AbstractsBusiness Management & Administration

Systematic media literacy education at the college level is largely nonexistent in the U.S. Because assessment is necessary for the development of curriculum and standards, it is crucial that researchers develop instruments to measure media literacy improvement through media literacy education. The Critical Evaluation and Analysis of Media (CEAM) scale was designed toward that purpose and measures college students’ self-reported practice of critically evaluating and analyzing visual media messages online for credibility, audience, and technical design elements. The goals of this study follow: (a) to chart the development of and examine the factor structure of the CEAM scale, (b) to examine the potential of the CEAM scale to be a generalizable instrument to meet the needs of the research community, and (c) to gather baseline data about the self-reported critical viewing practices of students enrolled in basic writing and first-year composition. Each of these goals is addressed in a separate chapter within the dissertation. With the exception of the first study, which required two data sets (for an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis), all other studies use the same data set, which was gathered in Fall 2015. In Fall 2014 and Fall 2015, a purposive sample was taken from students enrolled in the first-year composition sequence at a large public institution in central Texas that is designated as an Hispanic-Serving Institution. During Fall 2014, a total of 323 first-semester students completed the scale. During Fall 2015, a total of 322 first-semester students completed the scale. The study in Chapter II employs a factor analytic framework for identifying dimensions within the construct of media literacy. Using principal axis factoring with an oblique (Promax) rotation, the exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure. The first factor accounted for 26.234% of the total variance in the data set; the second factor accounted for 4.069% of the total variance in the data set; and the third factor accounted for 3.574% of the total variance in the data set. Items were retained for each of the three factors if the standardized factor loading was greater than .32. After examining reliability and judging the content of each item with a loading weight below .32, five items were removed, leaving 27 items. Overall reliability for the revised 27-item scale is high (α = .91). Reliability for Factor 1 is good (α = .87). Reliability for Factor 2 (α = .79) and Factor 3 (α = .74) is acceptable. Using principal axis factoring with an oblique (Promax) rotation, the confirmatory factor analysis also revealed a three-factor structure. The three factors were named: (a) questioning credibility, (b) recognizing audience, and (c) recognizing design. The first factor accounts for 31.401% of the total variance in the data set; the second factor accounts for 5.926% of the total variance in the data set; and the third factor accounts for 5.130% of the total variance in the data set. The standardized factor… Advisors/Committee Members: Paulson, Eric J. (advisor), Acee, Taylor W. (advisor), Miller Payne, Emily (committee member), Price, Larry R. (committee member).