We live in an age when politicians, advertisers, and others develop and distribute fake news to sell their wares. It’s more important than ever for people to have the digital skills to check the accuracy of what they see online.
A recent study conducted by Stanford University researchers reached a sobering conclusion. Most students don’t know how to fact-check what they see online.
The University published the following survey of the results:
A new national study by Stanford researchers showing a woeful inability by high schoolers to detect fake news on the internet suggests an urgent need for schools to integrate new tools and curriculum into classrooms that boost students’ digital skills, the study’s authors say.
In the largest such study undertaken, researchers from Stanford Graduate School of Education devised a challenge for 3,446 American high school students who had been carefully selected to match the demographic makeup of the American population.
Rather than conduct a standard survey, in which students would self-report their media habits and skills, the research team came up with a series of live internet tasks. The results, published online this week in the journal Educational Researcher, highlight what the researchers say is an urgent need to better prepare students for the realities of a world filled with a continual flow of misleading information.
“This study is not an indictment of the students—they did what they’ve been taught to do—but the study should be troubling to anyone who cares about the future of democracy,” said Joel Breakstone, director of the Stanford History Education Group and the study’s lead author. “We have to train students to be better consumers of information.”
In one of the study’s tasks, students were shown an anonymously produced video that circulated on Facebook in 2016 claiming to show ballot stuffing during Democratic primary elections and asked to use Internet-enabled computers to determine whether it provided strong evidence of voter fraud.
Students tried, mostly in vain, to discover the truth. Despite access to the internet’s powerful search capabilities, just three of the study’s more than three thousand participants — less than one tenth of one percent – were able to divine the true source of the video, which actually featured footage of voter fraud in Russia.
In another task, students were asked to vet a website proclaiming to “disseminate factual reports” about climate change. Ninety-six percent failed to discover the publisher’s ties to the fossil fuel industry. Overall, the researchers found that students were too easily swayed by relatively weak indicators of credibility—a website’s appearance, the characteristics of its domain name, the site’s “About” page, or the sheer quantity of information available on a website, irrespective of the quality of that information.
“Regardless of the test, most students fared poorly, and some fared more poorly than others,” said Sam Wineburg, the Margaret Jacks Professor of Education at Stanford, who co-authored the paper. “It presents a concerning picture of American students’ ability to figure out who produced a given story, what their biases might have been, and whether the information is reliable. More troubling still is how easy it is for agents of disinformation to produce misleading—or even deliberately false stories—that carry the sheen of truth. Coupled with the instantaneous and global reach of today’s social media, it does not bode well for the future of information integrity.”
The researchers suggested potential remedies that might right the ship, including teaching students strategies based on what professional fact checkers do–strategies that have been shown in experiments to improve students’ digital savvy.
“It would be great if all students knew how to take advantage of the full web and had complete command of advanced skills like Boolean operators, but that’s a lot to ask,” Wineburg said. “If you want to teach kids to drive a car, first you have to teach them to stop at red lights and not cross double lines, before learning how a catalytic converter works. As the study shows, a lot of these kids aren’t stopping at red yet.”
It is possible to develop students’ digital literacy skills, Wineburg said. Given the risk to our democracy, it will be critical for schools to integrate these skills into all subjects, from history to math, and at every grade level.
“The kids can do it,” Wineburg said. “We must help get them there.”
The study was funded by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
This is by no means limited to high school students. If it were, the last five years or so of American history would look much, much different.
Good point, Eric.
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT POINT!
My thought, exactly. See my note below.
Not a surprise. A few years ago Stanford surveyed its freshman class and found it had the same problem. And these are students from the most selective university in the country.
Deep, wide reading is the solution. This includes real books, which generally have more reflection than the 24-hour cycle news.
Real Books 🙂 🙂
Some “experts” at Stanford University (eg, Scott Atlas, Hoover Institution Fellow and former chief of neuroradiology at Standard Medical Center) can’t spot fake news either.
And some of them are actually purveyors of it.
Bingo!
Fighting climate change cannot begin with consumers. Recycling, including figuring out which products that claim to be recyclable actually are, is not nearly enough. In order to make any meaningful change, businesses must be regulated in the way they extract resources, and in they way they produce and distribute goods.
Fighting segregation cannot begin with parents. Shopping for integrated schools, including figuring out which businesses that claim to be public schools actually are (none), is not nearly enough. In order to make any meaningful change, schools must be regulated in the way they are funded and in they way they are managed. They must be public schools.
Fighting disinformation cannot begin with consumers. Dealing intelligently with the internet, including figuring out which sites that claim to be factual actually are, is not nearly enough. In order to make any meaningful change, businesses must be regulated in the way they investigate information, and in they way they produce and distribute claims.
That Stanford has the Hoover Institute casts suspicion on the entire university. And this study, while rightly noting the prevalence of disinformation, wrongly blames the people looking at the websites instead of blaming the websites, and instead of blaming government for failing to regulate the websites. Kinda like blaming teachers for income inequality.
Spot-on last para comment on this study. It’s the usual libertarian worship of unfettered capitalism that has weirdly become mainstream among Republicans. That freedom of choice beats out quality, public goods, even the Bill of Rights. We’re all consumers, so caveat emptor. Consumers have only themselves to blame for not informing themselves on comparative value of options– while making that an impossibility through deregulation of everything in sight. Etc.
Well said! Elizabeth Warren started the consumer protection agency because unregulated capitalism produces fraud and misleading information. The for-profit colleges like ITT Tech misled so many working class and poor students with promises of great jobs. Not everyone is a savvy consumer. All these young people got was a huge debt.
“this study, while rightly noting the prevalence of disinformation, wrongly blames the people looking at the websites instead of blaming the websites, and instead of blaming government for failing to regulate the websites”
“blame” is not always dished out by those interested in truth.
If large enough number of people blame” Twitter or YouTube for airing ideas that those people find unpalatable or even offensive , it could very well result in censorship even of facts because in the end, social media (and even news media) are responsive to public pressure.
Media organizations and even government are not always good judges of what is true and accurate (to put it mildly), so depending on them to decide what is and is not “permissible” is not necessarily going to result in a well informed populace.
The latter can only result if the consumers of the information have the skills to sift thru the information and decide for themselves what is wheat and what is chaff, what is reliable and what is not.
It doesn’t make any sense for the government to censor specific content on YouTube and Twitter. What makes sense is for Alphabet Inc and Twitter Inc to be held responsible for the content they publish, just as Simon & Schuster and New York Times Co are responsible for the content they publish. We know how to make publishing laws: copyright, defamation, libel, contracts, privacy… It would put the lid back on Pandora’s Box to enforce laws we already have and treat Google like Penguin Random House. As it stands, the internet is allowed to create its own ethical standards. Twitter Inc is financially rewarded for publishing blatant lies because the lies are popular. No consequences for Twitter. Turn the reward into a punishment. The result would be a much smaller internet, and therefore, a better world.
I realize what I am saying. WordPress would likely be unwilling to publish my comments here. Making internet companies responsible for their content would be well worth the sacrifice.
Good ideas! Between your suggestions and reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, we could mitigate a lot of the damage. I am tired of being personally responsible for navigating an increasingly complex world on my own. That and the fact that certain forces are trying to turn that world into a totally capitalist system where everyone is trying to sell something, product or idea, and short term profits seem to come first, more often than not, makes decision making very difficult. I so want the idea of common good to come back in favor!
I too am a victim of the internet. YouTube’s suggested videos heavily and negatively influenced my admittedly poor behavior during the 2016 election. Their algorithms found my weak point. Alphabet Inc made money. I did not vote.
“Twitter Inc is financially rewarded for publishing blatant lies because the lies are popular.”
Companies like Twitter, Fakebook and Google (YouTube)are going to do whatever makes them the most money and usually that means what is most popular.
So what they allow and don’t allow (what they censor) is really independent of what is true and what is false.
If there is enough public pressure, they will censor stuff regardless of its veracity (or lack thereof)
It’s actually foolish to assume that these companies should or even can be the arbiter of truth and even more foolish to rely on them for facts.
Only an idiot would just assume that what they read on Twitter is necessarily true.
It’s a vacuous medium if ever there was one.
Twitter is basically a “stream of consciousness” medium.
Or maybe “stream of incontinence” would be more apt.
Cuz a lot of what is on there is just fecal matter.
What never ceases to amaze me is the stupid stuff that otherwise intelligent people (eg, scientists) post on Twitter.
It’s like they check their brain at the door before they enter.
The mere fact that they post stuff there tells you a lot.
That’s what independent auditors are for. Like you said, Twitter has no interest in monitoring itself, just as the restaurant down the street has no interest in monitoring whether there are roaches in the walls. John Oliver, talking about how PACE loans allow contractors to scam people into ridiculously high property taxes, said recently, “The only thing that should change value that dramatically is if Elon Musk sh-ts out a tweet about it. We truly live in the best possible system… There is no independent party required to assess whether your renovations would cut anywhere close to enough energy costs to be worth it, which really seems like something you’d want verified by a third party. It’s the same reason we have independent health inspectors put a letter grade outside a restaurant, as opposed to letting the owner put up his own sign that says: Trust me, it’s clean.” And it really matters because markets rise and fall, elections are won and lost, and lives are glorified and completely ruined because people are able to manipulate stock prices, democracy, and basic human decency with a phone. And the cost of social media vastly outweighs the benefit, which is what exactly? Pictures of cute cats?
What constitutes “fake” news? The “trusted” mainstream news spent four years promoting ridiculous Russiagate conspiracy theories that have all been thoroughly debunked, but yet none of you consider that “fake news”. Everything the mainstream media presents us is fake news, aka propaganda, in support of U.S. imperialist agendas. How can anyone “fact check” anything when the allegedly trustworthy mainstream media are the biggest purveyors of lies?
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/06/13/the-difference-between-totalitarian-regimes-and-free-democracies/
Debunked !
.
You are right some of us don’t call this collusion between Paul Manafort , Donald Trump and the Russians , we call this a chargeable offense . Conspiracy against the United States.
“Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant and known Russian Intelligence Services agent implementing influence operations on their behalf. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, Kilimnik provided the Russian Intelligence Services with sensitive information on polling and campaign strategy.
(FROM TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANGER Paul Manafort)
Additionally, Kilimnik sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In 2018, Kilimnik was indicted on charges of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice regarding unregistered lobbying work. Kilimnik has also sought to assist designated former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych. At Yanukovych’s direction, Kilimnik sought to institute a plan that would return Yanukovych to power in Ukraine. ”
Fake News .
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126
Joel Herman offended Zuckerberg’s algorithms. So Joel Willy will be taking his place for the next 28 days.
Something about the above mentioned behavior being a capital crime.
Are you a freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior?
dienne77,
How do you fact check what Caitlin Johnston tells you? Why do her readers believe there was so much massive voter fraud that the laws passed in Republican states were necessary? Why do her readers believe that Trump extorting Ukraine to provide dirt on his political opponent – and announce it publicly so that it seemed like it wasn’t the result of extortion that would cause the massive loss of Ukrainian lives — was perfectly fine and should be condoned and not investigated? Why is she your “trusted source”? Says a lot about your understanding of how to evaluate sources.
If anything, the mainstream media played down all of the connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, with the NYT going so far as to declare that the FBI has “totally exonerated Trump” before the election. Caitlin Johnstone and you are constantly making claims that simply aren’t true — but provide very little argument to support it except for links to other people saying the same thing you are who provide little argument.
The NYT gets things wrong. But they also issue corrections — something that I am still waiting for Caitlin Johnstone to do.
By the way, I live in the same reality that Bernie Sanders and AOC live in. You somehow believe they are both fools who have no idea how to evaluate media because they just don’t see the reality that you Caitlin, and all the people who still “know” Trump won embrace.
I assume you also refused to have you or your family vaccinated,too?
Dienne, why did Reality Winner go to jail for leaking secret information about Russian hacking of the 2016 election? Why did she leak them to The Intercept?
Why did The Intercept burn their source? Would those who did have done so if Reality Winner’s leak had helped prove their false narrative instead of discrediting it.
There are some cable channels that claim to report the “news” but the methods they choose underscore their biases. One America News and Newsmax are notorious for this. The latter’s logo is emblazoned in red, white, and blue.
Many of their stories start out with clips of the Revolutionary War, focuses on the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and actual footage of the United States fighting fascism during World War II. They “massage” American values for their viewers, and then launch into clips of support of Trump, and the last four or so years.
The 21st Century version of Propaganda through Television.
We must teach our citizens to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. And it must be taught in our public schools. Give a student two newspapers of the same story, one from the conservative view and one that is liberal, and ask them to list similarities and differences, and then teach them to search for the truth.
Industry direction and manipulation of public education has been going on forever, though.
I’m sure you’ve all seen the high school tests West Virginia used that were written by coal companies. That was in 1920. They essentially propagandized the whole public school population of West Virginia, which may go a long way to explain some of West Virginia’s economic stagnation.
Stanford is home to a lot of the tech industry’s biggest players. They are absolutely selling and marketing tech products in public schools and they have been doing it for years with the enthusiastic support of the federal government. I watched a Google school product roll out in Chicago that was a 45 minute ad for Google, using public school students and some token “donation” of product. Whatever pittance they donated to that school system was an absolute bargain.
Chiara, you are right; “Whatever pittance they donated to that school system was an absolute bargain.”
Ugh. I so resent how it’s demanded we be grateful. Give me a break. They’re pitching this product to public schools. It’s a transaction.
Maybe if we would stop romanticizing the “donations” and call them what they are – a sales pitch- we would have better, more rigorous analysis of them before the salespeople foist them on every public school student in the country.
And elite colleges and universities are not immune. Harvard has that ridiculous “education disruption” division that is unrestrained cheerleading for every dumb fad and gimmick these salespeople dream up.
Sell ed tech product. Go crazy. Just stop calling it anything other than sales. That’s all it is.
Facebooks “education division”. What can these people possibly think that’s about? They’re really naive enough to think these giant tech companies are engaged in some kind of charity mission? It’s an absolutely cut throat industry and this is just another market segment
It would be a healthier and more honest relationship if public schools approached it as purchasing product from contractors. Strip away all the Ted Talk touchy feely and decide to buy or not buy what Google and Facebook are selling. Stop turning these people into “heroes” for the privilege of buying their products. Make them WORK for the huge contracts public schools dole out. Public schools are buyers. They’re not needy charity cases who have to kowtow to Zuckerberg. It’s the other way around.
And get the federal government out of the business of promoting these products. It’s not their role. They’re supposed to be arms length regulators, not salespeople.
Arne Duncan should not be demanding public school principals sign “vows” to buy tech product. I don’t know- is he on commission? Why are public employees selling this junk to public schools?
Tell me about it. I’ve posted before about how Amazon has donated to my community college, and now the dept supervisor has gone hog-wild over AWS. He’s stuffed AWS in multiple courses, calls himself the “AWS Ambassador”, and in short has pretty much wrecked the course I teach, intro to programming. Oh, the latest wrinkle. He says he wants to create a summer camp for HS students. What does he want it to cover? Programming? Database? HTML? No! It’s gotta be – AWS!!!
“Donated”.
Amazon BOUGHT your community college, dirt cheap. We need to stop calling these purchases “donations”.They’re not.
They may as well rename it the Amazon Training Center. Why should Amazon invest in employee training when they can pass the cost on to the public?
Sounds to me like a stink-tank identifying an ed-industry market– a sort of call for proposed gimmicks (clothed as silver bullets). The write-up on the Stanford study converts a common problem for all ages to an emergency in our public schools (another one!), requiring a herculean overhaul. Cue the appearance of competing “digital literary skills” curriculum packets.
How about some classroom research basics? Anonymous video footage can be faked, imported from anywhere; ignore it. [Does the general public really need to develop the skills required to chase down the source?] Never get your news from social media (and why not). Learn to distinguish reportage from opinion, regardless of how it’s labelled. Become a detective: hunt down funding sources, and draw conclusions as to their significance. Double-check google— often the news outlet’s political slant is identified right at Wikipedia (or you can check Media Bias Ratings AllSides). Google the writer’s name too, to make sure you haven’t missed something obvious. Map out the logic of an opinion piece: can you find holes?
And absolutely—as SteveB recommends above– compare various newspapers’ reports of the same stories to tease out bias. Way back in 1960, my 7th-grade social studies teacher had us do that with several major newspapers as well as a selection of news-analysis quarterlies as part of a months-long project on learning the meaning of “liberal” and “conservative.”
The internet fact check is useless without the ability to check the fact checker. To do that one has to have the education to be able to recognize when consent is being manufactured . To recognize group think ! To contextualize the subject matter.
The skill of searching the internet is the least of our worries.
Checking the Checkers
Students need detectors
To sense the rank manure
That’s coming from the checkers
And other folks, for sure
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY BOOKS GAVE BEEN ABOUT. A NEW ONE, WITH SPECIFICS, IS IN THE WORKS!!!!!!!
IT can also be traced back to school librarians, educators that taught how to evaluate sources. Administrators felt that everything was online – why have a library. Good bye certified and trained professional that was all about accurate information.
As Joni Mitchell sang, “You don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone. Closed up the stacks and they put in a coax line”
I’m reading ed reformers and it’s interesting- they no longer even pretend it isn’t about privatizing the whole system:
“The two generic reform hypotheses should live comfortably next to each other. When we have a full-fledged system of choice and competition, every education provider will still need high standards and accountability, although not necessarily dictated through a top-down, command-and-control system. As we are building toward that system of choice and competition, well-designed standards and accountability systems would be beneficial for students.”
Will the public feel they have been misled when they realize this entire “movement” had only one goal, and it was to completely privatize US K-12 education?
Talk about a bait and switch. This has to be one of the great bamboozles of all time. They couldn’t sell privatization to they cloaked it in “improving public schools”. Now they’ve quietly dropped that part.
https://www.educationnext.org/betsy-devos-future-of-education-reform/
“As we are building toward that system of choice and competition, well-designed standards and accountability systems would be beneficial for students.”
This is why ed reform invests nothing in public schools- they’re “building toward a system of choice”
Your kids happen to be attending the public schools these folks have already determined will be phased out. That’s why there’s no investment or support of your schools- they’re winding them down to replace with the schools they prefer.
I tell public school supporters and parents to read ed reformers- I think a lot of people have no idea how ideologically committed they are to eradicating public schools, but within the echo chamber they discuss it openly.
I do not think Traitor Trump and/or the leadership of the Republican Party will want anyone to learn those skills.
Neither of these links to the studies works without a login. Could they be made available in another format?
The summary provided the gist of the study. I can’t get behind the paywall.
Ironic, isn’t it, that you have to pay for the results to a study that shows people are not able to get the facts they need?
If the internet providers had their way, all information on the internet would be behind a paywall and the more accurate the information, the more you would have to pay. So only those with money would have access to the truth.
On an unrelated note, why do only Happy Fathers get a day?
I seriously doubt that teaching students how to search using Boolean operators is going to have a major impact on their ability to fact check online. What’s needed is a vast familiarity with a vast number of reliable, authoritative sources against which something can be checked–something that can only be developed over considerable time and, ipso facto, isn’t going to be possessed by young people. Because ours is a culture that worships youth and doesn’t revere age, we have a tendency to ignore (or, rather, not to assume) the callowness of youth–the fact that young people, because they are young, have very little experience of and information about most things.
The proper comparison, ofc, is to well-educated adult life-long learners, who would be the right benchmark for comparison (using the industry definition of “benchmark,” not the weird Educationese one.
cx: end parend before the last period
Good thing you didn’t put it after the period.
All hell would have broken loose on the internet.
Yes, the fates of worlds hang on my getting the punctuation right!
Agreed.
Wineburg is the edu-world’s designated savior for the fake news problem –his ideas dominate history teaching conferences these days. But he’s offering false salvation. How many teens are going to employ the fact-checking strategies he advocates once they finish their contrived fact-checking assignments? I can tell you: zero. How do I know? Because neither I nor any other adult I know uses these strategies. They’re way too cumbersome. Educated adults suss out the truth using another mechanism. I suspect it’s fact checking against a built-in, ever-expanding data base of approved knowledge in our long-term memories, as I think you’re describing here, Bob. Whatever it is, it’s this mechanism that we should install in kids’ brains, not Wineburg’s fashionable but untested and destined-to-fail methods.
(I hope someone actually does a follow-up study to see if kids trained in these techniques ever use them.)
I came across this study whilst doing graduate work in Finland and decided to replicate it with an international school there. The comparative value of the results were fascinating:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1475240919830003
Very interesting. In Scandinavia in general students read lots of literature, have a rich varied curricula and discuss issues that promote critical thinking. When they graduate from high school, they write a paper and defend it almost like a mini-thesis. The IB students are the top Finnish students in the country, and they have better fake news detection skills than students at Stanford U.
Interesting study. Has ramifications for more than critical thinking skills transfer. How do we apply the knowledge we gain in everyday lives?
Most students don’t know how to fact-check what they see online.
Most adults don’t have this skill either. Either that or they don’t use it. Why else would lies profligate? Billionaires own the media and decide what gets printed.
I think the main problem is billionaires simply can’t tell the truth.
“Truthful billionaire” is an oxymoron.
In fact, they would not be billionaires if they had any tendency to tell the truth.
The Liar Gene
If Billyanaires
Could tell the truth
About their wares
We’d have the proof
That lying ain’t
Within their genes
But lying trait’s
The ways and means
Of Billyanaire
So gene is there
Most adults don’t have this skill –and even if they did, who would use it? Would you? I don’t. It’s silly to imagine that we’re going to turn kids into habitual fact-checkers.
Ponderosa: Our country is having a serious problem simply because “ANYTHING repeated often enough becomes a ‘fact'”.
Yes. I wish elementary and HS school teachers would repeat actual facts over and over so that kids emerged from school with heads that contained actual facts with which they could compare the pseudo-facts being thrown at them. I suspect this may be the only cure, but it runs counter to all trends in education these days
The study was funded by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. That’s all I need to know.