Abstract
AbstractThe current media eco-system has become more and more polluted by the various avatars of “fake news”. This buzz term has been widely used by academics, experts, teachers and ordinary people, in an attempt to understand and address the phenomenon of information disorder in the new media environment. However, studies have rarely questioned what teachers, key stakeholders in the media literacy field, actually understand by “fake news”, and to what extent the new digital tools available to fact-check are actually viable solutions to fight disinformation actively. In this context, we conducted focus groups (N = 34 people interviewed in 4 focus groups) with teachers in four countries (France, Romania, Spain and Sweden), in order to assess their understanding of “fake news”, as well as their perception of possible measures to combat the phenomenon, with a particular focus on digital tools. The findings show that the understanding of the concept of “fake news” differs from one country to the other, but also within the same country, with a common feature across countries: intention to deceive. Additionally, respondents identified lack of media and information literacy (MIL) in education as a major gap for combatting information disorders. Furthermore, they find that the use of digital tool for professional fact-checking needs to be repurposed or followed by pedagogical instructions to fit into the complexity of educational practices. Our findings highlight possible solutions for MIL in education using a combination of technocognition and transliteracy as theoretical framework and scaffolded pedagogical design for better adoption of fact-checking techniques.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference64 articles.
1. Akkerman SF, Bronkhorst LH, Zitter I (2013) The complexity of educational design research. Qual Quant 47(1):421–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9527-9
2. Anderson T, Shattuck J (2012) Design-based research: a decade of progress in education research? Educ Res 41(1):16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11428813
3. Barbour R, Kitzinger J (1999) Introduction: the challenge and promise of focus groups. In: Barbour R, Kitzinger J (eds) Developing focus group research: politics, theory and practice. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 1–20
4. Barton KC (2015) Elicitation techniques: getting people to talk about ideas they don’t usually talk about. Theory Res Soc Educ 43(2):179–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2015.1034392
5. Breakstone J, Smith M, Wineburg S, Rapaport A, Carle J, Garland M, Saavedra A (2019) Students’ civic online reasoning: a national portrait. Resour doc. Stanford History Education Group, Stanford. https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/gf151tb4868/Civic%20Online%20Reasoning%20National%20Portrait.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2020
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献