Since the 2016 election the impact of so-called \u201cfake news\u201d \u2013 \u201cintentionally fabricated news articles\u201d (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017, p. 213) \u2013 on American political life has been well documented. According to a recent study (Guess, Nyhan, & Reifler, 2016), one in four Americans visited a fake news site in the month leading up to the presidential election. The Collins Dictionary named \u201cfake news\u201d the \u201cword of the year\u201d (Flood, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Facebook and\nGoogle, under increasing public and political pressure, instituted a series of\nmeasures to help users identify and slow the number of fake news stories that\nare shared and disseminated via their social media networks (Lyons, 2018;\nSchindler, 2018). Today concerns continue about the use of \u201cfake news\u201d as a\ntactic for disrupting American elections, the free press, and open access to\ninformation. Social studies teacher educators work within this complex and\nincreasingly fraught political context. To\nprepare preservice and experienced teachers to meet the new realities of the\nInformation Age, social studies teacher educators must integrate media literacy\nas an essential component of social studies teacher education (Knobel &\nKalman, 2016). <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Teacher\nEducator Technology Competencies (TETCs; Foulger, Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford,\n& Slykhuis, 2017; Foulger, Graziano, Slykhuis, Schmidt-Crawford, &\nTrust, 2016; see also http:\/\/site.aace.org\/tetc\/<\/a>) provide social studies teacher educators with\nguidance for modeling the ethical and socially responsible use of technology. Media literacy within social studies\neducation is clearly needed, and the TETCs offer guidance for integrating it\nwithin contemporary teacher education reform in the social studies. Media\nliteracy seems to be most relevant to the following TETC competencies: <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. a. Model using technology for accessing, analyzing, creating, and evaluating information.<\/p> 9. a. Model the legal, ethical, and socially-responsible use of technology for teaching and learning.<\/p> 10. b. Engage in continuous professional development and networking activities promoting technology knowledge and skills<\/p> (See also http:\/\/site.aace.org\/tetc<\/a>). <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Being\nknowledgeable about the contemporary media or \u201ctransmedia\u201d landscape (the range\nof social media and web-based information) requires a unique set of skills\n(Middaugh, 2018). Today, media literacy includes\nnavigating, judging, and sharing information from a wide variety of sources of\ninformation (Common Sense Media, 2017) to evaluate bias and trustworthiness\n(Middaugh, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n For preservice\nteachers to adopt media literacy as part of their teaching practice, social\nstudies teacher educators must improve their own efficacy navigating social\nmedia, news media, and other sources of information, while integrating media\nliteracy regularly into teacher education programs. Based on our analysis of the relevant\nresearch literature, we offer a five-part action plan for integrating media\nliteracy into social studies teacher education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to concerns about the increasing proliferation of fake news and misinformation, as well as growing awareness of a lack of media literacy among adults and adolescents, there has been a renewed focus on integrating media literacy (Hobbs, 2010; National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 2013a), civic media literacy (Middaugh, 2018; Mihailidis, 2018), news media literacy (Schmeichel et al., 2018), critical media literacy (Joanou, 2017; Kellner & Share, 2005), and civic online reasoning (Breakstone, McGrew, Smith, Ortega, & Wineburg, 2018) into social studies education. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Proponents of each\nof these approaches focus on helping students evaluate the credibility of online\ninformation in order to \u201cuse media with civic intentionality and attention to\ndemocratic principles\u201d (Middaugh, 2018, p. 35). This literacy includes engaging\nin critical analysis of media content and examining latent discourse and bias\ncommunicated through multimodal texts (Hobbs, 2010, 2011; Weninger, Hu, &\nChoo, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Social studies teachers\nwho integrate media literacy into practice encourage critical thinking,\nincluding the consideration of the sociocultural contexts in which media is\nproduced (Flores-Koulish, 2006; Schwarz, 2001). By teaching students essential medial literacy\nskills, social studies teachers prepare students to navigate the demands of\ncontemporary civic life. According to the NCSS position statement, media\nliteracy is integrated into social studies education as a body of \u201cessential\nskills for active citizenship in our democracy\u201d (Hodgin & Kahne, 2016, p.\n183). Despite continued calls for teachers to integrate media literacy into\npractice, the current research literature in the field provides little to\nindicate that social studies teacher education programs adequately prepare\npreservice or experienced teachers to address the challenges posed by fake news\nand misinformation today. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Recent research\nsuggests that integrating carefully designed educational activities focused on\nmedia literacy can have positive impacts on preservice teachers (Robertson\n& Hughes, 2011; Schmeichel et al., 2018; Weninger et al., 2017). While these studies suggest potential benefits of\nincorporating media literacy into teacher education, others highlight\nlimitations to teaching media literacy (Mason, Krutka, & Stoddard,\n2018; Schmeichel et al., 2018; Stoddard, 2014). These obstacles are compounded\nby other issues found in the teacher education literature, in general,\nincluding poor or weak content knowledge, perceived lack of time, limits from\nthe standardized curriculum, unsupportive colleagues or mentors, and low\nself-efficacy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Benefits of integrating media literacy into teacher education<\/em>.<\/strong> Efforts in teaching media literacy to preservice teachers have revealed some success in positively impacting teaching practice when instruction includes prolonged and sustained approaches to teaching media literacy across the teacher education program and thoughtful attention to a range of concepts related to media literacy (Felini, 2014; Meehan, Ray, Walker, Wells, & Schwarz, 2015; Nagel, 2018; Schmeichel et al., 2018; Weninger et al., 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example,\nSchmeichel et al. (2018) presented findings from a design-based study in which\nthey integrated media literacy tasks from the Center for News Literacy across\nmultiple courses and experiences in their social studies teacher education\nprogram. The tasks given to preservice teachers included the consideration \u201cof\nmedia credibility in relation to the creation of media texts, truth, fairness\nand bias in media and ethics in journalism,\u201d and \u201cthe intersection of news\nmedia literacy and social studies\u201d (p. 90). \nThey found that teacher candidates recognized \u201cthe value of news media\nliteracy to social studies education and their students\u2019 capacity to function\nas democratic citizens\u201d (p. 96). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Teacher educators\nhave also focused on measuring preservice teachers\u2019 media literacy competencies\nand developing strategies to encourage preservice teachers to become more\ncritical about social media and media-dominated society. Collectively, this research points to\nemerging understandings about best practices for integrating media literacy\ninto teacher education (e.g., Felini, 2014; Meehan et al., 2015; Nagel, 2018). It also disrupts common assumptions about a\nlack of understanding on the part of teachers about youth and media culture\n(Burn, Buckingham, Parry, & Powell, 2010). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, Weninger\net al. (2017) developed a survey instrument for evaluating the media literacy\nof preservice teachers. They found that teachers used social media as a main source\nof information and generally acknowledge the importance of helping students\ndevelop media literacy to evaluate information. Similarly, Simons, Meeus, and\nT\u2019Sas (2017) found teachers and student teachers self-reported a high level of\nefficacy using and assessing the credibility of a variety of media, as well as regarding\nperceptions about their ability to help learners use media to evaluate\ninformation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The research base also\nincludes studies focused on engaging teachers in critical media literacy. Joanou\u2019s (2017) action research study with practicing K-12 teachers\nenrolled in a graduate education course suggested that in a project incorporating\nmedia literacy the teachers were better able to understand theoretically dense\nconcepts such as unconscious racism. Similarly, Nagle (2018) explored\nstrategies for using Twitter as a pedagogical tool in teacher education courses\nto develop \u201ccritical social media literacy practices\u201d (p. 86), particularly\nrelated to identifying misogyny and racial violence in contemporary culture. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Others, including\nMeehan et al. (2015), found that media literacy can be integrated across a\npreservice teacher education program to focus on critical multicultural issues\nand to prepare teachers for the diverse school settings in which they will\nwork. Across the research base on media\nliteracy and teacher education is evidence that an explicit focus on media\nliteracy education can model strategies for preservice teachers to use in their\nown classrooms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Challenges of media literacy in teacher education.\n<\/em><\/strong>While preservice teachers express enthusiasm about integrating media\nliteracy into instruction, they find it difficult to integrate media literacy\ninto practice (Robertson & Hughes, 2011; Schmeichel et al., 2018; Weninger et al., 2017). For example, despite sustained and\ncollaborative instructional planning in their teacher education program,\nSchmeichel et al. (2018) reported that student teachers expressed a marked lack\nof confidence in their ability to teach media literacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Teacher candidates\nalso point to challenges aligning news media tasks with course content,\nespecially given the absence of media literacy within the standardized\ncurriculum (Stoddard, 2014) or school curriculum (Mason et al., 2018). At the\nsame time, it appears that preservice teachers often lack background knowledge\nwith media literacy, especially if it was not part of their own secondary\neducation (Meehan et al., 2015). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to\nteacher agency and efficacy, relevant research points to external factors that\nmight limit media literacy education. For example, student teachers may\nencounter uncooperative mentor teachers or uneven access to technology in\nschools during their student teaching internships (Robertson & Hughes,\n2011). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Felini (2014)\nidentified five criteria on which to evaluate the quality of media literacy\nactivities \u2013 teaching methods, actors, organization, underlying media literacy\neducation theories, and originality (with 35 indicators across the criteria, see\np. 39). Within each criterion were factors often beyond the control of the\nteacher that limited the success of media literacy activities, including\nparental involvement, [lack of] participation of media professionals, and\naccess to technology. Zhang, Zhu, & Sang (2014) also identified the\nsignificance of professional development and leadership support as factors\nmitigating teachers\u2019 \u201cstages of concern\u201d regarding the integration of media\nliteracy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Collectively,\nthese studies point to an array of factors that might hinder teachers from\nintegrating media literacy that are often beyond the control of individual\nteachers. Weninger et al. (2017) highlighted\n\u201cthe need for careful analyses of the complex interplay of factors, many beyond\nteachers’ immediate control, that ultimately shape what happens in classrooms\u201d\n(p. 430) and recommended that \u201cinvestigations of teachers’ role in media\nliteracy education be couched within a critical examination of institutional\nculture and broader policy priorities\u201d (p. 438). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In many ways the\nchallenges of integrating media literacy for preservice teachers become further\ncomplicated by the issues they face in becoming teachers \u2013 learning to plan\nlessons, understanding content, developing technological pedagogical content\nknowledge, and navigating the complex sociocultural contexts of schools. In\naddition, perceptions about the controversial nature of contemporary media\ntopics makes integrating media literacy into practice even more challenging for\nnovice teachers (e.g., Damico, Baildon, & Panos, 2018; Robertson &\nHughes, 2011). According to Schmeichel et al. (2018), social studies teachers\nface a particularly difficult situation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Social studies education ought to teach evidence and argumentation. However, when what circulates from elected officials defies evidentiary and argumentative norms, many teachers are right to worry that pointing out falsehoods exposes them to the possibility of being labeled ideologically partial to a particular partisan position. Such is the reality of teaching social studies in current times. (p. 95)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n For novice teachers, a fear of\nbeing ideologically partial may persuade them to put media literacy on the\nshelf in favor of safer topics. These\nconcerns must be raised in teacher education programs so that teacher\ncandidates can develop strategies for confronting them in practice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The body of contemporary\nresearch suggests that social studies teacher educators face a variety of\nchallenges in helping preservice and experienced teachers overcome classroom limitations\nto integrating media literacy into practice. Nonetheless media literacy must be\na central component of preservice social studies teacher education (Stoddard,\n2014). Schmeichel et al. (2018) maintained that the integration of media\nliteracy is \u201cone of the most critical issues for social studies educators in\nthe current era\u201d (p. 99), especially given the current context of fake news and\nmisinformation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n New media\ncontinues to challenge our traditional assumptions about the creation and\ndissemination of information in democratic society (Mihailidis, 2018;\nMihailidis & Viotty, 2017). Social studies teachers must understand the\nimplications of the new media landscape on concepts central to social studies\neducation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While current research emphasizes\nthe importance of media literacy in teacher education programs (Knobel\n& Kalman, 2016),\nadditional attention must be given to the media literacy competencies of\nteacher educators themselves. Teacher educators serve as models for their\nstudents regarding media literacy (Schwarz, 2001) yet are prone to the same\npitfalls of social media and misinformation as their students. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, whereas\nprevious work emphasized the need for integrating Web 2.0 technologies to\ntransform schooling, educators now must be more cautious. Social media networks\nsuch as Twitter can provide a space for \u201cparticipatory online communities of\npractice\u201d (Nagle, 2018, p. 87), yet also may expose students to cyber bullying,\nmisogyny, racism, and misinformation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Following is an\noutline of an action plan for integrating media literacy in social studies\nteacher education. Referring to the TETCs, the plan is based on our analysis of\nthe current literature regarding media literacy. Specifically, social studies\nteacher educators can integrate media literacy through five interrelated steps:\n <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the steps of our\naction plan are described independently, they overlap and work in concert. Teacher\neducators who integrate this plan must also \u201cengage in continuous\nprofessional development and networking activities promoting technology\nknowledge and skills\u201d (TETC 10.b) in order to remain abreast of the changing\nnature of contemporary media and technology. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Media literacy and\ncivic engagement are essential skills for democratic citizens. \u201cDemocracies\nrely on informed citizens,\u201d who in turn, rely on various forms of media to\ngather knowledge and make reasoned decisions (Mason et al., 2018, p. 1). Maintenance of a healthy democracy requires\nyoung people to be civically engaged (Middaugh, 2018), and the need for media\nliteracy is perhaps even more critical for the health of democracy in the\ncurrent sociopolitical climate. Not only has social and political polarization increased\n(see Bishop, 2009), but trust in formerly respected sources of information,\nincluding from academic and scientific sources, has declined (Damico et al.,\n2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Technology seems actually to narrow individuals\u2019 perspectives and closes them to a variety of viewpoints (e.g., \u201cthe filter bubble\u201d), which may contribute to increasing political partisanship (Mason, 2015; Stoddard, 2014). Simultaneously, evidence reveals an increasing industrialization and distribution of misinformation online by special interest groups (Hochschild & Einstein, 2015; Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook, 2012). Most <\/strong>democratic theorists agree that access to credible information is an important aspect of democratic deliberation and that “democracy works better when participants care about the accuracy of truth claims” (Kahne & Bowyer, 2017, p 3). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Since democratic\neducation frames the purposes of social studies education, social studies\nteachers and teacher educators must teach media literacy skills. According to Hobbs (2010), comprehensive and\nsystematic media literacy education provides \u201clife skills that are necessary\nfor full participation in our media-saturated, information-rich society\u201d (p.\nvii). A comprehensive media literacy education will support students as they\ndevelop online reasoning, navigate political bias, and, perhaps engage in\nparticipatory online politics. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Recent research\nabout civic online reasoning and political bias suggests social studies\nteachers can provide students with the requisite skills to navigate the\ncontemporary information landscape. According to Kahne, Middaugh, Lee, and\nFeezell (2011), \u201cit seems quite possible that when youth are given structured\nopportunities to develop online skills and enact desired practices (like\nfinding multiple perspectives on an issue), they may become more likely to do\nthese things on their own\u201d (p. 497). Notably, students are increasingly engaged\nin participatory politics online, which social studies teachers may be able to\nleverage for democratic education. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Supporting civic online reasoning<\/em>. <\/em><\/strong>Students are ill-equipped to\nnavigate the credibility of online sources or to engage in civic online\nreasoning (Breakstone et al., 2018; McGrew, Breakstone, Ortega, Smith, &\nWineburg, 2018; Wineburg, McGrew, Breakstone, & Ortega, 2016). According to\nKahne and Middaugh (2012), \u201c47% of teachers reported having observed arguments\nwithin lessons or schoolwork that contained inaccurate Internet-based content\nthey regard as deliberately packaged by the producers to be misleading or\ndeceitful\u201d (p. 55). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The most striking\nexamples include students citing evidence posted by Holocaust deniers in\nresearch reports (Bartlett & Miller, 2011). According to the Stanford\nHistory Education Group (SHEG; Breakstone et al., 2018) students have difficultly\nidentifying inaccurate information and bias in sources they find online. They\nfound that students tend to rely on \u201csurface features\u201d of websites to judge the\nauthenticity of the site\u2019s content and rely on the mere presence of evidence on\na site (graphs, photographs, videos, testimonials, etc.) as markers for\ntrustworthiness. For example, \u201cSixty percent of high school students accepted\nthe video without raising questions about its source. For them, seeing was\nbelieving: The \u2018evidence\u2019 was so compelling that students could see nothing\nelse\u201d (Breakstone et al., 2018, p. 220). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Student political bias<\/em>. <\/em><\/strong>An inability to engage in civic\nonline reasoning is exacerbated by student political bias. Political scientists and civic educators have\nlong pointed to important differences between \u201cdirectional motivation\u201d and \u201caccuracy\nmotivation\u201d (Druckman, 2012; Kahne & Bowyer, 2017; Kunda, 1990; Taber &\nLodge, 2006) in evaluating for bias and credibility. Whereas directional\nmotivation refers to \u201cthe desire to justify conclusions that align with prior\nbeliefs\u201d (Kahne & Bowyer, 2017, p. 6), accuracy motivation leads students to\n\u201cexpend more cognitive effort on issue-related reasoning, attend to relevant\ninformation more carefully, and process it more deeply, often using more\ncomplex rules\u201d (Kunda, 1990, p. 481). <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Lodge\nand Taber (2005), directional motivation can lead individuals to seek out\ninformation that aligns with their views, referred to as \u201cconfirmation bias,\u201d\nand to dismiss arguments that conflict with prior beliefs (\u201cdisconfirmation\nbias\u201d). For example, Kahne and Bowyer\u2019s\n(2017) analysis of survey results revealed, <\/p>\n\n\n\n Even\nwhen presented with a grossly inaccurate statement, a clear majority of youth\n(58%) in the nationally representative Youth Participatory Politics Survey (YPP)\nsurvey agreed that the statement was accurate when those claims were used to\nsupport perspectives that aligned with their ideological perspective. (p. 26). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Research has demonstrated that directional motivation is difficult to overcome, since most political topics elicit strong positive or negative emotional responses, or \u201chot cognition\u201d (Lodge & Taber, 2005). Apparently, prior political knowledge does little to mitigate against directional motivation (Kahne & Bowyer, 2017). However, systematic media literacy education can help promote accuracy motivation among students and, perhaps, lead to \u201ccritical loyalty\u201d \u2013 the ability to adopt a critical stance towards political content, even when it aligns with partisan ideas (Lavine, Johnston, & Steenbergen, 2012)<\/p>\n\n\n\n The systematic and\nintentional integration of media literacy into social studies education\nprovides promise for engaging students in civic online reasoning, healthy\npolitical identity development, and democratic citizenship education, which are\ncentral to the social studies curriculum. For example, according to Kahne et\nal. (2011), \u201cThose [students] who reported taking part in digital media\nliteracy activities in school more frequently reported exposure to diverse\nperspectives\u201d (p. 504). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Drawing upon\nanalysis of the YPP Survey, administered to a nationally representative sample\nof youth ages 15 to 27 between 2011 and 2015, Kahne & Bowyer (2017) explored\nthe impact of prior beliefs, media literacy education, and political knowledge\non judgments of accuracy and truth. Data\nsuggested a positive relationship between media literacy education and\nstudents\u2019 judgments of credibility and accuracy of political content, compared\nto only having prior background knowledge. \nIn a related study, youth who received civic media literacy learning\nopportunities were 26% more likely to correctly identify an evidence-based post\nas \u201caccurate\u201d than they were to judge an inaccurate post as accurate, \u201ceven\nwhen both posts aligned with their perspective on an issue\u201d (Hodgin &\nKahne, 2018, p. 209). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Youth participatory politics. <\/em><\/strong>Within the contemporary context of new media, educators are also witnessing the emergence of online youth participatory politics (Kahne & Middaugh, 2012). According to the Pew Research Center, young people are avid social media users and early adopters of new technology, and they tend to gain most of their information about political and social issues from social media (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Through their use\nof social media, youth have been able to create new spaces for political and\ncivic engagement, providing them with voice and agency outside traditional\npower structures. According to Kahne and\nMiddaugh (2012), online participatory politics appears to “supplement\nrather than supplant traditional [political] activity” (p. 54). For\nexample, “those who engaged in at least one act of participatory politics were\nactually twice as likely to report voting as those who did not” (p. 54). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Further research\nsuggests that participation in both political and nonpolitical activity online\nprovides students with exposure to diverse perspectives (Kahne & Bowyer,\n2017). The research seems to point to\nthe potential for educators to leverage student social media use at a time when\nyouth are primed developmentally to form their political identities (Kahne et\nal., 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n To help teacher\ncandidates leverage trends related to youth participatory politics, social\nstudies teacher educators can model strategies for integrating media literacy\nacross the social studies curriculum. These strategies include identifying\nareas of connection with the standardized curriculum, while also focusing on\nlesson planning that integrates the concepts and skills associated with media\nliteracy. As preservice teachers learn\nabout the history and purposes of the field of social studies education, they\nshould be encouraged to connect media literacy back to these purposes,\nespecially the democratic and civic aims of the social studies and the\ncentrality of reflective inquiry in our field (Parker, 2003). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the next\nsection we describe specific examples for social studies teachers to make\ncurricular connections appropriate for integrating media literacy into the\nsocial studies. We begin by describing the long history of fake news in the\nUnited States. Related to this topic is the history of news journalism,\nincluding ethical guidelines for news reporters. Finally, we suggest strategies\nfor students to critically analyze contemporary examples of fake news, while\nbuilding a repertoire of skills for navigating misinformation online using\nheuristics and other tools. These examples are meant to provide teacher\neducators with tangible approaches to integrating media literacy into social\nstudies teacher education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fake news is not a new phenomenon. Historical examples can be found showing evidence of fake news and misinformation along the continuum between outright hoaxes and deliberately misleading distortions (Manfra, 2019). Across these examples, media should be placed within its proper historical context to understand the sociocultural and political significance, as well as to avoid \u201cpresentism\u201d in the historical investigation (Hunt, 2002). Evaluating historic examples of fake news and news media, in general, provide evidence of the complex interplay between media and popular opinion, bringing up questions related to the extent to which media drives public opinion or reflects public opinion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Hoaxes that\nappeared in newspapers from the past provide contemporary students with\nopportunities to explore media as a cultural construction. For example, the\n\u201cGreat Moon Hoax\u201d story appeared in the New\nYork Sun<\/em> (1835) claiming that life had been discovered on the moon\n(Smithsonian Libraries, 2015). Later,\nduring the Civil War, President Lincoln had to contend with the \u201cGold Hoax\u201d\n(1864), in which a fake report claiming that the president was planning to\nexpand the draft to an additional 400,000 troops appeared in New York\nnewspapers (Blondheim, 2002). While the perpetrator had intended to\nmanipulate the gold market by creating panic, the event caused a crisis for the\nLincoln administration that was already dealing with a protracted war and draft\nriots. By applying discourse analysis to\nthe news articles surrounding the moon hoax and the gold hoax, teachers and\nstudents can develop an appreciation for the concerns of the time and how media\nreflected and shaped those concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Other examples of 19th\nand early 20th century newspaper accounts point to the role of news journalism\nin shaping public opinion about political events. While not outright hoaxes or\nmisinformation, these accounts must be read with an eye toward identifying latent\nbias, especially regarding what is emphasized or omitted in the accounts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, the\nBoston Massacre was widely documented in colonial newspapers as an example of the\nunjust nature of British rule. Students\nmust dig deeply into the archive to find contradictory evidence about the cause\nof the violence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Later in the late\n19th<\/sup> century, Frank Leslie\u2019s Illustrated\nNewspaper<\/em> grew its readership by covering John Brown\u2019s raid on Harpers\nFerry. He found that activism and sensationalism\nsold newspapers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Abraham Lincoln is\nknown by biographers as \u201cthe\nfirst president to use photography actively to present a favorable public image\nof his administration\u201d (Borchard & Bulla, 2015, p. xii). Lincoln\u2019s\nsecretary, John Hay, sent material to several newspapers during the time, and\nsome believed that Lincoln may have been involved in the political\ncorrespondence. After the Emancipation\nProclamation<\/em> (1862), Lincoln and his administration mounted a direct\ncampaign to positively impact public opinion in the face of widespread\ncriticism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Much later during McKinley\u2019s\nadministration \u201cyellow journalism\u201d was blamed for inflaming tensions\nleading up to the Spanish-American War (1898), referred to as the first media\nwar. Rather than lead students to cynicism about news journalism, these\nexamples and others can provide a rich study of the important history of\nAmerican newspapers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As newspapers\nbecame increasingly popular and ubiquitous at the end of the 19th century, news\npublishers ushered in a new information age (Kaplan, 2002). By studying the discourse of news media\nacross time, students can begin to grapple with questions related to the\nrelationship between media and public opinion, as well as come to understand\nmedia as a cultural construction, reflecting concerns of the time in which it\nis produced. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite its history, the term fake news did not achieve mainstream usage in the United States until the 2016 presidential campaign. Since the election, fake news has seemed to shape the social and political fabric of the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to referring to deliberately misleading or false accounts, the term fake news has been used to discredit mainstream news sources, especially when it seems to be politically expedient. To adequately grasp the significance of this tactic, teachers and students need to study the evolving history of news journalism and understand that contemporary journalists operate according to ethics rules and procedures developed by their field over time (Kaplan, 2002; Lang & Lang, 2002). <\/p>\n\n\n\n A variety of resources can be integrated into methods courses to teach students about contemporary journalist ethics. For example, Facing History and Ourselves<\/em> (https:\/\/www.facinghistory.org\/resource- As students learn\nabout the professional code of ethics for journalists, they may begin to\ndevelop a better understanding of the way news stories are (or should be)\ndeveloped. They can then compare the news articles subject to editorial\nintervention to those that are produced through other (often web-based)\noutlets. By merging this study with a\nhistorical study of newspapers, preservice teachers will develop the requisite\ncontent knowledge to engage their future K-12 students in a critical study of\nnews media. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While historic\nexamples exist, the rise of fake news and misinformation in the contemporary\nmedia landscape is unprecedented. Today,\nmedia users have access to information through portable devices and ever-increasing\nchannels of information. Whereas\nprevious generations may have relied on FCC-regulated news networks or a select\ngroup of newspaper publishers for information, with the advent of Web 2.0\ntechnologies, anyone can produce and share the news. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Because producers\nof fake news are becoming increasingly sophisticated, traditional strategies\nthat citizens once relied on to evaluate credible sources of information are\noften no longer reliable (National Public Radio, 2015). In terms of helping\npreservice teachers confront contemporary examples of fake news, teacher\neducators can take a two-pronged approach: engaging preservice teachers in\nexploring the unique features of information\/media today and analyzing relevant\nexamples. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The contemporary\ninformation age. <\/em><\/strong>Increasingly,\na generational divide exists in the consumption and use of contemporary media.\nAccording to a recent survey conducted by Pew, \u201c95% of teens have access to a\nsmartphone, and 45% say they are online \u2018almost constantly\u2019\u201d (Anderson &\nJiang, 2018, tagline). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The most popular\nmedia platforms among teens are YouTube (85%), Instagram (72%), Snapchat (69%),\nFacebook (51%), and Twitter (32%). These\nfindings are significant, since these platforms rely on participatory culture\nand user-generated content (Arthurs, Drakopoulou, & Gandini, 2018). The\npositive benefits of this participatory, user-involved media culture include\nthe rise of \u201ccitizen journalism\u201d (Thorsen, 2014) and documenting humanitarian\ndisasters and political uprisings, for example, the so-called Arab Spring\n(Tufekci, 2017). <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time,\nacross contemporary social media, content is \u201cpresented from an \u2018insider\u2019\nperspective and circulated globally without editorial intervention\u201d (Arthurs et\nal., 2018, p. 5). This approach has led\nto increasing concerns about the extent to which these platforms provide a\nforum for extremist hate speech and the creation of \u201cfilter bubbles,\u201d\neffectively restricting the range and scope of information users access.\nGoogle, the parent company of YouTube, for example, has thus begun to focus on developing\nstrategies for removing \u201cextremist\u201d content (Gibbs, 2017) and to invest\nin adding media literacy resources, including links to news articles and third-party\nsources (Castillo, 2018). <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to\ngrowing concern about the relative quality of web-based information, current\nresearch has highlighted a notable lack of online civic reasoning among teens\n(e.g., Cohen, Kahne, Bowyer, Middaugh, & Rogowski, 2012; Kahne & Bowyer,\n2017). According to researchers at the Stanford History Education Group (SHEG)\nadolescents and young adults are unable to locate and confront partisanship,\nbias, and flat-out lies in online content (Wineburg\net al., 2016). The authors warned that this inability harms civic knowledge and\nparticipation, noting their worry that \u201cdemocracy is threatened by the ease at\nwhich disinformation about civic issues is allowed to spread and flourish\u201d (p.\n5). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Identifying\nrelevant examples of fake news. <\/em><\/strong>As\nawareness has grown about the industrialization of fake news, as well as\nconcern about the role of fake news in shaping contemporary politics, news\norganizations and other content providers have created a wide range of\nresources for teachers and students to assist them in identifying and analyzing\ncontemporary fake news. Teacher\neducators can integrate the resources of content providers including the News\nLiteracy Project (https:\/\/newslit.org<\/a>) and\nthe Newseum\u2019s ESCAPE Junk News (https:\/\/newseumed.org\/tools\/lesson-plan\/escape-junk-news<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n They can also use\nlesson plans and articles from news outlets such as the New York Times <\/em>(Maheshwari, 2016; Schulten & Brown, 2017;\nShane, 2017), <\/em>the Public Broadcasting\nService(Pasquantonio, 2017), and Business Insider<\/em> (Bertrand, 2017; Roberts,\n2016) which detail examples of rumors, hoaxes, and misinformation proliferating\nonline before, during, and after the 2016 presidential election.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers recommend\nthat the study of fake news, as well as media literacy in general, be\nintegrated as part of a larger study of civic and democratic issues. Kahne and\nBowyer (2017) argued, \u201cIn short, the general concern for preparing youth to\njudge the accuracy of truth claims, like the broader concern for the democratic\npurposes of schooling, should not be confined to a single priority such as\nmedia literacy\u201d (p. 28). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Suggestions\ninclude connecting media literacy with discussion strategies, including discussions\nof controversial public issues (Hess & McAvoy, 2015), structured academic\ncontroversies, and dialogue about social issues (Kuhn & Crowell,\n2011). Hodgin and Kahne (2018) provided\na list of classroom examples for helping students \u201cnavigate misinformation in\nthe information age\u201d that includes think alouds, formal research projects, and ongoing\nstudent reflection (see Table 1, p. 211). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Teachers can use the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework<\/em> (NCSS, 2013b) as an instructional framework for teaching about fake news and media literacy. Central to the C3 Framework<\/em> is the Inquiry Design Model, in which students answer \u201ccompelling questions\u201d through carefully scaffolded learning experiences, framed around \u201csupporting questions\u201d and \u201cfeatured sources.\u201d Each supporting question results in a formative performance task. At the end of the inquiry students complete a summative performance task and \u201ctake informed action.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Questions relevant\nto media literacy, such as evaluating truth claims, examining multiple\nperspectives, and adopting a critical stance can inspire compelling\nquestions. Students can evaluate news\nmedia as part of the performance tasks. An important component of C3 inquiries\nis providing students with the necessary scaffolding to accurately evaluate\nsources and develop arguments. Analysis\ntools and heuristics relevant to teaching about media literacy can be\nintegrated seamlessly into C3 inquiries. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n Beyond being aware of the changing information and media landscape, including the proliferation of fake news, preservice social studies teachers must be able to help their students develop the skills necessary to identify fake news across a variety of information sources (McGrew et al., 2017). As a starting point, social studies preservice teachers can learn to facilitate student analysis of online media content by integrating heuristics into instruction (Johnson & Ewbank, 2018). For example, the Newseum\u2019s ESCAPE acronym refers to a six-part process of evaluating information: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Evidence – \u201cDo the facts hold up?\u201d Similarly, the National Association\nfor Media Literacy (2007) outlined \u201cKey Questions to Ask When Analyzing Media\nMessages.\u201d Teaching students to pose critical questions about sources leads\nthem to evaluate biases, claims, and evidence. \nTeachers help make visible the metacognitive processes that result in \u201cthe\nproductive analysis of online information” (Hodgin & Kahne, 2018, p.\n210). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Heuristics such as\nESCAPE provide \u201chard scaffolds\u201d (Saye & Brush, 2002, 2007) that help to\nmitigate the cognitive load placed on students to read and analyze complex\nmultimodal texts. Teachers engage\nstudents in \u201ccognitive apprenticeship\u201d (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) \u2013\nmodeling authentic problem solving through coaching and scaffolding. <\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Saye\n(2017), \u201cAt least three types of scaffolding may support novices in thinking\nmore expertly about problems under investigation,\u201d including conceptual,\nprocedural\/strategic, and metacognitive (p. 341). The heuristics provided by groups such as the\nNewseum and the News Literacy Project combine all three types of scaffolding by\nproviding guidance regarding larger conceptual frameworks (e.g., how news media\nis produced and consumed), procedural (e.g., steps for evaluating news media),\nand metacognitive (e.g., ways to probe for connections with what is already\nknown about the topic). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The C3 Framework<\/em> (NCSS, 2013b) provides teachers and their students with hard scaffolds for integrating media literacy into the classroom:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Through the decoding of content-rich media texts in the social studies classroom, students learn and practice the habits of asking key questions, applying historical analysis, identifying perspectives, assessing credibility, providing text based evidence, drawing conclusions, and reflecting on their own process of reasoning \u2014 key abilities emphasized in the four dimensions of C3. (Sperry & Baker, 2016, p. 183) <\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Using the Inquiry Design Model,\nteachers can guide students through carefully constructed learning activities\nthat contribute to a deeper understanding of the topic under study. Media\nliteracy could be the topic of the inquiry, and media literacy skills could be\ntaught as part of a C3 inquiry. For example, teachers should provide\nscaffolding for students to critically analyze the \u201cfeatured sources\u201d that\nframe the key content of an inquiry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to\npreplanned \u201chard scaffolds,\u201d Saye and Brush (2002) referred to \u201csoft scaffolds\u201d\nthat unfold over the course of an instructional unit. These might include open-ended discussion,\npeer-to-peer sharing, and other dynamic or teachable moments that occur in the\nclassroom. For students, critically discussing news media with peers as well as\nexamining how their beliefs, existing knowledge, and values affect their\ninterpretation of new information are all key components of both media literacy\neducation and democratic education (Manfra & Holmes, 2018; Mihailidis, 2018).\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The aim is\neventually to make the thought processes and concepts associated with media\nliteracy so automatic that the scaffolds can be removed. According to Hodgin\nand Kahne (2018), \u201congoing and varied practice can help students to integrate\nskills and strategies as well as these ways of thinking into their habits and\nto apply these approaches across settings and contexts” (p. 211). Teacher\neducators can model the use of hard and soft scaffolds in methods courses, as\nwell as explicitly instruct preservice teachers about the relevant cognitive\nresearch that inform teaching practices (e.g., Brown et al., 1989; National\nResearch Council, 2000) and media literacy education. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By integrating the five-part action plan outlined here, social studies teacher educators can empower preservice teachers to develop their own media literacy as well that of their students. Although media literacy connects with the purposes and content of social studies education, it has not been intentionally integrated into social studies teacher education. The action plan outlined here provides a first step toward developing a coherent approach to integrating media literacy into social studies teacher education. It includes integrating media literacy as essential content in the social studies curriculum, analyzing historic and contemporary examples of fake news, advancing knowledge about journalist ethics, and providing step-by-step strategies for analyzing transmedia. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By explicitly\nconnecting media literacy with the TETCs, especially those focused on accessing\nand evaluating information (2.a.) and modeling the ethical and socially\nresponsible use of technology (9.a), we address continued concerns about a lack\nof preparation among teachers and students to confront the contemporary media\nlandscape. As technology becomes\nincreasingly ubiquitous in schools and in the daily lives of youth, media\nliteracy skills are essential in helping students navigate the veracity of\ninformation that they access, create, and share. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Every indication is\nthat fake news and misinformation will continue to challenge American political\nsystems. Since the aim of the social\nstudies is to educate civically competent democratic citizens, social studies\nteacher educators must lead the next generation of teachers and students in\ndeveloping media literacy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Future research in this area should investigate the media literacy of social studies teacher educators as well as that of novice and experienced social studies teachers. By understanding the range of experiences of social studies teachers, we can fine-tune the action plan to meet their needs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A good starting point may be to\nfurther refine the survey instruments that have been developed to assess\nteacher media literacy (e.g., Felini, 2014; Weninger et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2014). At the\nsame time, research needs to continue identifying strategies for teaching media\nliteracy that work. This work may go\nbeyond raising awareness about fake news and developing heuristics for\nanalyzing contemporary media toward developing a more sophisticated\nunderstanding of media as a cultural construction \u2013 both shaped by and shaping\npublic opinion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, teacher educators and\neducational researchers will need to critically explore structural and\ncontextual factors that limit the work of teachers. Across the topics of concern, this research will\nchallenge us to critically consider our positions as consumers and producers of\ninformation in the Web 2.0 age. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017).\nSocial media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31<\/em>(2), 211-236.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media, and technology. Retrieved from the Pew Research Center website: http:\/\/www.pewinternet.org\/2018\/05\/31\/teens-social-media-technology-2018<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Arthurs, J., Drakopoulou, S., & Gandini, A. (2018). Researching YouTube. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 24<\/em>(1), 3\u201315.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bartlett, J., & Miller, C. (2011). Truth, lies and the internet: A report into young people\u2019s digital Bertrand, N. (2017). Russia organized two sides of a Texas protest and encouraged \u2018both sides to battle in the streets.\u2019 Business Insider<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/russia-trolls-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-2017-11<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Bishop B (2009) The big sort: Why the clustering of\nlike-minded America is tearing us apart<\/em>. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin\nHarcourt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Blondheim, M. (2002). \u201cPublic sentiment is everything\u201d: The Union\u2019s\npublic communications strategy and the bogus proclamation of 1864. The Journal of American History,<\/em> 89<\/em>(3),\n869-899.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Borchard, G. A., & Bulla, D. W. (2015). Lincoln mediated: The president and the press through\nnineteenth-century media.<\/em> New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M., Ortega, T., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Teaching students to navigate the online landscape. Social Education, 82<\/em>(4), 219-221. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P.\n(1989). Situated cognition and the\nculture of learning. Educational\nResearcher, 18<\/em>(1), 32-42.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Burn, A., Buckingham, D., Parry, B., &\nPowell, M. (2010). Minding the gaps: Teachers’ cultures, students’ cultures. In\nD. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents’ online\nliteracies: Connecting classrooms, media and paradigms <\/em>(pp. 183-201). New\nYork, NY: Peter Lang. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Castillo, M. (2018). YouTube will use six popular YouTube\nstars to educate kids about fake news. CBS\nNews<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2018\/07\/09\/youtubes-plan-to-fight-fake-news-includes-more-support-article-links.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Cohen, C. J., Kahne, J., Bowyer, B., Middaugh, E., & Rogowski J.\n(2012). Participatory politics: New media\nand youth political action<\/em>. Oakland, CA: Youth and Participatory Politics\nResearch Network. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Common Sense Media. (2017). The Common Sense census: Media use by kids age\nzero to eight<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.commonsensemedia.org\/research\/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-kids-age-zero-to-eight-2017<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Damico, J., Baildon, M., & Panos, A. (2018). Media literacy and climate change in a post-truth society. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 10<\/em>(2), 11\u201332. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Druckman, J. N. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 24<\/em>(2), 199-216. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1080\/08913811.2012.711022<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Felini, D. (2014). Quality media literacy\neducation: A tool for teachers and teacher educators of Italian elementary\nschools. Journal of Media Literacy\nEducation, 6<\/em>(1), 28-43.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Flood, A. (2017). Fake news is \u2018very real\u2019\nword of the year for 2017. The Guardian. <\/em>Retrieved\nfrom https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/books\/2017\/nov\/02\/fake-news-is-very-real-word-of-the-year-for-2017<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Flores-Koulish, S. (2006). Media literacy:\nAn entr\u00e9e for pre-service teachers in critical pedagogy. Teaching Education, 17<\/em>(3), 239-249.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Foulger, T. S., Graziano, K.,\nSchmidt-Crawford, D., & Slykhuis, D. A. (2017). Teacher educator technology competencies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,\n25<\/em>(4), 413-448.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Foulger, T., Graziano, K. J., Slykhuis, D.,\nSchmidt-Crawford, D., Trust, T. (2016). Invited commentary: The time is now!\nCreating technology competencies for teacher educators. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24<\/em>(3), 249-256.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gibbs, S. (2017). Google says AI better\nthan humans at scrubbing extremist YouTube content. The Guardian<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/technology\/2017\/aug\/01\/google-says-ai-better-than-humans-at-scrubbingextremist-youtube-content<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Guess, A., Nyhan, G., & Reifler, J.\n(2018). Selective exposure to\nmisinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S.\npresidential campaign<\/em>. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.dartmouth.edu\/~nyhan\/fake-news-2016.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hess, D., & McAvoy, P. (2015).\nThe political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education<\/em>. New\nYork, NY: Routledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital media literacy: An action plan<\/em>. Retrieved from The Aspen\nInstitute website: http:\/\/works.bepress.com\/reneehobbs\/13\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hobbs, R. (2011). Digital and media literacy: Connecting culture and classroom<\/em>. Thousand\nOaks, CA: Corwin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hodgin, E., & Kahne, J. (2018). Misinformation\nin the information age: What teachers can do to support students. Social\nEducation 82<\/em>(4), 208\u2013211, 214<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hochschild, J. L., & Einstein, K. L. (2015). Do facts matter? Information and misinformation in American politics? Political Science Quarterly, 130<\/em>(4), 585-624. Hunt, L. (2002). Against presentism. Perspectives on history: The newsmagazine of\nthe American Historical Association. <\/em>Retrieved from https:\/\/www.historians.org\/publications-and-directories\/perspectives-on-history\/may-2002\/against-presentism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Joanou, J. P. (2017). Examining the world around us: Critical media literacy in teacher education. Multicultural Perspectives, 19<\/em>(1), 40-46.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnson, S. T., & Ewbank, A. D. (2018).\nHEURISTICS: An approach to evaluating news obtained through social media. Knowledge\nQuest, 47<\/em>(1), 8-14.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B. (2017).\nEducating for democracy in a partisan age: Confronting the challenges of\nmotivated reasoning and misinformation. American\nEducational Research Journal,<\/em> 54<\/em>(1),\n3-34. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2012).\nDigital media shapes youth participation in politics. The Phi Delta Kappan, 94<\/em>(3) 52-56.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., Lee, N., & Feezell,\nJ.Y. (2011). Youth online activity and\nexposure to diverse perspectives. New Media\n& Society, 14<\/em>(3) 492-512<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kaplan, R. L. (2002). Politics and the\nAmerican press: The rise of objectivity, 1865-1920<\/em>. Cambridge, UK:\nCambridge University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26<\/em>(3), 369-386. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Knobel, M., & Kalman, J. (2016).\nTeacher learning, digital technologies and new literacies. In M. Knobel, &\nJ. Kalman (Eds.), New literacies and\nteacher learning: Professional development and the digital turn<\/em> (pp. 1-20).\nNew York, NY: Peter Lang.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents\u2019 thinking. Psychological Science, 22<\/em>(4), 545\u2013552. doi: 10.1177\/ 0956797611402512<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated\nreasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108<\/em>(3), 480-498.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lang, K., & Lang, G.E. (2002). Television\nand politics. <\/em>Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lavine, H. G., Johnston, C. D., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy.<\/em> Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093\/acprof:oso\/9780199772759.001.0001<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13<\/em>(3), 106-131. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/1529100612451018<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005).\nImplicit affect for political candidates, parties, and issues: An experimental\ntest of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26<\/em>(6),\n455-482.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lyons, T. (2018, May 23). Hard questions:\nWhat\u2019s Facebook\u2019s strategy for stopping false news? Facebook Newsroom<\/em>.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/newsroom.fb.com\/news\/2018\/05\/hard-questions-false-news\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Maheshwari, S. (2016). How fake news goes\nviral: A case study. The <\/em>New York\nTimes. <\/em>Retrieved from https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/11\/20\/business\/media\/how-fake-news-spreads.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Manfra, M. M. (2019). What\u2019s new about fake\nnews? Integrating digital history for media literacy. Social Education, 83<\/em>(2),\n113-117.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Manfra, M. M., & Holmes, C. (2018).\nMedia literacy and fake news in the social studies. Social Education, 82<\/em>(2), 91-95.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mason,\nL. E. (2015). Media and democracy. A response to \u201cThe need for media education\nin democratic education.\u201d Democracy and Education<\/em>,\n23<\/em>(1), Article 14. Mason, L. E., Krutka, D. G., &\nStoddard, J. (2018). Media literacy, democracy, and the challenge of fake news.\nJournal of Media Literacy Education 10<\/em>(2),\n1-10. <\/p>\n\n\n\n McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T.,\nSmith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources?\nLearning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education<\/em>, 1-29. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Meehan, J., Ray, B., Walker, A., Wells, S.,\n& Schwarz, G. (2015). Media literacy in teacher education: A good fit\nacross the curriculum. Journal of Media\nLiteracy Education, 7<\/em>(2), 81-86.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Middaugh, E. (2018). Civic media literacy in a\ntransmedia world: Balancing personal experience, factual accuracy and emotional\nappeal as media consumers and circulators. Journal\nof Media Literacy Education, 10<\/em>(2), 33-52.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mihailidis, P. (2018). Civic media literacies: re-Imagining\nengagement for civic intentionality. Learning, Media, and Technology<\/em>, 43<\/em>(2),\n152-164. doi: 10.1080\/17439884.2018.1428623 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mihailidis, P., & Viotty, S. (2017). Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in \u201cpost-fact\u201d society. American Behavioral Scientist, 61<\/em>(4), 441-454. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/0002764217701217<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Nagle, J. (2018). Twitter, cyber-violence,\nand the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: A\nreview of the literature. Teaching and\nTeacher Education, 76<\/em>, 86-94.<\/p>\n\n\n\n National Association for Media Literacy\nEducation. (2007, November). Core principles of media literacy education in the\nUnited States. Retrieved from http:\/\/namle.net\/publications\/core-principles<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n National Council for the Social Studies. (2013a). Technology: A position statement of National Council for the Social Studies. Social Education, 77<\/em>(3), 160-162.<\/p>\n\n\n\n National Council for the Social Studies. (2013b). The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 National Public Radio. (2015). Digital culture critic abandons \u201cFake on the Internet\u201d column<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2015\/12\/21\/460602085\/digital-culture-critic-abandons-fake-on-the-internet-column<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience,\nand school<\/em>. Washington, DC: National\nAcademy Press. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Newseum. (2019). ESCAPE Junk News<\/em>.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/newseumed.org\/tools\/lesson-plan\/escape-junk-news<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The New York Times. (2018). Ethical journalism: A handbook of values and\npractices for the news and editorial departments<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/editorial-standards\/ethical-journalism.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching\ndemocracy: Unity and diversity in public life<\/em><\/a>. <\/em>New York, NY:\nTeachers College Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pasquantonio, V. (2017). Real things teachers\ncan do to combat fake news. PBS News Hour<\/em>.\nRetrieved from https:\/\/www.pbs.org\/newshour\/education\/real-things-teachers-can-combat-fake-news<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Roberts, H. (2016). This is what fake news actually looks like. Business Insider<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/fake-presidential-election-news-viral-facebook-trump-clinton-2016-11<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Robertson, L., & Hughes, J.M. (2011).\nInvestigating pre-service teachers\u2019 understandings of critical media literacy. Language and Literacy, 13<\/em>(2), 37-53. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Saye, J. W. (2017). Disciplined inquiry in\nsocial studies classrooms. In M. M. Manfra & C. M. Bolick (Eds.), Handbook of social studies research<\/em> (pp.\n336-359). Malden, MA: Wiley. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002).\nScaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in a\nmultimedia-supported learning environment. \nEducational Technology Research\nand Development, 50<\/em>(3), 77-96. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2007). Using\ntechnology-enhanced learning environments to support problem-based historical\ninquiry in secondary school classrooms. Theory\nand Research in Social Education, 34<\/em>(2), 89-132. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Schindler, P. (2018, March 20). The Google\nNews Initiative: Building a stronger future for news. The Keyword.<\/em>\nRetrieved from https:\/\/blog.google\/outreach-initiatives\/google-news-initiative\/announcing-google-news-initiative\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Schulten, K., & Brown, A. C.\n(2017). Evaluating sources in a\n\u201cpost-truth world:\u201d Ideas for teaching and learning about fake news. The New York Times<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/01\/19\/learning\/lesson-plans\/evaluating-sources-in-a-post-truth-world-ideas-for-teaching-and-learning-about-fake-news.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Schmeichel, M., Garrett, J., Ranschaert,\nR., McAnulty, J., Thompson, S., Janis, S., …, & Biven, B. (2018). The\ncomplexity of learning to teach news media in social studies education. Journal\nof Media Literacy Education, 10<\/em>(2), 86-103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Schwarz, G. (2001). Literacy expanded: The role of media\nliteracy in teaching education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28<\/em>(2),\n111-119.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Shane, S. (2017). From\nheadline to photograph, a fake news masterpiece. The New York Times<\/em>. Retrieved\nfrom https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2017\/01\/18\/us\/fake-news-hillary-clinton-cameron-harris.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Simons, M., Meeus, W., & T\u2019Sas, J. (2017). Measuring\nmedia literacy for media education: Development of a questionnaire for\nteachers’ competencies. Journal of Media\nLiteracy Education, 9<\/em>(1), 99-115. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Smithsonian\nLibraries. (2015). Infinite worlds: Exploring the world and seeking\nextraterrestrial life.<\/em> Retrieved from https:\/\/library.si.edu\/exhibition\/page\/infinite-worlds<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Sperry, C., & Baker, F. W. (2016). Media literacy: A position paper of the\nNational Council for the Social Studies. \nSocial Education, 80<\/em>(3),\n183-185.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stoddard, J. (2014). The need for media\neducation in democratic education. Democracy\nand Education, 22<\/em>(1), 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006).\nMotivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American\nJournal of Political Science, 50<\/em>(3), 755-769.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Need for Media Literacy in Social Studies\nTeacher Education<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Research on Media Literacy and Teacher\nEducation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Place of Media Literacy in Social Studies\nTeacher Education<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Action Plan: Integrating Media Literacy into\nSocial Studies Education<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Media Literacy and the Purposes of Social Studies Education <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Explore the History of Fake News <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Understand the Field of News Journalism <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
library\/facing-ferguson-news-literacy-digital-age<\/a>) provides resources on the topic of how journalists minimize bias as part of their News Literacy Project. Here students examine contemporary events from the perspective of news journalists, as well as evaluate the credibility and bias of accounts. The New York Times<\/em> (2018) makes available its Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments <\/em>on its website. <\/p>\n\n\n\nAnalyze Contemporary Examples of Fake News<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Develop Efficacy with Tools and Heuristics <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Source – \u201cWho made this and can I trust them?\u201d
Context – \u201cWhat\u2019s the big picture?\u201d
Audience – \u201cWho is the intended audience?\u201d
Purpose – \u201cWhy was this made?\u201d
Execution – \u201cHow is this information presented?\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\nScholarly Significance: Media Literacy in\nSocial Studies Education<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nReferences<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
fluency. Demos<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/www.demos.co.uk\/files\/Truth_-_web.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/polq.12398<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nRetrieved from https:\/\/democracyeducationjournal.org\/home\/vol23\/iss1\/14<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
civics, economics, geography, and history<\/em>. Silver Spring, MD: Author.<\/p>\n\n\n\n