Teachers have always taught students how to vet and analyze information, but helping them distinguish fact from fiction became especially challenging this past fall.
As former President Donald Trump鈥檚 baseless claims that the election was stolen circulated on social media and far-right news sites, students asked about conspiracy theories and falsehoods in class, and teachers struggled to figure out the best way to discuss and confront misinformation.
This week, the RAND Corporation released a designed to support schools in this task.
The standards are part of RAND鈥檚 ongoing project on 鈥渢ruth decay鈥�: a phenomenon that RAND researchers describe as 鈥渢he diminishing role that facts, data, and analysis play in our political and civic discourse.鈥�
To create the list, researchers reviewed 35 sets of standards that cover media literacy in some way, including state technology competencies, standards developed by the International Society for Technology in Education, the Common Core State Standards, and the Next Generation Science Standards.
There鈥檚 a need for this roadmap, specifically focused on helping students identify trustworthy sources of information, evaluate arguments, and distinguish between opinion and fact, said Alice Huguet, a policy researcher at RAND and the first author on the report.
Media literacy can cover skills like parsing political messages and identifying disinformation鈥攍ike conspiracy theories or doctored images. But the term itself is a catch-all, and can refer to analyzing, evaluating, and creating all kinds of communication. Existing sets of media literacy standards often cover things like keyboarding and website design.
鈥淎s we were reading through different media literacy standards, they didn鈥檛 always feel consistently applicable to the issues we鈥檙e dealing with today,鈥� Huguet said.
鈥楴ot Just Fact-Checking鈥�
RAND鈥檚 standards are organized under four sections:
- Seeking a complete understanding of the facts
- Identifying trustworthy sources of information
- Evaluating the credibility of information and soundness of arguments
- Engaging responsibly to counter Truth Decay
The competencies aren鈥檛 subject-specific; they focus on developing habits of thought鈥攍ike recognizing your own knowledge limitations and interrogating the motivations of media-makers鈥攊nstead of building content area knowledge, Huguet said. 鈥淭hat is a mindset that we can promote in all of our classes,鈥� she said.
The standards ask students to develop strategies they can use to fill knowledge gaps, while understanding that some tools鈥攍ike search engines鈥攃an limit perspectives. They require that students be able to evaluate whether sources meet certain journalistic or scientific standards, to analyze whether an argument is supported by evidence, and to consider how the social, political, and historical context of sources influence their meaning. And they ask students to stay open to changing their minds on issues when they encounter new information.
鈥淥ne of the things we鈥檙e trying to draw out from the standards is that media literacy is not just fact-checking,鈥� Huguet said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about helping students think about this interaction that they have with their digital and real-life environments.鈥�
For example, the standards address sharing information on social media: monitoring the consequences of what鈥檚 shared in digital spaces, and sharing content 鈥渞ooted in evidence.鈥�
Instilling these skills in future generations could help slow some of the trends of truth decay鈥攍ike the confluence of opinion and rumor with fact, said Huguet. 鈥淭hat starts somewhere,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hat starts with people sharing information that might not be legitimate.鈥�
But what if it鈥檚 not the students who believe misinformation鈥攍ike the false claim that the election was stolen鈥攂ut the teachers? In the days after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, some school districts learned that their employees had participated.
鈥淭his is the toughest nut to crack,鈥� said Huguet. 鈥淚t actually reminds me a lot of social and emotional learning. 鈥� It鈥檚 similar there, where I hear people talk about, 鈥榃hat if a teacher doesn鈥檛 have social and emotional learning competencies? How are they supposed to teach students about it?鈥欌��
Ideally, Huguet said, schools and districts would have a comprehensive approach to media literacy that would also support teachers developing these skills, as some school systems have done for SEL.
The challenge of supporting teachers while also supporting students, 鈥渉asn鈥檛 stopped us before,鈥� Huguet said.
Exploring Root Causes?
Sarah McGrew, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland College Park鈥檚 College of Education, who studies the spread of online misinformation, agrees it鈥檚 important to have media literacy tools specifically focused on navigating our current information landscape. 鈥淭eachers need as much support and guidance as we can give them,鈥� she said.
But McGrew, who was not involved in writing the RAND standards and reviewed them at 澳门跑狗论坛鈥檚 request, said that she would want more focus on how students鈥� approach to evaluating information should change based on the medium.
鈥淓valuating information online specifically requires a different set of tools than print sources,鈥� said McGrew, who previously co-directed the Stanford History Education Group鈥檚 Civic Online Reasoning project, a curriculum for teaching students how to engage with political information online.
The project teaches 鈥渓ateral reading鈥�: When students find an unfamiliar website, they shouldn鈥檛 first spend time trying to analyze the information, but rather see what other trusted sources say about this new source.
鈥淵ou have to have pretty deep content knowledge to approach anything on any topic and analyze it for bias,鈥� as suggested in the RAND standards, McGrew said. Lateral reading encourages students to recognize that they don鈥檛 know everything, she said, and to rely on experts when appropriate.
Teaching students this understanding is the first standard on RAND鈥檚 list: 鈥淩ecognize limitations of one鈥檚 own knowledge or understanding of the facts.鈥�
Still, teaching students to seek out information to fill gaps in their knowledge isn鈥檛 enough, said Whitney Phillips, an assistant professor of communication and rhetorical studies at Syracuse University, who studies disinformation, political communication, and digital ethics. Students also need to understand that the tools they use to do this, like search engines, are designed in ways that can fuel misinformation.
For example, Phillips said, a student might hear the phrase 鈥渟top the steal鈥濃�攔eferring to the far-right movement baselessly alleging that the election was 鈥渟tolen鈥� from Trump through widespread voter fraud鈥攁nd Google it to figure out what it means.
Sites that are trying to spread the theory use these terms, knowing that it will surface their pages in search results. 鈥淭hat is how keywords are gamed,鈥� Phillips said. Teaching about disinformation should include teaching this kind of context, as well, she said.
The RAND standards include this (鈥淯nderstand how modern information sources and tools can limit available facts and perspectives,鈥�) but Phillips said she鈥檇 like to see a more explicit focus on teaching students how we got to this point.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not that 鈥榯he truth has decayed,鈥欌�� Phillips said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 that network dynamics, the attention economy, algorithmic recommendations, and an asymmetrically polarized information ecosystem have transformed many people鈥檚 relationship to the truth.鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檙e just not going to get very far if we only focus on the symptoms,鈥� Phillips added. 鈥淎nd that is going to require some big, difficult conversations about not only that we鈥檙e in this mess but why.鈥�
Discussing the root causes of disinformation in class can be challenging, Phillips said, because one of its drivers is far-right media. Explaining that these outlets have 鈥渂uilt a business model on spreading falsehood鈥� can invite claims that teachers are politically biased, said Phillips.
But teachers have to confront the reality that facts have become partisan, she said: 鈥淚f we actually care about facts, we have to be willing to call out systemic efforts to manipulate the truth.鈥�
