I like that it's a critical thinking subject, but it would be much better if you taught generic critical thinking, and used "recognising fake news" as one of the applications for critical thinking.
Every school already teaches generic critical thinking.
Lots of people don't learn it, but lots of people don't learn basic algebra either. It's still taught.
"Write 3 to 5 sentences explaining Gatsby staring across the bay at the green light of the far pier."
This is a common type of prompt that most school systems use and in theory it fosters and develops critical thinking. Why would Gatsby stare at the light? What must he be thinking about? Why did the author choose a light? But (american) school systems never actually explain what critical thinking is. Only a set of minimum requirements that students struggle through.
I hated those prompts. They seemed like the teacher was just fishing for a specific answer. Sometimes the color doesn't mean anything and the author thought it just looked nice. It wasn't until I had a sociology teacher explain it with a poignant example that it really clicked.
He asked us "Is suspending a student good punishment?" He went on to elaborate that a student that skips class gets detention. Well if he skipped class why would he go to detention? So he skips that and gets suspension instead. This student didn't want to be in school so the school ultimately punishes him by not having him in school.
Reductive and simplistic, sure. But the idea that you approach a problem or thought from many different angles to see all facets of it didn't really gel with me until that moment. We need more of that. We need the "why" of critical thinking.
Don’t lots of people complain when education is too theoretical and they don’t get a sense of “how are we ever going to use this?”
What would "generic" critical thinking even look like? You need some subject matter to apply critical thinking skills to. News is already a very, very broad subject. What kind of critical thinking do you think is important but not teachable in the context of news?
Teaching about logical fallacies, how the scientific method is supposed to work, etc.
Not so much that it couldn't be taught in the context of news, but there are far more areas where critical thinking is needed.
Yes. In college libraries I remember opening handbooks on critical thinking and they were as you said.
Here is one that is available online for free as an open access PDF and has all of the best and current science on many aspects of rationality from cognitive science to philosophy: https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5525/The-Handbook-of-Rationality
I agree. That's what I learn when I was in school. We also had to identify objective and subjective texts
Yeah we had to do something like that in History class, but I took the IB curriculum. I don't think most standard secondary school History classes make you assess the "Origin, Purpose, Value, and Limitation" of a source.
Here's the syllabus for the Cambridge Critical Thinking AS & A level
https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/597412-2023-2025-syllabus.pdf
They used to offer it as an end of GCSEs subject in grammar schools in the UK when i were younger (Maybe they still do, i don't know). My Ex took it.
I (a pleb) went to a plebs school though so didn't get the opportunity
it would be much better if you taught generic critical thinking
That's pretty much what you get from an English (or history) class in HS. Can you extract information from a text, can you synthesize information from multiple sources, can you interpret what the text means and support your interpretation based on evidence, can you understand motivations and perspectives of characters, and recognize information from unreliable narrators, etc.
Sometimes when a problem becomes immediate enough, teaching the general case isn't enough. Not sure whether we've reached that point, but there's a lot of general teaching that people complain isn't specific enough. "Why don't they teach how to do taxes?"-- because they teach math and following directions, and it theoretically shouldn't be more complicated than that.
Except education is not general, it is hyperfocused on topics that lead into higher education.
I can agree with that to a certain extent, but how is math not general? How is understanding characters from a book not general?
I think more practical examples and lessons would work better if they only allocate a couple lessons for it.
Been advocating this forever. Teach a boy how to avoid bullshit, he'll avoid bullshit forever
I’d really like to see the curriculum. And examples.
I feel like this is not an easy task. I suspect if someone thinks it’s not that difficult, then they are not willing to actually use political examples.
But maybe I’m wrong. I just don’t know. When I was in school NOTHING touched actual politics. Maybe that’s why I can’t conceive of how this will work when focused on that topic.
What am I missing?
Edit: When I say politics was never covered, I can give a weird anecdote:
Shortly after high school I was with some friends and asked them about the conservative/liberal thing. And they asked me a few questions and then said I was liberal, I think.
The kicker: one of the two friends went on to be a false elector who signed the documents in my home state on Jan 6th. I saw their name during the hearings.
I haven’t seen the current curriculum but this kind of thing was an area of research for me (the spread of information on social networks).
There was a study done - I want to say that it was about 40 years ago - that used a single lesson to teach young kids the basics of literary criticism and deconstruction so that they could dissect what the Saturday morning cartoon ads were trying to say. They were able to identify that the ads were implying that eating a sugary breakfast cereal would get you more fun friends to play with, and so on. A lot of it had to do with social pressures.
In any case, there was a measurable increase in the kids’ ability to resist being influenced by the ads, once they knew what to look for. I suspect they’ll take a similar approach here.
Nothing is ever going to be 100% successful, but if you pull back the curtain and show them that the Grand Wizard is just a little man pulling their levers, it’ll have a helpful effect on hopefully enough people to matter.
This sounds like a more specific, more applied critical thinking course.
Fascinating.
It's definitely not that difficult.
We had these lessons in Lithuania in the late 90s though not on fake news per se just how to evaluate text sources. It's the same stuff you get taught for paper writing but in reverse. Check sources and use basic logic.
I don't think politics are needed to be taught explicitly though, just basic logic concepts. For example, I do wish kids were taught about Baysian perspective outside of math settings. Just understanding that would eliminate a lot of misinformation dangers.
The GOP would fight this so hard in red states
Really? Seems like something they'd run with, as long as they got to pick the curricula and decide what the reputable sources are. You could continue to galvanize a base into believing they now DO have critical thinking skills.
It's a required subject in Finland
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/10/world/europe/finland-misinformation-classes.html https://www.nordicpolicycentre.org.au/media_literacy_education_in_finland https://finland.fi/life-society/educated-decisions-finnish-media-literacy-deters-disinformation/
If Finland didn't educate its children to spot media bullshit, it would be overrun by Russian media bullshit, which devotes no small amount of energy to the task of convincing Finns that they'd be better off as a Russian vassal state.
For that matter, if the US did educate its children to spot media bullshit, our voters wouldn't fall for such stupid nonsense on the regular
It's been a few years since I read about this, but Finland also has one of the (if not the) best public education system in the world.
Apparently a couple decades ago (can't remember exactly how long), Finland was rated very poorly in some worldwide study on public education.
Fellow Americans are going to have trouble grasping this, but that prompted Finland to actually change how their public education system works from the ground up. They did a ton of research and within a few years, they were climbing up that list. It really did not take them very long to correct their very poor public education system, and get to the top.
Finland is obviously much smaller and less populous than the US, but I still believe we can learn a lot from their example.
Instead, we're going the opposite way... "School choice," vouchers, charter schools. All that bullshit meant to erode our public education system. Gotta privatize everything!
Incredible. Seeing problems and fixing them? That might as well be magic as far as the United States is concerned.
They need to expand on it and include propaganda, thats a larger threat to society than fake news.
In my head fake news is propganda, so idk. Detect fake news and youll detect bullshit in propoganda as well i suppose
I learned how to identify propaganda in an English class in high school. Propaganda is such as evil sounding word, but Wikipedia calls it "communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda"
That agenda might be widely accepted as correct - "killing innocent people is not good" - propaganda
Or of course it might be horrific - "xyz group of people is less worthy than everyone else and should be exterminated" - also propaganda
Or obvious - Posters that exclaim "Ice cream is delicious!" - still propaganda
It's crucial to recognize it quickly when material is influencing or persuading you, and to then give it a critical look. A good citizen will always be informed and able to recognize material that attempts to convince them to believe something as true.
THAT'S PROPAGANDA
I mean, it actually is because they left out the rest of the quote:
which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception
It's also an example of Contextomy, which is sometimes a form of propaganda.
communication that is primarily used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda
I always found this kind of funny. As opposed to, what, communication that's just for the speaker to assuage their own self-doubt? Is that really even a distinction that's possible to make, anyways?
But that would mean they could figure out when they are being manipulated by advertisers... and those advertisers are buddies with politicians on both sides of the aisle.
they could figure out when they are being manipulated by advertisers
If it makes you feel any better it almost doesn't matter how versed humans are in advertising, we can still be affected subliminally.
Idk about you, but it school I remember at least a 4 times we had to make persuasive arguments based on advertising techniques.
I took a media studies elective in high school (Canada) and it dealt with a lot of critical approaches to media, we had to consume different media and break down target audience, purpose, identify weasel words, etc. We even had a few media people come in like a film director and marketing consultants. Led to me taking further courses about related subjects like media theory and journalism.
Was definitely very worth it, just to get these concepts in people's minds and the different angles you can consume and analyze media from. It's not even just for the educational or critical benefits either, but also for the enjoyment. I used to have an elitist attitude about making sure I only consume "good" media and sort of judged people for liking shitty things, but after learning more I could appreciate a lot more of media for what it is, and criticize it on a more meaningful less individualized level than that. So I've found learning about media has also extended to not judging people as much, and more enjoying how things can be shitty. Obviously with journalism and politics this is a lot more significant than a bad movie or tv series though.
I have a friend in Seattle who’s doing his PhD thesis on this. We talked about it for awhile last time I visited and it was really interesting stuff.
This was a thing back when I was in highschool, it was part of computer literacy class.
Same, social studies in elementary school, Little bit in highschool too
Media literacy.
Talked about advertising techniques, persuasive writing, author intent, etc.
Recognizing bias in news (because tabloid news was too silly to be taken seriously) was a large segment of critical thinking. Maybe we're getting back to recognizing an obedient, credulous population is not necessarily a good thing.
I dunno if that's really a possible thing to teach. I think most fake news takes advantage of distrust in institutions and primary sources, I dunno if you're ever going to really be able to fix that. Short of seeing something yourself, which is pretty hard to come by, and also not a solution because evidence may not be immediately obvious, and is subject to the same sorts of post-hoc rationalizations as reading the news. You could try to teach logical and argumentative fallacies, and that might help, but I think you'd probably get a good proportion of students which would totally misunderstand what you're saying and just apply it to everything they don't like, and then you'd just get a bunch of annoying kids succumbing to the fallacy fallacy, and treating comment sections and conversations with other people like debate pervert encounters, where the only formal win they can get is the one they give themselves when they get an epic own.
It's also not like real news is much better, as you can tell from almost any war reporting, a subject where evidence is thin and technical phrasing and abstraction tends to be high. Deaths are referred to as casualties, people are referred to as potential threat vectors, any violence done against us is terrorism and any violence we do to anyone else is self-defense, pre-emptive or otherwise. A bullet leaves a gun and happens to strike an unarmed black man, in liberal media, and in conservative media, who cares, actually, because we're gonna dig up all of the previous run-ins this guy had with the police and do some character assassination so we can help justify a narrative of contextually blind self-defense. It's more complicated than "fake news", it's more nuanced than that, sometimes the evidence is real, but is just getting twisted to fit a narrative.
Ultimately I think misinformation is subject to inhabiting an alternative information landscape, false, twisted, or just alternative in vocabulary, and then, subject to death by a thousand fallacies. You make the decision to discount this piece of evidence here, this news story there, and pretty soon you've built yourself an entire alternative information landscape where maybe a couple times a week you're faced with some alternative piece of evidence, in a vacuum, and you are faced with the choice of, do I abandon literally everything I've ever known and believed, and scrap most of it, and instead believe in this random factoid, or do I just easily handwave the factoid and maybe get a little bit frustrated and that's about it? I think lots of high-schoolers are probably already in those boats, because of everything else about their environment.
It's a much better position to be in, to where you can try to find a way to absorb every piece of information and rationally put it into it's own self-contained perspective, and construct your own perspective from the many internally consistent ones that exist, but I think that's asking a lot of empathy and thought out of most people, who are already totally overburdened with things like schoolwork, work, and poverty. I think the approach, constantly, that education is the way out, education is the way forward, the way of the future, if only we educate the next generation enough, somehow, they'll save us, they'll save themselves, that's bullshit, at face. You can only put through so many students to college before someone else falls victim to the zero-sum game, you can only get so many students good, well-paying jobs, some of them have to remain unemployed and homeless and poor for the system to work. Someone has to be a fry cook. I think that's part of why teacher turnover is so high, and wages are proportionally so low to the psychic damage you take, cause the system as a whole is kind of irreconcilable, and you know that a certain percentage of the kids in your class are gonna get shot, die in some horrible way, go to prison, get cancer and not be able to pay the bills, despite whatever you might try to do to improve their chances, and it's hard to dehumanize these kids as not trying hard enough when you know that their parents aren't in a great place and you have to see those kids every day.
how many times is this going to be posted
Feels like simply teaching media literacy would do this job. Is that what they mean? I thought that was a given in any English curriculum.
How about you read the goddamn article
AB 873 passed nearly unanimously in the Legislature, underscoring the nonpartisan nature of the topic. Nationwide, Texas, New Jersey and Delaware have also passed strong media literacy laws, and more than a dozen other states are moving in that direction, according to Media Literacy Now, a nonprofit research organization that advocates for media literacy in K-12 schools.
So yes, it is exactly that.
Haha guilty as charged. Cool rage by the way. Neato
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
