1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.MISC

  • =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Re=3A_Students's=A0credibility_criteria_for_evalu?= =?I

    From D@21:1/5 to Internetado on Sun Jan 28 15:04:31 2024
    This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
    while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

    On Sat, 27 Jan 2024, Internetado wrote:

    Abstract

    The rise of social media platforms and the subsequent lack of traditional gatekeeping mechanisms contribute to the multiplied spread of scientific misinformation. Particularly in these new media spaces, there is a rising need for science education in fostering a science media literacy that enables
    students to evaluate the credibility of scientific information. A key determinant of a successful credibility evaluation is the effectiveness of the criteria students apply in this process. However, research suggests that existing credibility criteria are often not integrated into students' actual
    social media evaluation behavior. This hints to a lack of transferability of the existing criteria. As a consequence, knowledge about how learners evaluate credibility in social media is a first step in closing this gap. In the present study, we report results from six focus groups with 21 10th-grade
    students (M = 15 years, 57% female, 38% male, 5% nonbinary) about their usage
    of different credibility criteria in the case of social media posts about climate change. The data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis and as a first step assigned to established credibility dimensions of content
    (what?) and source-related criteria (who?). Additionally, given the complexity of social media, we also added a composition-based category (how?). In a second analysis step, we adapted our subcategories to the recently proposed credibility heuristic by Osborne and Pimentel. The findings
    suggest that students generally take criteria from all three heuristic credibility dimensions into account and combine different criteria when evaluating the credibility of scientific information in social media. Based on the application of the credibility criteria to the heuristic, implications
    for the development of teaching materials for fostering science media literacy are discussed.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21855?af=R


    With the growing specialization and politization of science, the idea that
    the common man should be able to detect anything but the simplest
    statistical shenanigans is completely absurd.

    The only way is the way of reputation where journalists take on that role,
    and by _not_ engaging in polarization and click-bait build their
    reputation as trust worthy sources of scientific editors and writers.

    But media today as completely abandoned that role, and politicians, in
    order to get easily controlled populations, have worsened the quality of schools.

    Add to that wokeism and cultural relativism which does not value science
    and objective fact, and you have a recipe for our current disaster and why authoritarianism is on the rise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Julieta Shem@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Sun Jan 28 22:49:10 2024
    D <[email protected]> writes:

    On Sat, 27 Jan 2024, Internetado wrote:

    [...]

    With the growing specialization and politization of science, the idea
    that the common man should be able to detect anything but the simplest statistical shenanigans is completely absurd.

    I didn't get this. It's absurd the idea that the common man should
    detect simple statistical nonsense. Why is that absurd? It also
    puzzled me the introduction---``with the growing...''. I'm
    grammatically and semantically puzzled. Can you elaborate? I feel
    you're implying a cause-effect relationship here. It's not clear.

    The only way is the way of reputation where journalists take on that
    role, and by _not_ engaging in polarization and click-bait build their reputation as trust worthy sources of scientific editors and writers.

    That'd be great, but I wouldn't count on it. I believe we're on our
    own.

    But media today as completely abandoned that role,

    Today it is there for anyone to see, but they abandoned that decades
    ago. Powerful groups destroyed the press everywhere. It makes perfect
    sense for powerful groups. They have the means and they don't like a
    free press, so they destroyed the free press there was. It makes
    perfect sense. We have a new problem now. How to build a free press in
    such context. That's a new problem.

    and politicians,

    The free politician went away along with the free press. Politicians
    are now employees of the powerful groups---on average, of course.

    in order to get easily controlled populations, have worsened the
    quality of schools.

    That I'm not sure. It's not clear to me what the cause of the decay in education.

    Add to that wokeism and cultural relativism which does not value
    science and objective fact, and you have a recipe for our current
    disaster

    We're surely in a mess.

    and why authoritarianism is on the rise.

    It's not clear to me that cultural relativism is a certain cause of authoritarianism. I tend to look at both as effects of something else,
    which is not clear what.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)