Slashdot Mirror
Efforts Grow To Help Students Evaluate What They See Online (apnews.com)
Alarmed by the proliferation of false content online, state lawmakers around the country are pushing schools to put more emphasis on teaching students how to tell fact from fiction. From a report: Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed bills calling on public school systems to do more to teach media literacy skills that they say are critical to democracy. The effort has been bipartisan but has received little attention despite successful legislation in Washington state, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Mexico. Several more states are expected to consider such bills in the coming year, including Arizona, New York and Hawaii.
Advocates say the K-12 curriculum has not kept pace with rapid changes in technology. Studies show many children spend hours every day online but struggle to comprehend the content that comes at them. For years, they have pushed schools to incorporate media literacy -- including the ability to evaluate and analyze sources of information -- into lesson plans in civics, language arts, science and other subjects.
Advocates say the K-12 curriculum has not kept pace with rapid changes in technology. Studies show many children spend hours every day online but struggle to comprehend the content that comes at them. For years, they have pushed schools to incorporate media literacy -- including the ability to evaluate and analyze sources of information -- into lesson plans in civics, language arts, science and other subjects.
Don't count on the schools to do this. Parents need to spend a lot of time teaching these skills. An important concept is that just because many people/reporters say the same thing, it doesn't mean its true. I find examples of stuff that gets repeated in multiple news articles that is wrong, then show them how to figure out its wrong. My one kid is a natural skeptic, the other tends to believe everything. Personal traits are a big factor
Lesson 1: Don't trust anything I write.
Lesson 2: There's no Lesson 2.
excuse me. could somene please post concrete examples of "misinformation" and "fake news"? ... so true? .. because there's still explosive laundry out there but hasn't yet been "hung-out to dry" and
i am reading so much references to fake news but never straight out:"this [example] is fake news."
maybe "fake news" is "fake"
maybe this is a "pushback" on all the dirty laundry that some people got a hold of and hung out to dry?
seeding the "fake news" seed
giving this "fake news" seedling time to grown in the minds of the population so that the sharp edge of the explosive (information) is blunted, thus maybe losing the crucial momentum to set off a change?
Thank goodness the state is stepping in to let us know what is real and what isn't. I don't see how this could go wrong at all.
The big problem is that fact and fiction depend on which side of the political spectrum you belong to.
Teach children the neoliberal narrative is fact and any dissenting viewpoints are necessarily "fake news." This is the government stepping in to up their brainwashing game because they're unhappy it's taking so long for their worldview to solidify in the public consciousness and that resistance still exists. Better to get everyone as children and in one generation we'll all be good little sheep. It took a century to make homosexuality acceptable. 20 years for transgenderism. Pedophilia, polygamy, bestiality, moral relativism in general; these will take 10 years maximum with this new plan. The Marxists have won.
One of the things they teach is INFORMATION LITERACY
state lawmakers around the country are pushing schools to put more emphasis on teaching students how to tell fact from fiction
Doesn't that violate the separation of church and state? Ba-dum-tsss...
Ezekiel 23:20
"put more emphasis on teaching students how to tell fact from fiction"
Schools already have such programs. They're called math and science. But they're too hard for our precious little ones to grasp. Critical thinking requires too much effort. Pressing "like" buttons is so much easier on the brain.
What media tells people isn't facts, it's a view of a continuing story. Children tend to have missed most of that story, that history. That is why children have difficultly with the media. Children also haven't received enough history to recognize similarities to past events and look for similar causes. And lastly, sanitizing the world so that nobody dies and nobody suffers means they will "struggle to comprehend" a world that behaves differently.
Most of public education is telling children "This is how the world works and what you have to do, to belong". Thinking isn't a part of it which is why playtime is so necessary. That unstructured behaviour teaches us who we are and who other people are. The problem being that as children grow, their playtime becomes more dangerous: strangers, drugs, sex, dangerous machinery (eg. cars, guns). Adults pretending that children won't play means necessary life skills, such as sex education, aren't taught. Children definitely aren't going to think about situations they don't know.
These are the same schools that want to teach intelligent design; that slaves were immigrant workers; and that competition is everyone gets a trophy.
There's no need to teach self-defense in schools.
Teach the goddam curriculum and the rest will take care of itself.
Shit fire.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Teaching this in school? Too late.
Critical thinking skills start (or fail) long before then. Sure, some of that can be taught later. But getting the foundational how-to-think pieces in place starts (or fails) long, long before that. This is parent stuff first, and is somewhat dulled or honed later on by school teachers. Specific awareness of how to use, say, Google and a fistful of less-bad fact checking resources to tell a kid when they're being lied to is sort of like learning lab techniques. But an embrace of activity in a lab class only comes in kids that have already had their curiosity and some intellectual rigor stoked at home, well before that class happens.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The true version is that vast numbers of parents haven't got a clue, and are stupid. Sad but true. By definition Slashdot readers are wildly atypical.
Parents do not create critical thinking
Indeed, the more conservative the parent, the less tolerant of critical analysis of the myths they love (Reagan most beloved President ever for instance) than liberals.
Critical thinking begins when religion is brought into doubt.
Pity we can't teach that as a mandatory pass / fail in grade school
,,, should not be a course tailored for a specific subject.
We're talking about a single "threat," here.
When another single threat surfaces down the road are we going to teach critical thinking about that?
Schools should be preparing students in the general art of knowing the difference between bullshit and wild honey.
That won't happen until teachers are allowed to teach without the guidance of vacuous-minded outsiders like DeVos, batshit crazy right-wing Christian Evangelicals, and the Texas textbook industry (that mentions Blacks slaves as migrant "workers").
That won't happen until adults with more sense than god gave a piss ant start voting rationally.
I'm not optimistic.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
https://www.amazon.com/Mathema...
I gave this book to a young friend when he first left for college. It's a good read and a good teaching aid for critical thinking, especially when it comes to the media. Since it's math-based it's easier to see how "facts" can be presented in a way that distort the "truth".
Another book I've said would be a great one for high school seniors would be "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". I found it an enjoyable book that weaved fact and fiction. For students, it might be easy to separate some the extremes as fact ( Lincoln becomes president ) from fiction ( vampires living for centuries ) but there's a lots of other parts that would take knowledge or research. The book was not intended to deceive, so it could be an enjoyable project for students to analyze. It would also be less political than using a news story to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
It is called critical thinking, and it is something that should have been taught before and should be taught now. It will be interesting to see if legislators will be willing to give the schools money for this task.
Other postings have emphasized the need for parents to address this issue, and I agree with that. Once, when one of my children was around 10, she said something that was not true. Both my wife and I said that was wrong. She said, "I saw it on the internet." We then had a discussion about how to evaluate information on the internet and other places.
As a computer usage teacher I have looked into this. There is some minor question of where this material belongs, computer studies or social science; but there is consensus that it is needed.
The problem is that "every teacher makes up their own" doesn't work well. Obviously, it creates a significant amount of duplication of effort, it also leads to blind spots. Blind spots are simply content that one person may see as critical while another teacher didn't cover it at all. This may be due to: just didn't think of it, though it was such common knowledge that it didn't need covering, couldn't find a way to present it, the list goes on. An agreed on curriculum should reduce this issue. A curriculum also allows building on a body of knowledge as the students progress.
I do cover Identifying false information in my middle school classes. I don't feel that I do it as well as I would like and am adding to the way I cover it. This is not a topic that the schools are unaware of. The issue is in finding a way to present it that is acceptable to all stakeholders and has permanence in the students.
I remember how they tried to make us "media literate" in school in the 1980s by analyzing advertisements and writing essays about the dangers of "New Media" and "Amusing Ourselves to Death". And of course about the "Brave New World" of "1984" in 1984. TV would show tacky dystopias set in the 21st century about fictional reality TV shows, and children's series ended in a warning to hit the off switch. I have the impression that most of the people who had suffered through that kind of awareness training went on into advertising.
What. A. Joke.
Reporters aren't literate. They concatenate cliches and repeat movie titles. Every story is written from this illiterate idiot viewpoint.
To teach media literacy, all that needs be taught is how *stupid* reporters are, and that editors are even worse.
The class was called Critical Thinking.
I think it was replaced by some kind of "studies" class because Critical Thinking contained too many awkward, yet true, facts.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
> By definition Slashdot readers are wildly atypical.
That's probably true. Yet, I often read the articles and find that the headline and summary posted here is very misleading clickbait. In the last several weeks many articles from Verge have been posted here. Most are very misleading, but nobody here questions them.
And what about US law makers who regularly propagate fake news, fictions, and denialism? You know those idiots who say things like women who are raped don't get pregnant or that the science on climate change isn't settled. An irresponsible and poorly informed leadership isn't going to help cultivate a responsible and informed citizenry. Then there's Fox News...
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
Anyway, be assured that the politicians want students trained to think the way politicians want them to. Only the "other guy" is fake news
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
This video explains it all
There's a reason education sucks
(Paraphrased) There's a reason education sucks. It's the same reason it will never be fixed. Because the "owners" of this country don't want that. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want people smart enough sitting around the kitchen table thinking about how badly they are getting screwed by a system which threw them overboard 30 years ago. They want obedient workers. They want people just smart enough to run the machines, but dumb enough to passively accept increasingly shittier jobs with lower pay and longer hours.
Let's start off being nice...
I'm in this college course, Modern Western Civilization, or something like that. When we get to the chapter on the years leading up to World War II we are told about the horrendous stuff taught to children in public schools by the now dominant National Socialist party. Things like mathematics problems on how much money has to be taken from the able bodied workers to pay for the care of the invalids. When these children grow up they will have learned that it's just math, we have to kill the mentally retarded or they will bring down the country. That's terrible, right? The public schools being used like that is just terrible.
Then next week comes the chapter on the post war period. We're taught on how the UK had this "lost generation" from all the people killed and injured in the war. To combat this problem what did the UK government do? Well, they set up public schools to make sure all the orphaned and single parent children got an education in a time of need.
So, I raised my hand and asked what I thought was a simple question. What kept the public schools in the UK from indoctrinating the children like what happened in pre-war Germany?
The professor asked me to repeat the question, and I did. What kept the UK public schools from teaching horrible things to children like the proto-Nazis did? He thought for a second, waved me off like he didn't have time for that, and moved on with his lecture.
I saw this as not only a failure of past public schools but also of the present. I was in a room with 20 or so students that were presumably largely educated by public high schools and no one thought to ask this same question. Even more damning is this professor, with a doctorate in history and years of teaching this same course, was not prepared to answer this question. That tells me that while he was doing his studies he didn't have a classmate ask this question, he didn't think to ask this question, and none of his previous students thought to ask this question.
I'm quite certain I know the answer. There was nothing to keep post-war UK public schools from teaching horrendous things to children. Public schools can only take people's money for education and add the government slant to everything taught, even mathematics, and skim a bit off the top of that money for the administration of the schools. Does a lack of public schools mean children are left ignorant? Unlikely, that money taken from the people to educate their children in public schools is only diluted with government bureaucracy and indoctrination. Even if you have some parents that would rather spend that money on beer and horse races means that at least the public schools are teaching EVERY child what we'd rather not have them taught.
Public schools are inherently bad. There is no way to fix them. The government should not be teaching your children. You should be free to choose who teaches your children. There were schools before the government came along to fund them. Quite good schools too. High schools used to teach people to be a capable workforce. Education beyond high school was quite rare until fairly recently. Now we have people with doctorates in history unable to answer a simple question from an ignorant undergrad student taught in a private high school.
I have to wonder if I got a better education in a private high school than that professor got in graduate school.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Is omition of facts the same as lying no! However, all media has bias and omits facts when it doesn't fit the narrative their base likes. In truth, the media would love it if the world would just become engulfed in chaos. Simple fix, subset payments. If another news outlet has more facts then the news outlet with a subset rates lower and pays some money as a penalty for the absence of information.
How can you tell if a politian is lying ? Answer: their lips are moving. Also applies to advertising, used car salesmen ( anyone wanting to sell you something really ), and almost all social media.
You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
I just wish these proposals had been made earlier.
Maybe, if the populace had been better equipped to deal with fake news stories, we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.
needs to be taught, but that would open a Pandora's box. Better keep the folks in the dark.
Don't trust over 30? I take it your not old enough to have a teenager, they won't believe anything you tell them no matter how true.
I doubt this generation is going to be any more critical than the last. If anything it might be less; we've been chipping away at our public school systems for 40 years now. Education more than anything is what gets folks thinking critically.
It's why we had all those English classes and read all those dull as paint drying books. They're dull because they're complicated. You want a critical and smart electorate? Fund public education evenly. Decouple funding from property taxes. Worked for Norway.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Interesting where this article comes from. A little state like Iowa had the idea that we should be teaching critical thought in public schools. Why would it come from there?
I have a theory. Iowa sits between the Bible Belt and the socialists in Illinois and Minnesota. A quick internet search tells me that there's a mix of Protestants, Catholics, atheists/non-religious, and even a few Muslims. They've seen the disasters from the religious right to the south and the liberal left to the north. What separates the indoctrination of the Muslims that are becoming problematic in Minnesota from the problems of the Christian doctrine in Missouri? Could that be having a critical view of both?
Why isn't this coming from a predominately urban or secular state? 80% of Iowans identify as Christian. Could it be the large agricultural community? I mean farmers, ranchers, and those that depend on them, must have a very real understanding of cause and effect that might not be so apparent in urban communities. An urban society is insulated from things like a drought affecting their income like a rural community. They don't see this cause and effect like people that have to deal with bad weather and the lasting effect it can have on them.
I had to look at how many people in Iowa completed high school compared to other states. To my surprise Iowa is at the top, 90%. So, how did Iowa do on rates of college graduates? 26%, which is average or perhaps a bit below average. Interesting.
Maybe those hicks in fly-over country aren't so backwards after all. What's the definition of a farmer? A man out standing in his field.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Science Must Fall!? Sjw's at University of Cape Town
But we has "scientific lightnig to strike humans by african negro shamans and witches" and we wuz kings and shit ... ...
And we must "start science anew", and start it like "the african perspective"
It is that most people get tired of fighting back against people who CAN'T critically think.
I have been butting heads with my parents recently over this. They were rebelling ex-hippie types when I was growing up, while at the same time indulging my father's family's staunch Catholicism. Long story short, they have gotten old and while every day things that they instilled in me as values that should not be taken lightly get eroded by societal change (notably privacy and the asymmetric attitude towards 'corporate intellectual property' versus 'individual intellectual property, such as their identity information, their dna, etc all of which get used without license or reimbursement on a daily basis because you have to give it up in small print somewhere in order to get the services necessary for daily life!') As one example they leave their cell phones sitting in the bathroom with the camera often pointing towards the toilet while charging. Given how many stories we have had on Slashdot about cell phone apps with access to microphones and cameras, how safe do you feel having a random device pointing at you and trusting that it isn't recording?
Five+ years on, and somehow the glasshole epidemic is entirely forgotten as people place Amazon Echos, and Google Homes, and Apple iHouse devices to spy on them. Buying TVs with microphones and/or video cameras installed so they can start preparing for per viewer licensing costs even as they monetize even new Smart TV as a potential Nielson TV viewership box.
Growing up was supposed to result in emancipation, but instead I feel more trapped in adult American society than I ever did as a kid. And with each passing day it seems more and more like it's just an asylum with the most mentally ill inmates running it, like sort sort of Joker-run Arkham Asylum.
That example is too remote for most people and it heavily underestimates how important it is and how much it applies to everyone. The article even refers to it: " a systematic error of inductive reasoning". The key concept is 'fit' and we all use it all the time. The new information has to fit with what you know already. It has to fit with the sources. If it is about people, it has to fit with the people. This is not unreasonable and it is tightly related to trust. If there are conflicts between authorities you look for minimal tension.
If the NYTimes tells you something bad about a bad person, you believe it because the NYT has good reputation and the bad person bad reputation.
The idea of proof is then a more advanced idea of fit: it has to fit with statements that have more solidity to them.
So what does mainstream media do? it comes with a package of what to trust: reputable papers, official sources. Dissident sources should be distrusted. Never trust a mere blog. Don't trust anything our enemies say.
And what is the supposed remedy? Be critical and verify for yourself. I think that is both valid and fooling oneself. If you have an average intellect and a limited amount of time you use trust almost all of the time. You trust authoritative sources and if they show proof and you read the proof, you trust that the argument is valid wherever you have doubts. If you build up enough confidence in your own thinking you may be able to contradict an official source, but rarely by yourself alone: trust in the official media lowers and trust in other sources is raised who confirm your dissident ideas.
People like to think they are individuals who decide things for themselves. I think this is fooling oneself. It's bloody hard to get to any decent level of individuality , and starting by accepting how much we rely on other's authority is a good way forward.
It would be a good start to teach them to distinguish statements from opinions.
The failure to make that distinction is what causes at least 50% of the "fake news" hysteria. You can see the confusion right here on Slashdot, even at the highest levels of moderation.
That they have to be taught this stuff? Do family have no ability, desire etc to make sure their kids grow up?
The idea of slavery was (and still is in various parts of the world) perfectly acceptable. The weird thing about the biblical sound bite you use is that itâ(TM)s a whole lot nicer way to manage things in a slavery friendly society. But then you missed that, deliberately or not...
...this seems like either teaching kids HOW to think or WHAT to think.
Guess which the government would like to choose.
Guess which one rational people should demand.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Honduras just had a presidential election... The constitution prohibits more than one term. So the president appointed some judges to override that and stood for re-election anyway.
The election took place and during the count it became clear he was losing. All of a sudden there was a computer glitch and it took over two weeks to count the vote. In the end he was declared the winner, despite the organisation of America states saying there were irregularities and calling for a new vote.
The US congratulated the "winner", completely ignoring the controversies
Argentina and Spain also did
Thankfully some media outlets questioned the result... But it was quite concerning how quickly some governments were to ignore some serious issues.
...this seems like either teaching kids HOW to think or WHAT to think.Guess which the government would like to choose.Guess which one rational people should demand. ..... the states that are leading the charge on controlling speech huh?
Controlling speech (Score:?)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @01:18PM
Interesting
It's the "Liberal" states trying to control speech and what the kids/public "should and should not" have access to. Used to be the opposite - all about FREE SPEECH for the libs
I'm just sayin'
OH: AND THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I TRIED TO POST THIS..... I FAILED TO PROVE I WAS HUMAN "APPARENTLY" even though my credentials were correct twice..... Hmmmm \Dot
And what's more, most westerners have already been indoctrinated to follow religious authoritarianism, and so we're all predisposed to believe bullshit. ... and people really WANT to believe, to belong, to be a genuine FORCE FOR GOD'S (TM) WILL by the force of grace and belief, so how do you think trying to help students evaluate bullshit is going to wash in the bible belt?
The priests traditionally didn't want their congregations to be informed or have direct access to the scriptures, they much preferred to be arbitrary gatekeepers, for their own perpetuation and benefit.
Not hard to see why old habits die hard...
Fail...
It people can't figure out for the most part what is true or not without government mandated education in schools then it should be back to your momma's teet, regardless of age.
Seriously government funded schools with courses teaching students what is truth is such an oxymoron.
Maybe it is just the idea that the mainstream media isn't honest enough nor has enough integrity to push out a provable truth. Their bias and lack of journalistic integrity is the cause shown clearly by their headlines being so specious, meant to draw clicks for ad dollars -- that takes precedence over well thought-out and researched stories. People just can't figure out who to believe. It is so pathetic. Glenn Greenwald has been trying to report this for the past week and that's sad that so few are taking note. When the news media are unchecked, unlike the branches of government, and they are so wealthy or funded by the elite super rich that even the people don't matter and they continually day in and out feed propaganda that meets their oft hidden agenda then noone will get the truth, ever. Even so, courses teaching truth is insanity. Go back and ask your parents. That's what wisdom is for, it's what age brings.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.