Can You Tell Fake News From Real Study Finds Students Have \'Dismaying\' Inability The Two-Way NPR PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Can You Tell Fake News From Real Study Finds Students Have 'Dismaying' Inability The Two-Way NPR PDF

Description

ǾŇ ǺİŘ ŇǾẄ

Řěňǿ Pųbŀįč Řǻđįǿ

țħě țẅǿ-ẅǻỳ

Șțųđěňțș Ħǻvě 'Đįșmǻỳįňģ' İňǻbįŀįțỳ Țǿ Țěŀŀ Fǻķě Ňěẅș Fřǿm Řěǻŀ, Șțųđỳ Fįňđș Ňǿvěmběř 23, 2016 · 12:44 PM ĚȚ

ČǺMİĿǺ ĐǾMǾŇǾȘĶĚ

Stanfordresearchersassessedstudentsfrommiddleschooltocollegeandfoundtheystruggledtodistinguishadsfrom articles,neutralsourcesfrombiasedonesandfakeaccountsfromrealones. GaryWaters/IkonImages/GettyImages

Ifthechildrenarethefuture,thefuturemightbeveryillinformed.

That'soneimplicationofanewstudyfromStanfordresearchersthatevaluated students'abilitytoassessinformationsourcesanddescribedtheresultsas "dismaying,""bleak"and"[a]threattodemocracy." Ascontentcreatorsandsocialmediaplatformsgrapplewiththefakenewscrisis,the studyhighlightstheothersideoftheequation:Whatitlookslikewhenreadersare duped. TheresearchersatStanford'sGraduateSchoolofEducationhavespentmorethana yearevaluatinghowwellstudentsacrossthecountrycanevaluateonlinesourcesof information. Middleschool,highschoolandcollegestudentsin12stateswereaskedtoevaluatethe informationpresentedintweets,commentsandarticles.Morethan7,800student responseswerecollected. Inexerciseafterexercise,theresearcherswere"shocked"—theirword,notours—by howmanystudentsfailedtoeffectivelyevaluatethecredibilityofthatinformation. Thestudentsdisplayeda"stunninganddismayingconsistency"intheirresponses,the researcherswrote,gettingdupedagainandagain.Theyweren'tlookingforhighlevel analysisofdatabutjusta"reasonablebar"of,forinstance,tellingfakeaccountsfrom realones,activistgroupsfromneutralsourcesandadsfromarticles.

“

Mǿřě țħǻň 80 pěřčěňț ǿf mįđđŀě șčħǿǿŀěřș běŀįěvěđ țħǻț 'șpǿňșǿřěđ čǿňțěňț' ẅǻș ǻ řěǻŀ ňěẅș șțǿřỳ. "Manyassumethatbecauseyoungpeoplearefluentinsocialmediatheyareequally savvyaboutwhattheyfindthere,"theresearcherswrote."Ourworkshowsthe opposite." Aprofessionalappearanceandpolished"About"sectioncouldeasilypersuade studentsthatasitewasneutralandauthoritative,thestudyfound,andyoungpeople

tendedtocredulouslyacceptinformationaspresentedevenwithoutsupporting evidenceorcitations. Theresearchwasdividedbyagegroupandused15differentassessments.Here'sa sampleofsomeoftheresults:

Mostmiddleschoolstudentscan'ttellnativeadsfromarticles. TheresearchersshowedhundredsofmiddleschoolersaSlatehomepagethatincluded atraditionaladanda"nativead"—apaidstorybrandedas"sponsoredcontent"—as wellasSlatearticles. Moststudentscouldidentifythetraditionalad,butmorethan80percentofthem believedthatthe"sponsoredcontent"articlewasarealnewsstory. "Somestudentsevenmentionedthatitwassponsoredcontentbutstillbelievedthatit wasanewsarticle,"theresearcherswrote,suggestingthestudentsdon'tknowwhat "sponsoredcontent"means. Mosthighschoolstudentsacceptphotographsaspresented,without verifyingthem. Theresearchersshowedhighschoolstudentsaphotographofstrangelookingflowers, postedontheimagehostingsiteImgurbyausernamed "pleasegoogleShakerAamerpleasegoogleDavidKelly.Thecaptionread"Fukushima NuclearFlowers:Notmuchmoretosay,thisiswhathappenswhenflowersgetnuclear birthdefects."

FukushimaNuclearFlowers

Prev  1/2images  Next Notmuchmoretosay,thisiswhathappenswhenflowersgetnuclear... pleasegoogle... ·3,827views·21comments

SamWineburg,aprofessorofeducationandhistoryatStanfordUniversityandthe leadauthorofthestudy,spoketoNPRonTuesday. "Thephotographhadnoattribution.Therewasnothingthatindicatedthatitwasfrom anywhere,"hesaid."Weaskedstudents,'Doesthisphotographprovideproofthatthe kindofnucleardisastercausedtheseaberrationsinnature?'Andwefoundthatover 80percentofthehighschoolstudentsthatwegavethistohadanextremelydifficult timemakingthatdetermination. "Theydidn'taskwhereitcamefrom.Theydidn'tverifyit.Theysimplyacceptedthe pictureasfact." Manyhighschoolstudentscouldn'ttellarealandfakenewssourceapart onFacebook.

“

Țħěỳ đįđň'ț ǻșķ ẅħěřě įț čǻmě fřǿm. Țħěỳ đįđň'ț věřįfỳ įț. Țħěỳ șįmpŀỳ ǻččěpțěđ țħě pįčțųřě ǻș fǻčț. SamWineburg,leadauthorofthestudy

OneassessmentpresentedtwopostsannouncingDonaldTrump'scandidacyfor president—onefromtheactualFoxNewsaccount,withabluecheckmarkindicating itwasverified,andonefromanaccountthatlookedlikeFoxNews. "Onlyaquarterofthestudentsrecognizedandexplainedthesignificanceoftheblue checkmark,aStanfordpressreleasenoted."Andover30percentofstudentsargued thatthefakeaccountwasmoretrustworthy." Mostcollegestudentsdidn'tsuspectpotentialbiasinatweetfroman activistgroup. TheresearcherssentundergraduatestudentsalinktoatweetbyMoveOnaboutgun owners'feelingsonbackgroundchecks,citingasurveybyPublicPolicyPolling.

MoveOn.org

Follow

@MoveOn

Newpollingshowsthe@NRAisoutoftouchwithgunowners andtheirownmembersampr.gs/1Pyw4qg#NRAfail 4:20PM17Nov2015



36

33

Theyaskedstudentstoevaluatethetweetandsaywhyitmightormightnotbeagood datasource.

“

Mǿřě țħǻň 30 pěřčěňț ǿf șțųđěňțș țħǿųģħț ǻ fǻķě Fǿx Ňěẅș ǻččǿųňț ẅǻș mǿřě țřųșțẅǿřțħỳ țħǻň țħě řěǻŀ ǿňě. "Onlyafewstudentsnotedthatthetweetwasbasedonapollconductedbya professionalpollingfirm,"whichmightmakeitagoodsource,theresearcherswrote. Atthesametime,lessthanathirdofstudentscitedthepoliticalagendaof MoveOn.orgasareasonitmightbeaflawedsource. Andmorethanhalfofthestudentsdidn'tevenclickonthelinkwithinthetweetbefore evaluatingtheusefulnessofthedata. MostStanfordstudentscouldn'tidentifythedifferencebetweena mainstreamandfringesource. TheAmericanAcademyofPediatrics,whichpublishesthejournalPediatrics,has morethan65,000membersandhasbeenaroundsince1930.

“

Ŀěșș țħǻň ǻ țħįřđ ǿf șțųđěňțș țħǿųģħț MǿvěǾň.ǿřģ ħǻș ǻ pǿŀįțįčǻŀ ǻģěňđǻ țħǻț mįģħț jųșțįfỳ șķěpțįčįșm ǻbǿųț įțș đǻțǻ ǿň ģųň ǿẅňěřș. TheAmericanCollegeofPediatricians(ACPeds)splitfromAAPin2002,over objectionstoparentingbysamesexcouples.ACPedsclaimshomosexualityislinkedto pedophilia.It'sclassifiedasahategroupbytheSouthernPovertyLawCenter,which estimatesthatACPedshasabout200members. InanarticleinEducationWeek,WineburgandhiscolleagueSarahMcGrewexplain thattheydirectedStanfordundergradstoarticlesonbothorganizations'sites.The studentsspentupto10minutesevaluatingthem,andwerefreetoclicklinksorGoogle anythingtheyliked.

"MorethanhalfconcludedthatthearticlefromtheAmericanCollegeofPediatricians ...was'morereliable,'"theresearcherswrote."Evenstudentswhopreferredtheentry fromtheAmericanAcademyofPediatricsneveruncoveredthedifferencesbetween thetwogroups."

Youcanseeindepthexamplesofsomeoftheexercises—includingsampleresponses —atthestudy'sexecutivesummary. Theprojectbeganbeforetherecentuproarovertheprevalenceoffakenewsonline. Butitsrelevanceisimmediatelyclear. WineburgtoldNPRonTuesdaythatthestudydemonstratesthatU.S.classrooms haven'tcaughtuptothewayinformationisinfluencingkidsdaily. "Whatweseeisarashoffakenewsgoingonthatpeoplepassonwithoutthinking,"he said."Andwereallycan'tblameyoungpeoplebecausewe'venevertaughtthemtodo otherwise." Infact,asWineburgandMcGrewwroteinEducationWeek,someschoolshavefilters directingstudentstovalidsources,whichdoesn'tgivethempracticelearningto evaluatesourcesforthemselves. Thesolution,theywrite,istoteachstudents—or,really,allInternetusers—toread likefactcheckers. Thatmeansnotjustreading"vertically,"onasinglepageorsource,butlookingfor othersources—aswellasnottaking"About"pagesasevidenceofneutrality,andnot assumingGoogleranksresultsbyreliability. "Thekindsofdutiesthatusedtobetheresponsibilityofeditors,oflibrariansnowfall ontheshouldersofanyonewhousesascreentobecomeinformedabouttheworld," WineburgtoldNPR."Andsotheresponseisnottotakeawaytheserightsfrom ordinarycitizensbuttoteachthemhowtothoughtfullyengageininformationseeking andevaluatinginacacophonousdemocracy."

ĿİȘȚĚŇ: Șǻm Ẅįňěbųřģ Ěxpŀǻįňș Șțųđỳ'ș 'Bŀěǻķ' Řěșųŀțș Ŀįșțěň · 4:14

Qųěųě

fǻķě ňěẅș

Řěǻđ Ǻŀŀ Ǻbǿųț İț: Břěǻķįňģ Ňěẅș Fřǿm ŇPŘ Ẅħěň mǻjǿř ňěẅș ħǻppěňș, șțǻỳ ǿň țǿp ǿf țħě ŀǻțěșț đěvěŀǿpměňțș, đěŀįvěřěđ țǿ ỳǿųř įňbǿx. Ẅħǻț'ș ỳǿųř ěmǻįŀ?

Bỳ șųbșčřįbįňģ, ỳǿų ǻģřěě țǿ ŇPŘ'ș țěřmș ǿf ųșě ǻňđ přįvǻčỳ pǿŀįčỳ.

Mǿřě Șțǿřįěș Fřǿm ŇPŘ

Ųňěmpŀǿỳměňț Řǻțě Đřǿpș Țǿ 4.6 Pěřčěňț, Ŀǿẅěșț Ŀěvěŀ Șįňčě 2007

Fųŀŀ-Șįżě Řěpŀįčǻ Ǿf Țħě Țįțǻňįč İș Ųňđěř Čǿňșțřųčțįǿň İň Čħįňǻ

Pǿpųŀǻř ǿň ŇPŘ.ǿřģ

Țħěșě Șțǻțěș Ǻŀŀǿẅ Țěǻčħěřș Ǻňđ Șțǻff Țǿ Ħįț Șțųđěňțș

Ŀǻb-Ģřǿẅň Đįǻmǿňđș Čǿmě İňțǿ Țħěįř Ǿẅň

Čǻřřįěř Ẅįŀŀ Ķěěp 1,000 Jǿbș İň Ų.Ș., Bųț Țřųmp Fǻčěș Ǻ Mųčħ Țǿųģħěř Přǿbŀěm

Țřųmp Ģųșħěș Ǻbǿųț Pǻķįșțǻň İň Čǻŀŀ Ẅįțħ İțș Přįmě Mįňįșțěř

ŇPŘ Ěđįțǿřș' Pįčķș

Șǻň Běřňǻřđįňǿ Șħǿǿțįňģ'ș Șįģňș Ħǻvě Fǻđěđ, Bųț Měmǿřįěș Řěmǻįň Pįěřčįňģ

Řǻįșįňģ Ǻ Čħįŀđ Ẅįțħ Đỳșŀěxįǻ: 3 Țħįňģș Pǻřěňțș Čǻň Đǿ

Ħǿț-Đǿģ Țįǻřǻș Ǻňđ Ǿțħěř '70ș Đįňňěř Pǻřțỳ' Đěŀįčǻčįěș

Țįmě Fǿř Ħǿměǿpǻțħįč Řěměđįěș Țǿ Přǿvě Țħǻț Țħěỳ Ẅǿřķ? țħě țẅǿ-ẅǻỳ

Ǻbǿųț Șųbșčřįbě ŇPŘ Țẅįțțěř ©2016npr...