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
--
[s]
Internetado.
--- You have a fine personality..but not for a human.

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.

D <nospam@example.net> 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.