Stanford researchers find students have trouble judging credibility of info online

[M-Dent]

Stanford researchers find students have trouble judging the credibility of information online
November 22, 2016
By Brooke Donald

Education scholars say youth are duped by sponsored content and don’t always recognize political bias of social messages.

---

The researchers began their work in January 2015, well before the most recent debates over fake news and its influence on the presidential election.

The scholars tackled the question of “civic online reasoning” because there were few ways to assess how students evaluate online information and to identify approaches to teach the skills necessary to distinguish credible sources from unreliable ones.

The authors worry that democracy is threatened by the ease at which disinformation about civic issues is allowed to spread and flourish.​

At the high school level, one assessment tested whether students were familiar with key social media conventions, including the blue checkmark that indicates an account was verified as legitimate by Twitter and Facebook.

Students were asked to evaluate two Facebook posts announcing Donald Trump’s candidacy for president. One was from the verified Fox News account and the other was from an account that looked like Fox News. Only a quarter of the students recognized and explained the significance of the blue checkmark. And over 30 percent of students argued that the fake account was more trustworthy because of some key graphic elements that it included.​

In another assessment, college students had to evaluate website credibility. The researchers found that high production values, links to reputable news organizations and polished “About” pages had the ability to sway students into believing without very much skepticism the contents of the site.

ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-students-have-trouble-judging-credibility-information-online

IMO, critical thinking skills need to be a focus.

 

[edwest2]

I’ve developed a list of research requirements based on doing years of research before and after the internet.

1. You need an answer, who is/are the best sources?

A) Accredited journals and specialized publications that use real names. Anonymous authors are always secondary, or can be dismissed.

B) Check multiple sources and know how to spot inconsistencies, and how to resolve those inconsistencies.

C) I have called certain places in the past to verify information. Anyone can still do that.

1. Newspapers and online news sites all have biases. However, they are required to engage in ‘fact checking’ before a story can run. Check multiple news sources. If it doesn’t sound right, ask yourself why.
2. Avoid “news aggregators.”
3. Think for yourself. The problem with the internet is that fake or partially incomplete information can spread quickly. “Opinions” can morph into “facts” because Bob3867 said so. Facts are checkable, anonymous opinions are to be automatically dismissed, especially if the writer shows that ranting or “I heard” is more important than facts.
4. Use real books and magazines, with real names, with real bios. With newspapers, the writer of an article often leaves an e-mail address where he can be contacted.

Research takes time. It will always take time, and getting fake news out there to confuse people, and for other reasons, is not going to stop. All these researchers need to do is create a list of “best practices” to help guide students so they can spot bias, false and misleading information and avoid places that have no confirmed/checkable reputation as reputable.

A good newspaper reporter/journalist has got to get the story right. And I sometimes check specialized publications regarding complex subjects. It’s not rocket science.

Ed

 

[M-Dent]

I’ve developed a list of research requirements based on doing years of research before and after the internet…

Ed

I agree Ed. You have a solid approach, IMO.

I expect bias and opinion to be more numerous than simple facts yet multiple sources does help one filter facts. Then I apply my own bias.

In my home, my wife often jokes at how much time and effort I take at gathering info for any one issue in the news. She simply does not have the desire or willingness to set time to do the same. She tends to be a calming force.

My children (in their mid to late 20’s) have widely adopted my passion of digging and trying to verify the validity of subject matters. Then debating the merits of subjects that seem somewhat ambiguous. It tends to be scientific in nature - more often than not. But given their careers that makes sense! (And thanks to the Holy Spirit they are all practicing Catholics.)

 

[1Lord1Faith]

IMO, critical thinking skills need to be a focus.

Absolutely right. Classical education needs to be reintroduced to middle schools and high schools. Critical thinking, philosophy, logic, theology, ethics and more have lost their place in education.

It doesn’t matter what you think if you don’t know how to think.

 

[mikekle]

This kind of thing could really be dangerous if the right fake article ever got enough popularity, and got enough people upset and ready to take action!!

Reminds me of that old saying, something like…" if a lie spreads to enough people or is repeatedly stated, it morphs into fact after awhile."

 

[Anthony_Perlas]

IMO, critical thinking skills need to be a focus.

Yum

 

[dixieagle]

This kind of thing could really be dangerous if the right fake article ever got enough popularity, and got enough people upset and ready to take action!!

Reminds me of that old saying, something like…" if a lie spreads to enough people or is repeatedly stated, it morphs into fact after awhile."

That has already happened, when a nut went, toting a gun, to the pizza place mentioned as where Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring:

nytimes.com/2016/12/05/business/media/comet-ping-pong-pizza-shooting-fake-news-consequences.html?_r=0

 

[LiamQ]

IMO, critical thinking skills need to be a focus.

Agreed.

And students these days, especially those in the Ivy League, are not taught to be thinkers, they’re taught to be conformists and robots who are afraid of failing.