I really appreciated the approach that was taken in highlighting some of our screencasts, as seeing how other people approached the assignment made it easier to think of other ways that I could have done things. Being able to comment and discuss these approaches allowed me to ponder how I may approach future projects that may involve some of the same skills needed here. From comments made throughout this discussion and conversations I had with individual students, it was also nice to realize that there were portions of the project that everyone struggled with, although those varied from person-to-person. I really liked the rounds of discussion that followed regarding the readings. I think that having small groups helped our ideas to be heard a little bit more, as some people are not as comfortable talking in large groups, and, by coming together at the end, we could see the culmination of our discussions and how they fit into our own thoughts about the reading.
I think the Stanford History Education Group document was the most interesting of the readings this week, due to the approach they took to the study. I found that I had also held some of the misconceptions about student engagement with online material as many of the authors and teachers seemed to indicate throughout the study. Here we saw some of the same language that came up in our larger discussion, such as a need to “vet the information” that people encounter. The study’s definition of “civic online reasoning” was helpful as well. As with our larger discussion, “literacy” just doesn’t seem to be the right word, but this suggests a cognitive process to consider the information that students are being hammered with constantly.
Marchi’s article took a similar approach, looking at how teenagers placed themselves in the information world. I found it interesting how these participants filtered the information they ended up looking into further. The information that this study revealed though left me thoughtful about how students place themselves in the world at large. Though, I also considered that some of these questions were raised due to the authors and the wording that they used. For example, the study states that most teenagers believed that news was important to make decisions. Yet, due to the ambiguity of this statement, or lack of clarity directly following it, it was hard to tell if this was being taken as that teenagers felt that adults should be informed by traditional understandings of news to make decisions, as they did not see themselves needing to be informed in the same way, or if these were thoughts that reflected the participants’ approach to finding information in the news sources discussed throughout the study. I also found it interesting how the term “fake news” has really changed in meaning in the years since this article was written, as I would not have made the connection to the sources of information Marchi was discussing if it had not been defined in the article.
The remaining readings did focus on literacy, but I think each approach was unique and worth considering in a way to provide well-rounded understandings of how students should interact with information. The News Literacy Project tied back to the Stanford study and Marchi article and approached the idea of literacy in a way that I had not considered. Though, as I read this after all the other documents, it struck me as odd after reading Marchi. If students are extremely skeptical about journalistic objectivity, how do journalists break through that skepticism when addressing a classroom? It does seem like an interesting approach though, and the rather quick development with journalists willing to work with classrooms and students introduces this idea of communities coming together to be better informed.
I feel that this idea of community development is the crux of the C3 Social Studies Standards as well. Understanding that learning standards shouldn’t just prepare students to continue their education, these standards explicitly address the idea of citizenship and how this can build better communities. I think one of the ways this document addresses the idea of community building well is its reference to collaborative work. Postulating that group efforts are welcome and productive, students that work collaboratively and can engage well with information develop the ability to discuss and build their communities on informed matters. The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts builds on these ideas by introducing literacy standards, but allowing for the idea of content standards to drive the main points that social studies should articulate in the school setting.
Raven K 
I hadn’t realized that the study was unclear as to what teenagers were referring to in regards to information being important to make decisions. That was a good catch, I think Professor Lagoze would be proud! I also hadn’t thought about the barrier that exists between students and journalists and how that will effect student’s perceptions when journalists come into the classroom. I think a lot of students would respond positively to seeing a tangible person instead of a faceless entity on the internet. They will still treat them with skepticism but hopefully a little less. And I think that it’s good for students to have healthy skepticism, it will encourage them to find other sources to either verify what the journalist is saying or provide them with the tools to challenge them.
LikeLiked by 1 person