c/ireland · by FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world · 1y

How do you teach your kids Digital Literacy and Critical Thinking?

For some of us, the all-consuming preoccupation with leaving cert exams have given way to other things. Our kids will soon be exposed to new ideas and unfamiliar sources.

Our kids learned that misinformation and disinformation exists, but it didn’t go as far identifying the more subtle (and common) forms of it. I’d appreciate any concrete ideas for what to teach them, and how to make it interesting. In my experience, if the message is in any way long winded I lose their attention.

I’ve drafted something which I’ll put in a comment below. But basically what served me well growing up was learning about how bias emerges in myself (fallacies, emotional reasoning, basic psychology) as well as in the media (journalists with a pattern of chanting for one perspective, absent or misinterpreted sources, history of credibility, “Chinese whispers” on social media, etc).

6 points · 8 comments · view on lemmy.world

8 Comments

Auster@thebrainbin.org · 4 pts · 1y (4 replies)

More of a tip for adults, but maybe it can be adapted for kids?: to think what could be the intention behind the intention

For example, in a video where the content creator promotes a gacha (gambling) game, one could ask, "why would he/she do that"? Likely to promote it. But "why would he/she want to promote it"? Likely because he/she profits from it.

It's not a fail-proof method, but it helps seeing tendencies and attempts at social engineering, both in places you'd be normally against, or even in places you'd root for.

governorkeagan_@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y

I really like that approach, thanks for sharing!

FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y (2 replies)

That's critical thinking in action there. Very engaging for the kids too. It's probably more interesting for them than just watching the ad. Well done!

Auster@thebrainbin.org · 3 pts · 1y (1 reply)

By the by, a word of caution, the person doing the analysis could also be limited by his/her own tendencies.

For example, if I didn't know some things regarding violins, I could think them often being "dusty" and "greasy" is a sign of poor cleaning habits and would start my analysis from there, when instead this "dust" and "grease" is a single thing, a resin used in the bow to improve the friction with the violin's own cords, and by extension, improving the sounds themselves. And this resin comes off as you play the instrument. Sure, a bit of cleaning, or lack thereof, may be at play, but in the first line of thought, I'd already expect it to be the whole issue since the beginning.

FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y

Great point, I had overlooked that. I had intended that all this good work would implicitly show that we have our biases too, but it's important to be explicit about it.

cloudless@piefed.social · 3 pts · 1y (1 reply)

[ removed ]

FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y

Very wise and effective advice there:

Using ads is a great technique! They see them all the time and whatever you've taught them gets constantly reinforced afterwords. Great suggestion!
Admitting that we ourselves get it wrong sometimes is really important to help them escape black and white thinking.
Being conscious of the idea of evidence itself encourages critical thinking before evaluating conclusions.

Very, very good advice for parenting young kids. Thank you.

FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y (1 reply)

Ideas for things to teach:

Fact vs opinion
Common thinking vs critical thinking (ie, putting aside personal opinions and feelings.)
Logic and arguments (how premises are built to arrive at conclusions)
Logical fallacies (there are quite a few, and they distort the premises to arrive at an erroneous conclusion)
Credibility: Assess the historical and current credibility of a source.
Long-term vs short-term thinking: some agreeable ideas might come back to bite us in the future. Deep thought (critical thinking) required here.
Social media algorithms: How they shape our news, and even our Netflix choices.
Deepfakes and misinformation
Ethics

Besides explaining the above, I'm thinking of exercises or examples such as the following:

Go through an article and identify factual vs opinion statements on an opinion article on the journal.ie / irish examiner or rte websites. They usually reference some facts while sharing the authors opinions.
Show how reading a headline casually vs the article critically influences our conclusion (A Waterford Whispers News article could be a good example here)
Imagine you're in court and want to prove to the judge that you're a Batman (or whatever) fan, what evidence or past actions would you present first to help them arrive at the conclusion we want?
There are ten common fallacies that are intentionally or unintentionally seen in Irish society today. This could be quite a big exercise really.
Some publications have been prosecuted for making false claims. These could be pointed out. A recent example is the Tattle website affecting people in Belfast.
The school phone pouch idea was based on success in other countries. But the cost we were told to consider was just the up-front cost. The ongoing, annual replacement of damaged pouches was not considered.
I'm not sure how to go about this without getting into a two-hour documentary ...
Show them how to use the browser web tools to change a news headline and screenshot it.
Eg, self-driving cars, migrant rescue at sea.

FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y

Regarding point #4, I asked an LLM for the most common logical fallacies that are use to propagate misinformation in the EU today. I asked it to include intentional disinformation as well as unintentional social misinformation, like a friend might share. It came up with this list:

In both disinformation (intentionally deceptive) and unintentional misinformation in Europe today, several logical fallacies frequently appear. These fallacies manipulate reasoning, exploit cognitive biases, and spread misleading narratives. Here are the most common ones:

1. False Dilemma (Black-or-White Fallacy)

Presenting a complex issue as having only two opposing options, ignoring nuance.
Example: "Either we ban all immigration, or Europe will lose its cultural identity."

2. Appeal to Fear (Scare Tactics)

Using exaggerated threats to provoke emotional reactions rather than rational debate.
Example: "If we don’t stop climate policies now, the economy will collapse, and we’ll all freeze in the dark!"

3. Hasty Generalization

Drawing broad conclusions from limited or unrepresentative evidence.
Example: "A few immigrants committed crimes, so all immigrants are dangerous."

4. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

Attacking the person instead of their argument. Common in political debates.
Example: "You can’t trust her opinion on vaccines because she’s paid by Big Pharma."

5. Slippery Slope

Suggesting that a minor action will inevitably lead to extreme consequences without evidence.
Example: "If we allow gay marriage, next people will marry animals!"

6. Appeal to Authority (False Expertise)

Citing an irrelevant or unqualified "expert" to support a claim.
Example: "A famous actor says 5G causes COVID, so it must be true."

7. Cherry-Picking (Suppressed Evidence)

Selectively presenting data that supports a claim while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Example: "This study shows no link between vaccines and autism" (while ignoring 100 other studies that do).

8. Straw Man

Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: "Environmentalists want to ban all cars and force everyone to ride bicycles!"

9. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)

Assuming causation just because two events happened sequentially.
Example: "Crime rates rose after more refugees arrived, so refugees cause crime."

10. Bandwagon Fallacy (Appeal to Popularity)

Claiming something is true or good just because many people believe it.
Example: "Most people in my town think the election was rigged, so it must be true."

Why These Fallacies Spread in Europe

Social Media Algorithms amplify emotionally charged, oversimplified claims.
Polarization leads to echo chambers where fallacies go unchallenged.
Distrust in Institutions makes people more susceptible to alternative narratives.
Cognitive Biases (confirmation bias, in-group favoritism) reinforce fallacious reasoning.

How to Counter Them?

Critical Thinking Education (teaching media literacy in schools).
Fact-Checking (organizations like EUvsDisinfo).
Encouraging Nuance in public debates.

Would you like examples specific to a certain European country or issue?