Differenze di genere nella percezione e valutazione delle fake news: uno studio di caso con studenti di scuola secondaria di secondo grado

Titolo Rivista EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING
Autori/Curatori Daniele Agostini, Corrado Petrucco
Anno di pubblicazione 2020 Fascicolo 2020/2 Lingua Italiano
Numero pagine 0 P. Dimensione file 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/exioa2-2020oa10811
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Vedi l'articolo Scarica l'articolo open access

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Il recente interesse dei media sul tema delle fake news evidenzia che va data una particolare attenzione educativa al fact-checking: ogni studente va formato a queste competenze che gli saranno utili durante il suo curricolo di studi e successivamente anche nei contesti di lavoro e di vita. Sono competenze non solo tecnologiche ma anche di critical thinking e oggi si esplicitano soprattutto come abilità di Information Literacy, ovvero come l’insieme di competenze tecniche e metodologiche che mettono in grado la persona di sapere dove e come cercare le informazioni, di filtrarle efficacemente e soprattutto di valutarle in modo adeguato (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). Nell’articolo vengono presentati i risultati di una indagine esplorativa su 184 studenti del terzo e quarto anno di scuola secondaria di secondo grado (16-18 anni) dove esprimono il loro parere sulle istituzioni che più dovrebbero occuparsi del problema (scuola e Università). In particolare, vengono confrontate le percezioni e l’approccio al fenomeno delle fake news da parte delle ragazze dei ragazzi che, pur presentando molte somiglianze, differiscono per alcuni aspetti fondamentali, come ad esempio la percezione delle proprie competenze tecnologiche e l’importanza data alle differenti caratteristiche della fonte.;

Keywords:Fake news, Critical Thinking, Competenze Digitali, Information Literacy, Fact-checking, Gender

  1. Asri, M. A. S., & Sualman, I. (2019). The Perception of Young Adults on Credibility of Facebook as a Source of Political Information and Its Effects towards Their Political Behaviour. Journal of Media and Information Warfare, 12(1), 33-72.
  2. Bakir, V., & McStay, A. (2017). Fake News and The Economy of Emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645
  3. Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2015). Introduction to information science. Facet Publishing.
  4. Belhadjali, M., Whaley, G. L., & Abbasi, S. M. (2017). Online Information Systems: Who Should be Responsible for Preventing the Spread of Fake News?. Archives of Business Research, 5(12).
  5. Berinsky, A. (2017). Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political disinformation. The British Journal of Political Science.
  6. Blakeslee, S. (2010). Evaluating information: Applying the CRAAP test. Chico, CA: Meriam Library, California State University.
  7. Bontcheva, K., Gorrell, G., & Wessels, B. (2013). Social media and information overload: Survey results. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.0813.
  8. Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). The digital competence framework for citizens. Publications Office of the European Union. http://svwo.be/sites/default/files/DigComp%202.1.pdf.
  9. CENSIS (2017). Quattordicesimo rapporto sulla comunicazione. I media e il nuovo immaginario collettivo. FrancoAngeli ed.
  10. Chen, X., Sin, S. C. J., Theng, Y. L., & Lee, C. S. (2015). Why students share misinformation on social media: motivation, gender, and study-level differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41(5), 583-592. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.003
  11. Dentith, M. R. X. (2017). The problem of fake news. Public Reason, 8(1-2), 65-79.
  12. Elstad, E., & Christophersen, K. A. (2017). Perceptions of digital competency among student teachers: Contributing to the development of student teachers’ instructional self-efficacy in technology-rich classrooms. Education Sciences, 7(1), 27. DOI: 10.3390/educsci7010027
  13. European Commission (2018). Fake News and Disinformation Online. Flash Eurobarometer 464. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/82797.
  14. Flanagin, A. J., Winter, S., & Metzger, M. J. (2018). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society, 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1547411
  15. Flaxman, S., Goel, S., & Rao, J. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public opinion quarterly, 80(S1), 298-320. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfw006
  16. Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., Allison, E., & Campbell, C. (2017). What we have changed our minds about: Part 2. Borderline personality disorder, epistemic trust and the developmental significance of social communication. Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation, 4(1), 9. DOI: 10.1186/s40479-017-0062-8
  17. Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the classroom. Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 12-18.
  18. Head, A., Wihbey, J., Metaxas, P. T., MacMillan, M., & Cohen, D. (2018). How students engage with news: Five takeaways for educators, journalists, and librarians. Project Information Literacy Research Institute. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3503183
  19. Ilomäki, L., Paavola, S., Lakkala, M., & Kantosalo, A. (2016). Digital competence – an emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 655-679. DOI: 10.1007/s10639-014-9346-4
  20. Ipsos MORI (2018). Fake news, filter bubbles and post-truth are other people’s problems. News & Polls. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/fake-news-filterbubbles-and-post-truth-are-other-peoples-problems. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-
  21. 8013-5_1.
  22. Jessen, J., Jørgensen, A. (2012). Aggregated trustworthiness: Redefining online credibility through social validation. First Monday, 17(1), http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3731/3132. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v17i1.3731
  23. Khalid, S., Saeed, M., & Syed, S. (2016). Impact of Information Overload on Students’ Learning: An Empirical Approach. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 10(1), 58.
  24. Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 135-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001
  25. LaRiCa – Università degli studi di Urbino (2017). Le fake-news sono un problema. A cura di Mazzoli, L., Giglietto F.,Carabini F. & Marino G., https://newsitaliadotorg.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/larica_fakenews.pdf.
  26. Lazer, D. M., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., ... & Schudson, M. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao2998
  27. Leeder, C. (2019). How college students evaluate and share “fake news” stories. Library & Information Science Research, 41(3), 100967. DOI: 10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100967
  28. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social Media & Mobile Internet Use among Teens and Young Adults. Millennials. Pew internet & American life project.
  29. Mahmood, K. (2016). Do people overestimate their information literacy skills? A systematic review of empirical evidence on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Communications in Information Literacy, 10(2), 3. DOI: 10.15760/comminfolit.2016.10.2.24
  30. Mahmood, K. (2017). Reliability and validity of self-efficacy scales assessing students’ information literacy skills. The Electronic Library. DOI: 10.1108/el-03-2016-0056
  31. Mazzoleni, G. (2017). Changes in contemporary communication ecosystems ask for a “new look” at the concept of mediatisation. Javnost-The Public, 24(2), 136-145.
  32. McGrew, S., T. Ortega, J. Breakstone & S. Wineburg, (2017). The Challenge That’s Bigger Than Fake News: Teaching Students to Engage in Civic Online Reasoning. American Educator.
  33. Mese, C., & Aydin, G. S. (2019). The Use of Social Networks among University Students. Educational Research and Reviews,14(6), 190-199.
  34. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
  35. Neumann, C. (2016). Teaching digital natives: Promoting information literacy and addressing instructional challenges. Reading Improvement, 53(3), 101-107.
  36. Notley, T., Dezuanni, M., Zhong, H. F., & Howden, S. (2017). News and Australian children: How young people access, perceive and are affected by the news. Retrieved from the Western Sydney University website: http://handle.westernsydney.edu.au:8081/1959.7/uws:44096.
  37. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin, UK.
  38. Park, C. S. (2019). Does Too Much News on Social Media Discourage News Seeking? Mediating Role of News Efficacy Between Perceived News Overload and News Avoidance on Social Media. Social Media+ Society, 5(3). DOI: 10.1177/2056305119872956
  39. Pop, M. I., & Ene, I. (2019). Influence of the educational level on the spreading of Fake News regarding the energy field in the online environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 13(1), 1108-1117. Sciendo. DOI: 10.2478/picbe-2019-0097
  40. Rampersad, G., & Althiyabi, T. (2020). Fake news: Acceptance by demographics and culture on social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(1), 1-11. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2019.1686676
  41. Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 35(4), 435-448. DOI: 10.1080/02602930902862859
  42. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2019). Digital News Report 2019. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/DNR_2019_FINAL.pdf.
  43. Robb, M. B. (2017). News and America’s kids: How young people perceive and are impacted by the news. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense.
  44. Shu, K., Wang, S., & Liu, H. (2018). Understanding user profiles on social media for fake news detection. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR) (pp. 430-435). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/mipr.2018.00092
  45. Sloman, S., & Fernbach, P. (2017). The knowledge illusion: Why we never think alone. Penguin.
  46. Southwell, B. G. (2013). Social networks and popular understanding of science and health: Sharing disparities. JHU Press.
  47. Sunstein,C. R., Bobadilla-Suarez, S., Lazzaro, S. C., & Sharot, T. (2016). How People Update Beliefs about Climate Change: Good News and Bad News. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/qn5wp
  48. The Media Insight Project (2016). http://www.mediainsight.org/Pages/a-newunderstanding-what-makes-people-trust-and-rely-on-news.aspx.
  49. Troia, S. (2017). DigComp 2.1: presentazione del modello in italiano, Cittadinanza Digitale.eu http://www.cittadinanzadigitale.eu/blog/2017/11/23/digcomp-2-1/ visitato il Jan 2018.
  50. Wang, L., & Fussell, S. R. (2020). More Than a Click: Exploring College Students' Decision-Making Processes in Online News Sharing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(GROUP), 1-20. DOI: 10.1145/3375189
  51. Wardle, C. (2017). “Fake news”. It’s complicated. Available at: https://medium.com/1st-draft/fake-newsits-complicated-d0f773766c79.
  52. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. European Council.
  53. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2018). Thinking about ‘information disorder’: format of misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. Ireton, Cherilyn; Posetti, nJulie. Journalism, ‘fake news’ & disinformation. Paris: Unesco, 43-54.
  54. Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12164
  55. Weiler, A. (2005). Information-seeking behavior in generation Y students: Motivation, critical thinking, and learning theory. The journal of academic librarianship, 31(1), 46-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2004.09.009
  56. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative Assessment. Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. DOI: 10.1002/pfi.4160290313
  57. Zhang, X., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2020). An overview of online fake news: Characterization, detection, and discussion. Information Processing & Management, 57(2), 102025. DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2019.03.004

Daniele Agostini, Corrado Petrucco, Differenze di genere nella percezione e valutazione delle fake news: uno studio di caso con studenti di scuola secondaria di secondo grado in "EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION IN LEARNING AND TEACHING" 2/2020, pp , DOI: 10.3280/exioa2-2020oa10811