future students’ careers and lives. In a subsequent study by the same authors, which utilized focus groups of 12 female pre-service teachers who had completed an introductory educational technology course incorporating media and information concepts for approximately two weeks, the predominant focus was found to be on teaching with technology rather than on the technology itself. Most participants expressed uncertainty about how to effectively teach media and information literacy to their students. From the pre-service teachers’viewpoint, the primary advantages of teaching media and information literacy were preparing students for college, educating them about internet safety, and equipping them for their personal lives. Numerous studies have highlighted the positive effects of teacher training in media education, particularly regarding its influence on educators’ views of the subject. In their research, Ranieri, Bruni, and Kupiainen (2018) investigated the E-Media Education Lab project in six European countries, studying a sample of 279 pre-service teachers. Their findings revealed that the teachers were highly satisfied with critical analysis and media production. Through surveys and field notes, the study revealed that, although the participants considered group work to be the most effective teaching method, they noted deficiencies in clear, transparent pedagogical frameworks for media education, as well as challenges related to time management. Scull and Kupersmidt (2011) found that a one-day media literacy workshop significantly influenced elementary school teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about media literacy. The study included 18 teachers who participated in the intervention and 23 teachers in the control group. Teachers who participated in the workshop demonstrated stronger beliefs about the importance of media literacy education and familiarity with it. They also exhibited greater proficiency in media deconstruction skills compared to the control group. Yavuz-Konokman (2020) highlighted the positive impact of a course focused on media and critical literacy for pre-service teachers. The study used questionnaires and journals with open-ended questions to evaluate the “Thinking Education” course offered to pre-service social studies teachers at Bartin University’s Faculty of Education in Turkey during the 2016-2017 academic year. The educators received training aimed at improving their ability to think critically about media messages and texts. The findings indicate that the participating teachers’ scores improved, demonstrating their ability to read and write critically about media messages and texts. A shift in teachers’ perspectives, transitioning from a protective stance to a critical perspective regarding digital and media education, is revealed in Botturi’s (2019) research on a digital and media literacy course designed for in-service primary and secondary teacher training at a Swiss professional university. The study employed quantitative preand post-surveys, as well as qualitative follow-up interviews. The findings also demonstrate that teachers are incorporating digital and media literacy into their classroom practices. Dolanbay (2022) examined an European Union initiative at a public university during the 2021–2022 academic year. The study focused on the media literacy of pre-service teachers from various disciplines. The research Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 17 revealed how these pre-service teachers’media literacy levels progressed from the beginning to the end of their course. Data were collected from 160 pre-service teachers using a media literacy scale, student activity sheets, observations, and interviews with 25 participants. The results showed that the prospective teachers developed an awareness of media literacy. They gained knowledge of issues and skills that promote media literacy, such as the careful use of media, the critical evaluation of media content, and a better understanding of the individual and societal impact of media. The review of existing literature on media literacy in teacher training reveals gaps in certain areas. Notably, it highlights the significant lack of teacher education programs focused on critical media literacy worldwide. Furthermore, there is a dearth of scholarly research on incorporating critical media literacy, especially its critical dimension, into teacher training programs. Additionally, although digital basic education (Digitale Grundbildung) has been incorporated into many teacher education programs in Austria since 2023, research examining the integration of critical media literacy into these training programs is scarce. This study aims to address this shortcoming by investigating the integration of critical media literacy into instructional practices in a digital basic education course for pre-service teachers at an Austrian university. Furthermore, this research will contribute to the existing literature by providing an international perspective on media education; such studies are lacking in Austria (Trültzsch-Wijnen, 2013, 2019). 3. Theoretical framework: Critical media literacy There are different perspectives on media education and literacy. In this section, we will provide an overview of the five primary approaches, primarily classified by Buckingham (2019) and Kellner and Share (2005, 2007). Additionally, we will discuss the perspective selected as the theoretical framework for this study. The instrumental or technical perspective is recognized as one of the mainstream viewpoints. It perceives media education primarily as the instruction of technical competencies and the utilization of media as a teaching tool, rather than as teaching about media. This perspective fails to engage with the critical dimensions of media and technology and its associated social, economic, and political implications. The next approach, the protectionist or defensive approach, stems from concerns about media influences and seeks to protect or inoculate students from potential media threats, such as manipulation and addiction (Share, 2009). However, by examining media in isolation from broader social, cultural, and economic contexts, this approach oversimplifies social issues. It also views media audiences as passive recipients who automatically internalize any message conveyed through media (Hobbs, 1999). The third approach, known as media arts education or creativity (Kellner & Share, 2007; Buckingham, 2019), emphasizes the importance of creativity and the production of art and media. However, this approach tends to overlook the critical examination of power dynamics and structures of oppression (Kellner & Share, 2009) and views creativity as inherently positive regardless of the nature or intended purpose of the creations (Buckingham, 2019). The fourth perspective is Media Literacy Movement, which downplays the importance of ideology critique and power relations (Livingstone, 2013). This movement has found its way into educational institutions in various countries, often overlooking the political dimensions of media education and presenting it as neutral and free of ideology and bias. As a result, this approach weakens the transformative potential of media education to challenge oppression and develop democracy (Kellner and Share, 2007). The final perspective, critical approach, encompasses a variety of viewpoints, and many media education scholars do not have a clear definition of criticality in media education. According to Buckingham (2019), critical thinking is a reflexive process that “demands in-depth knowledge, rigorous analysis and careful study; it requires us to reflect on our personal uses of the media, and our emotional and symbolic investments in them; and it entails a broader awareness of how media relate to more general social, cultural, politic and historical developments” (Buckingham 2019, p.41). Critical thinking in media education primarily focuses on issues of economics, politics, ideology, representation, and social justice while also addressing aesthetics, pleasure, and fantasy (Buckingham, 2019, 2022). Dieter Baacke’s concept of media literacy is well-known in the German-speaking countries. In his view, media criticism encompasses three key dimensions. The first dimension involves examining concerning social phenomena, such as the concentration of corporate power within the media sector. The second dimension focuses on self-reflection regarding individual media choices and behaviors. The third dimension pertains to the ethical consideration of both social processes and personal actions, emphasizing the importance of not harming others (Swertz, 2022). Another one is Kellner and Share’s (2019) critical media literacy, which is used as a theoretical framework in this research. They define “critical as an aspect of a dialectical, sociocultural, and analytical process…. critical Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 18 thinking that is more than just a cognitive idea; it is also a sociocultural understanding that seeks to develop in students a social consciousness as well as a working knowledge of how media operate” (p.19). In this regard, critical media literacy aims “ to engage with media through critically examining representations, systems, structures, ideologies, and power dynamics that shape and reproduce culture and society” (Share, 2022, p. 131). The politics of representation and the questioning of power, bias, and ideologies, such as sexism, racism, and classism, in media are central concerns (Hammer, 2009). Critical media literacy is a political project for democratic social change that develops skills that could support the process of democratization and civic participation (Kellner & Share, 2007). As Masterman (1997) points out “the democratization of institutions, and the long march toward a truly participatory democracy, will be highly dependent upon the ability of majorities of citizens to take control, become effective change agents, make rational decisions (often on the basis of media evidence) and to communicate effectively perhaps through an active involvement with the media” (p.60). Thus, critical media literacy not only empowers students to resist media manipulation, but also encourages their active participation in social and political processes through the constructive use of media and the creation of alternative media productions. (Kellner & Share, 2007, 2019). Critical media literacy is not merely challenging problems and negative consequences, and recognizing media bias, it also celebrates positive representations and beneficial aspects of them (Share, 2022). Cultivating critical media literacy empowers students by fostering a critical awareness of media and enabling them to construct their own meanings through these platforms and technologies. Indeed, media creation can “enlighten students to the potential that they have, as media producers, to shape the world they live in, to help turn it into the world they imagine”(Morrell, 2012, p. 302). While a critical understanding of media is central to media education, this analysis must also inspire students to seek alternatives and demand change (Buckingham, 2019). The aforementioned approaches to media literacy and media education were applied to analyze the participating teachers’ perspectives on media education. To address the research question concerning the integration of critical media literacy in teacher training in digital basic education (Digitale Grundbildung), we useed Kellner and Share’s theory of critical media literacy because it is a political project that promotes justice-oriented citizens and democratic social change (Kellner & Share, 2007; Share & McBride, 2022). Furthermore, Kellner and Share introduced the concept of “social and environmental justice” to emphasize the critical and social justice dimensions of media literacy.“Without a critical frame, the core concepts (of media literacy ) can become tools for neoliberalism and lose their transformative potential”(Ferguson, 2001, as cited in Share & McBride, 2022).Through this concept, they also incorporate environmental issues and the climate crisis into media education to analyze these issues from a critical media literacy lens, which is ofen overlooked in media literacy perspectives and education. Moreover, critical media literacy applies an intersectional approach to analyze classism, racism, sexism, heterosexism and other forms of discrimination and oppression in media messages. They developed the following core concepts and guiding questions from media literacy centers (Kellner & Share, 2019): Social Constructivism: All information is co-constructed by individuals and/or groups of people who make choices within social contexts. Who are all the possible people who made choices that helped create this text? Languages/Semiotics: Each medium has its own language with specific grammar and semantics. How was this text constructed and delivered/accessed? Audience/Positionality: Individuals and groups understand media messages similarly and/or differently, depending on multiple contextual factors. How could this text be understood differently? Politics of Representation: Media messages and the medium through which they travel always have a bias and support and/or challenge dominant hierarchies of power, privilege, and pleasure. What values, points of view, and ideologies are represented or missing from this text or influenced by the medium? Production/Institutions: All media texts have a purpose (often commercial or governmental) that is shaped by the creators and/or systems within which they operate. Why was this text created and/or shared? ocial & Environmental Justice: Media culture is a terrain of struggle that perpetuates or challenges positive and/or negative ideas about people, groups, and issues; it is never neutral. Whom does this text advantage and/or disadvantage? 4. Method The study addresses three questions: 1. Is critical media literacy integrated into the teacher training in digital basic education (Digitale Grundbildung)? 2. Does the perspective of participating teachers on media education change after the training? 3. What are the successes and challenges of the training? Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 19 The course design The seminar, Didactics of Digital Basic Education( Fachdidaktik Digitale Grundbildung), was offered at the Center for Teacher Education at the University of Vienna, 5 ECTS , one session per week for 1.5 hours (12-15 sessions per semester). One ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) credit corresponds to an average workload of 25 full hours. Course participation as well as the preparation and follow-up of the course, the duration of the exam and studying time are considered as part of the workload. Most of the students were pre-service teachers, and a few were in-service teachers. The seminar aimed to develop the ability to implement the Digital Basic Education ( Digitale Grundbildung ) curriculum in teaching practices with the help of media as well as the ability to evaluate one’s own teaching. The seminar covered a variety of topics on media and media education through lectures, discussions, and group work. Students created lesson plans for most topics and received feedback from their peers and the instructor. Data collection and analysis To answer the questions, data were collected through an online pre/post-survey of the course from preservice and in-service teachers. Data regarding the integration of critical media literacy into the seminar teaching practices, as well as the challenges and successes, were collected through a post-survey. This survey was completed by 38 participating teachers (30 female, 7 male, and one who did not specify their gender) after three semesters during the 2023-24 academic year. Data regarding the participants’ perspectives on media education before the training course were collected through a pre-survey completed by 60 participants. We adapted a previously created questionnaire using the core concepts of critical media literacy by Kellner and Share (2019), as well as the guiding questions, to examine the integration of critical media literacy into a kindergarten teacher training in media education. The content validity of the questionnaire was assessed by two experts in the field of media literacy. An expert in the field reassessed the content validity of the adapted questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items, including 4 demographic questions, 4 closed and open-ended questions about the participants’ views on media education, 2 questions about challenges they experienced in the seminar as well as successes, and 19 closed-ended questions about the integration of critical media literacy. Items for critical media literacy included 3 multiple-choice questions, 9 Likert scale questions with a choice of responses of “never”, “1 time”, “2-3 times”, “4-5 times”, “more than 5 times”, 6 Likert scale questions with the options of “true”, “partly true”, “not true”, and one Likert scale question with a choice of responses of “almost all”, “many”, “some”, “a little”, and “almost nothing”. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative data. A theory-guided content analysis (Mayring, 2021) was applied to the qualitative data collected from three open-ended questions about participants’ perspectives on media education. Using the aforementioned four perspectives on media education, the instrumental, protectionist, creative, and critical approaches, a code book was created to code and categorize the qualitative data concerning the trainees’ views on media education. The findings regarding the trainees’views on media education were then compared with the pre-survey results to demonstrate any changes in their views on media education and literacy after the training. Any text that could not be categorized using the predetermined codes was considered a new code. These new codes were analyzed to determine if they represented a new category or perspective on media education. Qualitative data about the training’s challenges and successes were analyzed using open coding only. 5. Results The results provide an overview of the competencies acquired by the trainees during the training and the integration of media and critical media literacy into teaching practices. They also include teachers’ perspectives on media education and literacy before and after the training, as well as the training's challenges and successes based on the experiences of the surveyed teachers. Acquired Competencies In response to the question about the competencies acquired by the participating teachers during the seminar, the highest frequency was reported for media reflection skills (e.g.,media system, attention control, news value, etc.) (81.6%), while the lowest one was reported for programming skills (e.g.,coding, algorithms, modeling) (0%). 34.2% of the surveyed teachers mentioned the acquisition of ideology critique skills (the ability to recognize media representations of different ideologies such as racism, sexism, classism, capitalism, ...). Figure 1 illustrates that a great part of respondents reported they had acquired media production skills (71%). The acquisition of theoretical and pedagogical skills was indicated with an identical percentage (58%) followed by creative software skills (video editing, sound editing,and image editing) (52.6%), skills for dealing with dangers on Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 20 the Internet (cyberbullying, sexting, stalking, etc.) (44.7%), media analysis skills (symbols in video games, film genres, etc.)(42%), technical skills (use of devices) (21%), and standard software skills (operating system, office software) (5.3%). Teaching with Media In response to the question regarding the types of media they engaged during the course, the results demonstrate the highest engagement with social media (81.6%), followed by the internet (68.4%) and search engines (47.4%). By contrast, radio, photos, office software, and blogs were reported as having the lowest engagement (2.6%). Very few respondents mentioned that they did not engage with any media (2.8%). Teaching with magazines, audio streaming, and films occurred with the same frequency of 5.3%. Engagement with books, Figure 1: Competencies acquired in the seminar F Figure 2: Types of media the teachers engaged with during the training Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 21 TV, and video streaming was reported by an equal percentage of those surveyed, 10.5%. Smartphones and newspapers were reported by 18.4% and 36.8% of respondents, respectively (see Figure 2). Concerning the frequency of media integration in training, the results indicate that slightly more than half of the respondents (54 %) reported engaging with media “more than 5 times”, while a smaller percentage (8.1%) reported “1 time”. 29.7% of the respondents mentioned that they were engaged with media “2-3 times” and 5.4% “4-5 times”. Notably, only 2.7% of the respondents reported “never “integrating media during the seminar. Integration of Critical media literacy into Instructional Practice This section presents the results of integrating media analysis and critical media literacy concepts into teaching practices during the training. Media analysis We examinee how often the teachers had the opportunity to engage in media analysis. Just over a third (31.6%) of the respondents reported doing so “more than 5 times”. 18.4% of them reported “4-5 times”, 34.2% “23 times” and 10.5% “1 time”. Only a small percentage (5.3%) of the teachers surveyed said that they had never engaged in media analysis. Although media analysis was integrated into the training, it is unclear what types of media analysis the teachers engaged in. Figure 3 visualizes the discrepancy between the frequency of teaching with media and engaging with media analysis. While the highest frequency reported for media analysis was “2-3 times” (34.2%), for media integration it was for “more than 5 times” (54%). The figure illustrates that there was a significant difference between the two when they occurred “more than 5 times” and “4-5 times”. Additionally, the figure demonstrates that there was no significant difference in the frequencies when they occurred “2-3 times”, “1 times” and “never”. Ideology critique and analysis of bias To determine the extent to which media analysis includes critical aspects of media literacy, we asked the respondents about their involvement in analyzing bias and critiquing different ideologies (e.g., racism, classism, sexism, religion, anh consumerism) in media representations. The results show that analysis of bias occurred most commonly “2-3 times”, as reported by just over half of the respondents (54%). This was followed by “4-5 times” (16.2 %), “1 time” and “more than 5 times” with the same percentage (13.5%). A small percentage (2.7 %) reported never having had the opportunity to engage in such analysis. In terms of ideology critique, the data indicate that the highest rate of engagement was “1 time”, while a smaller percentage ( 5.7%) mentioned that they had never participated in this type of critique. 31.4% of the respondents reported critiquing different ideologies “2-3 times”, followed by 20 % for “4-5 times” , and 5.7 % for “more than 5 times”. Since ideology critique is the central component of critical media literacy, Figure 4 visualizes the comparison of the frequency of engagement with media analysis and critique of different ideologies. The figure illustrates a large difference between them when it comes to “1 time” and “more than 5 times” occurrence. While 10.5% of the respondents reported having engaged in media analysis “1 time”, 37.1% reported engaging in ideology criticism Figure 3: Comparing the frequency of media analysis with teaching with media Never 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times more than 5 times !"!# $!"!# %!"!# &!"!# '!"!# (!"!# )!"!# %"*# +"$# %,"*# ("'# ('"!# ("&# $!"(# &'"%# $+"'# &$")# -./M1234562T158.92/5 :.92/5/3/;<=2= Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 22 for the same frequency. Significant differences also emerged in the frequency of media analysis (31.6%) and ideology criticism (5.7%) occurring “more than 5 times”. In addition, while the highest occurrence of media analysis was “2-3 times” (34.2%), for ideology criticism it was “1 time” (37.1%). The "never" response was reported quite the same for both, 5.7% and 5.3%, respectively. Three major differences emerged when comparing teaching with media and questioning different ideologies in media representation (see Figure 5). The more media integration that has occurred (54% “more than 5 times”), the less ideology criticism was reported (5.7% “more than 5 times”). Additionally, the frequency of ideology criticism at “1 time” and “4-5 times” ( 37.1% and 20%, respectively) is much higher than for teaching with media (8.1% and 5.4%, respectively). Furthermore, the highest frequency of ideology criticism was “1 time” (37.1%), whereas for teaching with media,it was “more than 5 times” (54%). Social constructivism The first core concept of critical media literacy is the construction of media texts and the choices and decisions made during the production process. Regarding this concept, respondents were asked about their level of engagement with the individuals and decisions involved in creating media texts (film, newspaper article, documentary, social media post, YouTube video, game,..). The highest frequency of involvement was“2-3 times”, Figure 4: Comparison of the occurrence of ideology critique and media analysis Figure 5: Comparison of the frequency of ideology critique and teaching with media Social Sciences and Education Research Review, Volume 12, Issue 2 – 2025 23 reported by 40.5% of respondents. The lowest levels of involvement were “1 time”, “never”, and “more than 5 times” with identical percentages of 13.5%. 18.9% reported 4-5 times. Media languages and techniques Regarding the acquisition of skills to analyze media languages and techniques, the results show that 45.9% of surveyed teachers learned “some”, while 10.8% indicated that they learned “none”. 18.9% said they acquired “many” and 14.3% reported they learned a “few”. The types of media languages and techniques covered in the training are unclear. Production/Institutions For the concept of production/institutions, we examined three key aspects: the aims of media productions, the types of media organizations in Austria, and awareness of the use of personal data for marketing purposes. Regarding how often they analyzed the purposes of media productions, the most common response was “23 times” (37.8%), followed by 4-5 times (24.3%). Notably, none of the surveyed teachers (0%) reported “never” engaging in such an activity. Additionally, an equal percentage of respondents (18.9 %) reported engaging in this analysis “1 time” and “more than 5 times”. Regarding the different types of media organizations in Austria, the results reveal that 86.5% of the respondents acknowledged their understanding of the differences between state, commercial, citizen, and public media, while 10.8% reported a “partial” understanding and 2.7% indicated that they did not learn about it. When it comes to understanding the media system in which users’ personal information is sold to advertisers, 51% of surveyed teachers indicated that they learned about this issue during their training. Only 2.7 % mentioned becoming aware of it at all. 45.9 % of respondents said they had a “partial” understanding of the issue. Social and environmental justice The concept of social and environmental justice emphasizes the impact of media representation on different social groups, such as those defined by gender, race, and class. The findings show that 54% of respondents acknowledged gaining insight into how media representation can advantage or disadvantage certain groups based on factors such as gender, race, class, and religion. 45.9% of respondents indicated that they had learned somewhat about these issues, and none (0%) indicated that they had not learned about them. As climate change becomes one of the biggest crises facing the planet, Kellner and Share (2019) suggest addressing and challenging the issue through the lens of critical media literacy. This approach involves critically analyzing how the media represents climate change and how this representation shapes norms and people’s actions regarding climate change (Share & Beach, 2022). In this regard, 56.8% of respondents reported not doing any activities analyzing climate change and environmental issues in media representation. 29.7% and 13.5 % of respondents mentioned “partly” and “fully” acquiring knowledge, respectively. Algorithmic awareness Since algorithm-driven media shapes our perception of the world through the selection, prioritization, categorization, and presentation of information and communication (Dogruel, 2021), we examined the student teachers’ engagement with algorithms and their critical awareness of them. Regarding this issue, 40.5% of the surveyed teachers reported that they were not involved in formulating an algorithm, while the same percentage(29.7%), mentioned that they had formulated or partially formulated an algorithm during training. Regarding the frequency with which they analyzed algorithmic bias, “1 time” and “2-3 times” occurred with the highest rate, 40.5%. “More than 5 times” was reported by only 2.7% of the respondents. “Never” and “4-5 times” engagement in analyzing algorithmic bias was reported with an identical percentage of respondents (8.1%). The highest frequency for criticizing ideology of algorithms was “2-3 times” ( 51.3%), while the lowest frequency was “more than 5 times” (2.7%). 32.4% of respondents reported engaging in criticism of ideology in algorithms “1 time”, and 8.1% reported doing so “4-5 times”. Only a few respondents (5.4 %) reported that they had never engaged in such activities. Analyzing the respondents’ understanding of the impact of algorithms in digital media on personal lives and political, social, and economic structures shows that 45.9 % of surveyed teachers reported learning about these impacts, while 43.2% indicated partial understanding. Only a small percentage (10.8% ) stated that they had not gained any knowledge regarding this issue.