Digital literacy – Learning Aloud

Reading and what we know

In reading and then writing about Willingham’s The Reading Mind, the author makes some interesting arguments about the relationships between what we know and reading comprehension and between the time spent reading and what we know. As the reciprocal relationship implies, this is a cognitive explanation of how the rich get richer. The author throws in a related analysis of whether our commitment to spending time with technology has diminished the likelihood that we are now benefiting from this relationship. What follows is my embellished summary with a few updates.

I like to think of Willingham’s description of reading as explaining how the inputs to comprehension come simultaneously from opposite directions. The bottom-up inputs come from the page – letter/phoneme recognition, word recognition, word meaning, broader understanding. The top-down inputs come from stored information (memory) – general knowledge, specific knowledge, broad understanding of the passage being read, sentence meaning, etc. You probably recognize that these inputs are really the same series just listed in opposite directions. It turns out these inputs help each other out as many are being processed at the same time. Some of these interactions you may not recognize and may surprise you. For example, a letter at the beginning of a word can be identified faster than the letter in isolation. Others, you may recognize if I bring them to your attention. For example, the understanding of a sentence may help you assign meaning to an unfamiliar word in that sentence. The battle over what is commonly described as the “science of reading” is focused on the early bottom-up processes. Should early reading experiences emphasize associating sounds with word components or should word recognition and context receive greater attention? It might be helpful to understand why the science of reading may seem to change over time because effective reading depends on multiple processes acting to support each other. Many subskills end up being important. I am more interested here in the top-down processes. Once we get past learning the basics of reading, how does reading both depend on and develop what we know?

Willingham proposes that it is never possible for a writer to explain a topic in complete detail and an author must rely on what readers already know to fill in some elements from existing knowledge. So when a reader is exposed to new material understanding is dependent both on reading skill and existing knowledge. What we already know has a surprisingly large impact on what we comprehend and retain. This claim can be demonstrated on two levels – general knowledge and topic specific knowledge.

Anne Cunningham and Keith Stanovich conducted an interesting study of high school students in which they had the students take a test of general knowledge. General knowledge involves all kinds of random information. In their research, students were asked about factual knowledge of science, history, and literature and the accomplishments of people from history, science, sports, and music. It was not that the knowledge of the specific topics was necessarily important, but rather that the scores obtained were predictive of the level of general knowledge more broadly. The researchers also administered a standard test used to evaluate reading comprehension skills. These two variables – general knowledge and comprehension skill were strongly correlated. More capable readers probably have learned more from reading, but what they have learned may also be a factor in determining their reading skill. Such differences are partly responsible for the advantage some students gain from general life experiences that cannot be provided while in the classroom.

The advantage of what we know to reading performance is made clear in studies that investigate the importance of specific knowledge in understanding content related to that knowledge. Willingham used a study based on reader differences in understanding the game of soccer. This surprised me as I was aware of a very similar study based on the game of baseball. A general description of the clever methodologies of these studies will explain how reading skills and relevant knowledge were differentiated. These studies (Recht & Leslie, 1988; Schneider, Korkel & Weinert, 1989) were conducted with younger learners. Depending on the study, these learners were given a test to evaluate their knowledge of baseball or soccer. Scores on reading comprehension tests were also available. These two measures were used to identify four groups of learners – high on both measures, high on one measure and low on the other, low on both measures. After reading a story about part of a baseball game or a soccer match, readers were asked to recall as much as they could from the story. The grouping of readers allowed a way to statistically isolate the impact of reading ability from background knowledge on what was retained. Relevant knowledge was at least as important as reading proficiency to what was taken away from the reading experience. By the way, this type of research should be relevant to those who argue access to Google is equivalent to knowing things. What you can find through search does not offer the same benefit to immediate processing as what you already know.

Leisure Reading and Technology

Leisure reading plays a unique role to developing readers because the time devoted to leisure reading varies far more than the time spent reading in schools. As adults, if we read many of us only engage in reading that would fall in this category. If engaged in an educational setting, leisure reading augments assigned reading as a reading skill development opportunity and as an opportunity to expand the acquisition of general knowledge and that is important in improving the effectiveness of reading.

In the discussion of technology and reading, Willingham considers both whether reading from a screen offers the same benefits as reading from paper and whether our constant use of technology has displaced time spent reading. Willingham acknowledges the research that demonstrates a small benefit for reading from paper. Like my posts on this topic, he sees this difference to be of little consequence acknowledging that the root cause is unknown. My embrace of screen reading is related to the long-term advantages of the production of digital notes and searchable highlights that can be organized and efficiently searched.

The notion that screen time comes at the cost of reading time (displacement) was countered with what to me were some surprising data. In his focus on leisure reading, Willingham argues that Americans never did read much and that this amount of time has not diminished from pre-internet days. I checked Willingham’s sources on this topic and found a more recent survey of adolescent reading behavior (Rideout and colleagues 2022). Reading time has actually increased a bit, but the average daily reading time has now reached 34 minutes. Twenty-four minutes involve books (paper or ebooks) and the rest newspapers, blogs, and other long-form content. I don’t find this average that disturbing given students are also reading for their classes and may have homework. The more disturbing version of this basic statistic is the variability. Nearly 20% of adolescents indicate they read nothing beyond what is assigned at school. Recent data on adult behavior indicates that the average daily reading time is about 15 minutes. Adults don’t set a very good example.

Summary

Reading both is an important source for what we know and what we know benefits the level of reading proficiency we achieve. Reading is an activity we control as individuals and if we so choose we can benefit from spending leisure time in this way.

References:

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental psychology, 33(6), 934.

Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers’ memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16 (baseball)

Rideout, V., Peebles, A., Mann, S., & Robb, M. B. (2022). Common Sense Census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2021. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media

Schneider, W., Korkel, J., & Weinert, F. E. (1989). Domain?specific knowledge and memory performance: A comparison of high? and low? aptitude Children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81( 3), 306–312. (Soccer)

Willingham, D. T. (2017). The reading mind: A cognitive approach to understanding how the mind reads. John Wiley & Sons.

The Medium is the Message

Marshall McLuhan’s famous declaration “The medium is the message” never made sense to me. It sounded cool, but on the surface there was not enough there to offer much of an explanation. It seemed one of those things other people understood and used, but I did not. Perhaps I had missed the class or not read the book in which the famous phrase was explained.

The expression came up again in the book club I joined while we reading a book by Johns (The Science of Reading). A sizeable proportion of one chapter considers McLuhan’s famous proposal and provided a reference to his first use of the phrase. The original mention was a comment he made at a conference and then continued to develop.

The page is not a conveyor belt for pots of message; it is not a consumer item so much as a producer of unique habits of mind and highly specialized attitudes to person and country, and to the nature of thought itself (…) Let us grant for the moment that the medium is the message. It follows that if we study any medium carefully we shall discover its total dynamics and its unreleased powers.

Print, by permitting people to read at high speed and, above all, to read alone and silently, developed a totally new set of mental operations.

Johns’ book is about the history of the study of reading as a science with more on how reading and the methods by which reading skill is developed became a political issue. My effort to create a personal understanding of what any of this would have to do with McLuhan now is based on my consideration of different media and what McLuhan had to say specifically about reading. I have come to think about reading as a generative activity which is a topic I write about frequently. From this perspective, reading is an external task that gives priority to certain internal behaviors. In contrast to some other media, reading allows personal control of speed. A reader can take in information quickly or pause to reflect. A reader can reread. Text sometimes requires the reader to generate imagery in contrast to having imagery offered to them as would be the case with video. Reading cannot transfer a complete experience from author to reader and much is constructed by the reader based on existing knowledge. Reading has a social component. In most cases reading involves an implied interaction with an author, but also with others who have interpreted the same input and who often interact to share personal interpretations.

What McLuhan had to say about media now reminds me of the notion of affordances. Affordance refers to the potential actions or uses that an object or environment offers to an individual, based on its design and the individual’s perception of it. The term was originally coined by psychologist James J. Gibson in the context of ecological psychology to describe the possibilities for action that the environment provides. Affordances can be both obvious (like a door handle that affords pulling) or less obvious, depending on how the individual perceives and interacts with the object or environment. It is this less obvious type of affordance that applies based on expectations for texts and for how we anticipate texts to be used. Factors such as the allowances for controlling speed and pausing with a medium that is essentially static when we are not interacting with it to allow reflection are more like the obvious affordances Gibson proposes.

Those who reject a media effect

Having reached what I hope is an appropriate understanding of McLuhan’s famous insight, I realized that I have encountered a contradictory argument commonly taught within one of my fields of practice (educational technology). This controversy concerns what tends to be called the media effect.

The “media effect” refers to the idea that the medium or technology used to deliver instruction (such as television, computers, or textbooks) has a significant impact on learning outcomes. This concept suggests that different media can produce different levels of learning or change the way people learn.

This perspective was challenged by Richard Clark in his influential 1983 article, “Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media.” Clark argued that the media itself does not influence learning; rather, it is the instructional methods and content delivered through the media that determine learning outcomes. Clark famously stated, “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition.”

Clark’s challenge to the media effect emphasized that it’s the instructional design, the way content is presented, and the interaction between learners and content that are crucial for learning, not the medium through which the instruction is delivered.

I always struggled when teaching this position. Instructional designers are expected to consider this argument, but my interpretation never allowed me to understand why this would be true. If I wanted to teach someone the cross-over dribble, wouldn’t it make more sense to begin by showing the move rather than describing it with text? I understand that each of us learns through our own cognitive actions, but how we access inputs (external representations) would seem to matter in what our cognitive behaviors have to work with. When you ask advanced students to deal with arguments such as Clark’s that challenge actions they might be prone to take, it is common to match the challenging position with a source that offers a counterargument. I paired Clark’s paper with a paper written by Robert Kozma. If you are inclined to pursue this controversy, I recommend this combination.

Does it matter?

Possibly. I think we are experiencing changes in how we experience information. Most of us experience more and more video both for entertainment and for learning. It is worth considering how we might be influenced by the medium of input. If we are trying to learn more frequently from video, how do we attempt to process the video experience in a way similar to how we can take control and process text?

References:

Clark, R. E. (1983) Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of educational research 53 (4), 445-459.

Johns, A. (2023). The science of reading: Information, media, and mind in modern America. University of Chicago Press.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational technology research and development, 42(2), 7-19.

Avoid Social Media Bias

In so many areas, the potential of the Internet seems subverted by the design decisions made by those who have built businesses on top of what seemed an innovation with so much potential. My focus here is on the political division and animosity that now exists. Since the origin of cable television, we have had a similar issue with an amazing increase in the amount of content, but the division of individuals into tribes that follow different “news” channels that offer predictably slanted accounts of the news of the day to the extent that loyal viewers are often completely unaware of important stories or different interpretations of the events they do encounter.

The Internet might have seemed a remedy. Social media services are already functioning as an alternative with many now relying on social media for a high proportion of the news individuals encounter. Unfortunately, social media services are designed in ways that make them as biased and perhaps more radicalizing than cable tv news channels.

Social Media and Internet News Sources

Here is the root of the problem. Both social media platforms and news sources can use your personal history to manipulate what you read. Social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, X, Instagram) use algorithms that analyze your past behavior, such as the posts you’ve liked, shared, or commented on, as well as the time you spend on certain types of content. They use this information to curate and prioritize content in your feed, including news articles, which they predict will keep you engaged on their platform. You add the way algorithms work on top of the reality that those we follow as “friends” are likely to have similar values and beliefs and what you read is unlikely to challenge personal biases you hold. To reverse the Rolling Stone lyric, you always get what you want and not what you need.

News sources are different from social media in which you identify friends and sources. However, news sources can also tailor their content based on the data they gather from your interactions with their posts or websites. These practices are part of a broader strategy known as targeted or personalized content delivery, which is designed to increase user engagement and, for many platforms, advertising revenue.

Many major news organizations and digital platforms target stories based on user data to personalize the news experience. Here are some examples:

Google News: Google News uses algorithms to personalize news feeds based on the user’s search history, location, and past interactions with Google products. It curates stories that it thinks will be most relevant to you.

Apple News: By using artificial intelligence, Apple News+ offers a personalized user experience. Publishers can adapt content based on readers’ preferences and behavior, leading to stronger engagement and longer reading times.

The New York Times: The New York Times has a recommendation engine that suggests articles based on the user’s reading habits on their website. If you read a lot of technology-related articles, for example, the site will start to show you more content related to technology.

Are Federated Social Media different?

Federated social media refers to a network of independently operated servers (instances) that communicate with each other, allowing users from different instances to interact. The most notable example of a federated social media platform is Mastodon, which operates on the ActivityPub protocol. On Mastodon, you can follow accounts from various instances, including those that post news updates. For example, if a news organization has an account on a Mastodon instance, you can follow that account from your instance, and updates from that news source will appear in your feed. This system allows for a wide range of interactions across different communities and servers, making it possible to follow and receive updates from diverse news sources globally.

Your Mastodon timeline is just a reverse chronological feed of the people you follow, or the posts from people on your instance only (and not across all of Mastodon). There’s no mysterious algorithm optimized for your attention. So, with Mastodon, a news source you follow may have a general bias, but you would get the stories they share without prioritization by an algorithm based on your personal history.. This should generate a broader perspective.

With Mastodon, you can join multiple instances some of which may have a focus. For example, I first joined Maston.Social which at the time was that instance most users were joining. I have since joined a couple of other instances (twit.social & mastadon.education) that have a theme (technology and education), but participants post on all kinds of topics. An interesting characteristic of federated services is that you can follow individuals from other instances – e.g., you can follow me by adding @grabe@twit.social from other instances.

This brings me to a way to generate a news feed the posts from which will not be ordered based on a record of your personal use of that instance. Many news organizations have content shared through Mastodon and you can follow this content no matter the Mastodon instance you join. Some examples follow, but you can search for others through any Mastodon account. You follow these sources in the same way you would follow an individual on another account.

@npr@mstdn.social

@newyorktimes@press.coop

@cnn@press.coop

@wsj@press.coop

@bbc@mastodon.bot

@Reuters@press.coop

Full access may depend on subscriptions. For example, I have a subscription for the NYT.

So, if a more balanced feed of news stories appeals to you. Try joining a Mastodon instance and then follow a couple of these news sources.

The Advantage of Paper? Why?

Happy New Year. My final post of the year will return to one of the issues I have written about several times during this past year. I would describe the issue as seeking an answer to the questions “Does reading from a screen reduce understanding immediately and reduce the development of reading skills long term?” At one level, I know what I think personally. I read nearly everything from a screen because what I am doing is more than reading. I am using the digital advantage of reading from a device in the process of taking notes and annotating I see as beneficial in the long run. I have made my own decision regarding my behavior in what I consider a logical way. The issue of skill development is a different issue. I see the amount of time our grandkids spend on their devices mostly watching video. I really don’t know if this preoccupation with screen-based information is damaging to their development of reading and thinking skills. I do think it is an important issue that deserves attention.

I just finished working my way through a new meta-analysis related to this issue (Altamura and colleagues). Like so many articles I have read on the topic, the results are troubling as related to the concern for younger readers. However, the results because of the limitations of the methodology employed are open to questions and alternative interpretations. I will describe the review as best I can and as always invite those interested in this issue to read the original document for themselves.

The authors begin their approach by noting a widely accepted relationship between “out of classroom” reading to reading skill development. The relationship is proposed based on a positive spiral. As younger readers are exposed to gradually more demanding texts, they develop improved skills important to reading comprehension. These improved skills make possible successful understanding of even more demanding material which tends to be more informative and enjoyable and the upward spiral of capabilities continues. This relationship relates to other literacy correlates such as having access to more reading material in the home and being read to more frequently.

With an interest in digital reading, the researchers decide to review literature relating screen-based reading to reading proficiency as readers age. Does the same relationship between reading digital content and reading skill hold developmentally for what they define as recreational reading? With their definition of recreational reading comes the first methodological issue? They include pretty much any text-based experience one might have on a digital device – text messages, social media interactions of any type, blogs, and digital books. Obviously, there is not a meaningful equivalent to social media and text in previous studies of the relationship between text consumption and reading proficiency. The researchers did code from the difference between these short and long form samples of text in their statistical approach and this distinction will end up being important in my comments at a later point in this post.

The researchers propose they are testing two competing hypotheses. The displacement hypothesis suggests digital text is a replacement for text on paper and the shallowing hypothesis suggests that shorter segments of text so frequently available in digital environments require less in processing skill and encourage scanning and skimming. Shallowing may prevent critical skills from being applied and developed.

The researchers summarize their results as follows:

This relationship is significantly moderated by the reader’s educational stage. At early stages (primary and middle school) negative relationships are observed between leisure digital reading and text comprehension, while at later stages (high school and university) the relationship turns positive.

While the pattern of reading activity and comprehension skill differs from what is found with paper-based text, neither of the hypotheses was cleanly supported. This was the case because age was the only moderator variable achieving significance and the relationship was not consistent. The differentiation of the type of reading material was not significant. That is, the division between time spent on the more purely social and short content versus longer content was not a significant predictor of skill differences. The researchers suggest that studying the combination of screen and paper could be important. In other words, a focus on digital reading ignores other reading the participants might have done with text on paper which would likely have been longer-form reading.

So, this paper can be added to others (e.g., Delgado at colleagues) that offer concerns especially for younger readers. As I have suggested in other posts, this question is difficult for researchers to address because important variables are difficult to control with carefully controlled research studies. The developmental nature of reading skill is not consistent with an experimental approach that would control a treatment such as whether individuals read from paper or screen over an extended period of time. I question how much “reading” children actually do from screens. Few are allowed or can access social media services as a matter of personal safety. A more significant issue would seem to me to be whether reading is being replaced by watching. Research typically fails to provide actual quantification of the amount of time individuals are exposed to text. Without total exposure perhaps differentiated as screen vs paper, what conclusions are possible?

References

Altamura, L., Vargas, C., & Salmerón, L. (2023). Do New Forms of Reading Pay Off? A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Leisure Digital Reading Habits and Text Comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 00346543231216463.

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38.

Follow bloggers for a deeper context

I have had at least one blog since 2002. Since that time, I have also had control of the server on which my blog and other content I created was stored. At the beginning of this period of time, I worked at a university and was able to run a server through the university network. This translates as I had a dedicated IP for my site and once someone found my content and bookmarked the site, the site would always be available at that address. I can’t remember the exact address, but it did indicate my server was identified as a part of the more general university network.

When I began to generate free content I intended to supplement the textbook my wife and I had written through what was originally Houghton-Mifflin, I decided it might appear that even though the content I was offering was free to any viewer, it might seem I was using university resources to benefit me financially and so I began renting server space. I have continued to host my content through Bluehost since that time. This company provides services at multiple levels. My blogs make use of WordPress, but I have a general account because I use Bluehost for content other than blogs.

I spend about $200 a year for the server space and the cost of two domains (learningaloud and curmudgeonspeaks). I include this financial information because part of the issue of how you provide online content has a financial component. Among the financial issues are whether you want to make money and whether you want to minimize personal costs. None of the content on my server is behind a paywall and there are Google ads on some of my content. The income from ad clickthroughs is less than $25 a year. So, I must recognize that my site is a hobby and the inclusion of ads is pretty much a matter of personal curiosity. I follow the analytics my site generates as part of this hobby. The activity level the site generates is sufficient to maintain my interest, but has declined in this last decade. I attribute this decline to moving from having textbooks sold through a textbook company to self-publishing via Amazon. My motives for this transition have been documented in my blog posts and were related to my interest in investigating a different model for textbooks that combined a smaller and less expensive book with online resources.

I am writing this post partly as an extension of a previous post that considered cross-posting my blog content to Medium and Substack. One way to look at the purpose of this post might be to explore the question of why with the availability of services such as Medium and Substack (and other outlets) would anyone want to continue to pay to host personal content. I am not alone in asking this question. My take is related to, but not equivalent to the concept of COPE (compose once publish everywhere), but focuses on different values and factors.

I find that a core belief I have about having a location where you store and host your own content has considerable overlap with my beliefs concerning the value of books. I believe book authors and content providers bring a perspective and context to their creative work that is not maintained in pieces of content experienced in isolation. You might argue that this is fine because as a consumer you will build your own understanding based on the elements of information you pick up from multiple authors. I agree you might and probably should do this. However, models of understanding are transferable and can be used to build on and contrast with personal efforts to develop understanding.

Yes, this sounds pretty abstract and vague. Think of what I describe as a model as a way of understanding – how you see things working and what causes what to happen. Ways of understanding (models) can be general and specific and they can be complete or incomplete. Sometimes we have flawed ways of understanding that seem to work in some situations, but we may at some point find our way of understanding does not work in others. We can be convinced we have things figured out when this is really not the case and only when we try our models in actual situations or compare them to the models of others with different and perhaps more experience that we see a bigger picture.

I have generated thousands of posts over the 20+ years I have been involved in blogging. I am certain some of my posts are naive and wrong and some may be inconsistent. Like a book, the collection does emphasize a limited set of ideas and provides connections among these ideas. These posts are tagged and organized so any interested party can explore related ideas to explore the broader context of my ideas. You just don’t get this with the selection of posts I add to Substack or Medium.

Prebunking offers some advantages over debunking

Preparing learners to deal with the faulty information they encounter in their lives has become another task educators are expected to accomplish. This expectation is a reasonable response to the mixed quality of online resources including some attempts to purposefully mislead viewers.

What follows is a lengthy post about approaches that can be applied to deal with exposure to misinformation. The primary focus is on a technique called “debunking” which represents a general approach for helping individuals not be taken in by misinformation. By general, I mean that the techniques do not involve rejecting specific misinformation by the introduction of convincing information after the initial exposure to misinformation. Prebunking involves approaches that prepare individuals to reject misinformation and as a general strategy has certain advantages of not having to be tailored to address false understandings after false beliefs have taken hold.

For those who want a quick alternative to reading my entire post, I will explain that prebunking involves familiarization with common approaches used to encourage the acceptance of false information. The study I will describe created this sensitivity through short videos. These videos are available and educators may find them useful in their classes. The videos can be found here:

https://inoculation.science/inoculation-videos/

This post uses some language that may be new to those who don’t read the scientific research I read. Allow me to first offer definitions for these terms as used in this research. These concepts are interrelated and I have attempted to identify some of these connections.

Debunk – to provide evidence intended to call into question faulty beliefs

Prebunk/Inoculation – to provide explanations of faulty beliefs before they are encountered in an attempt to prevent acceptance of these flawed beliefs.

Conceptual change – the attempt to bring into awareness and then counter faulty information accepted by a learner

Cognitive conflict – the proposal that a learner must be aware of the inconsistency between an existing belief and information relevant to this belief before change can occur (related to conceptual change and inert knowledge)

Naive theory – a personal theory based on an interpretation of life experiences

Inert knowledge – stored knowledge that is called into awareness only when certain contextual conditions are met. Inert knowledge implies that a second stored understanding also exists that is activated under different conditions. This term is often used to explain how naive theories that are flawed can persist despite learning more appropriate things in an educational setting. Hence, one understanding is activated in a school setting and a different understanding in day-to-day situations outside of school.

Motivated cognition – a psychological concept that refers to the tendency of individuals to interpret and process information in ways that align with their preexisting beliefs, values, and desires. This phenomenon can occur across various domains, such as politics, religion, social issues, and personal beliefs.

Confirmation bias – one example of motivated cognition that involves the selection or interpretation of inputs to sustain existing beliefs.

Conceptual change and naive beliefs

I think of misinformation in terms of what I know about conceptual change. This is a way to understand learning and also changes in understanding. I think of the topic of learning in terms of personal knowledge building. Each of us builds personal knowledge as models of how the world works. We use these models to interpret new experiences and when new experiences do not fit our understanding of how something works (a model), we may make adjustments in our model. Piaget called these two complementary processes assimilation and accommodation. We interpret experiences in terms of an existing model (assimilation) and when this will not work, we adjust or update our model (accommodation). The mismatch between experience and model when recognized is described as cognitive conflict and results in a motivation to create an adjustment.

My exposure to conceptual change theory occurred within the context of science education. There are many concepts in the formal study of science that explain phenomena we experience all of the time (e.g., gravity, inertia). Before we are educated in formal explanations we develop our own models of these phenomena. For example, what I sometimes describe as the “roadrunner” model of inertia and gravity imagines a roadrunner speeding off a cliff and speeding through the air. At a point, the roadrunner realizes it is no longer on solid ground and then plunges straight down. This model is an example of a naive theory – it kind of works, but is not how inertia and gravity actually work. Eventually, we learn a more accurate understanding. Assuming heavy and light objects (say a bowling and tennis ball) fall at the same rate often works as another example. It seems logical, but isn’t accurate.

Some naive theories have an interesting characteristic. They may persist even after learners have learned a more accurate account of a phenomenon. A learner may store and retain inconsistent models. One model active in daily life and the other in the school setting. This is the challenge of inert knowledge. It is thought that this is possible because recall is context dependent and there are some interesting demonstrations that the likelihood of formal knowledge can be activated by preceding a question about a phenomenon by suggesting a context. For example, you may remember from school the story of Galileo’s famous Tower of Pisa experiment before asking which of a heavy or light object will fall fastest. Without the prompt and reminder of the school context, it might seem logical that the heavier object will fall faster. The prompt changes the context.

Inert knowledge is a significant challenge. How does education (one context) prepare learners for functioning in a different context (daily life)? Learning alone is not enough. It is also necessary to activate and modify existing ways of understanding that are incorrect. That two-step process – activate and then experience limitations – is cognitive conflict. Physical demonstrates work great if preceded by outcomes that are unanticipated. Computer simulations can in some cases provide similar experiences. Even mentioning common misconceptions before providing accurate explanations can be successful. Textbook authors can use this strategy. This approach to conceptual change might be described as debunking.

What is frustrating is that in some situations calling out false understandings and then providing information that supports a different understanding seems inadequate. Our present circumstances with political differences of opinion are a good example. We find it completely illogical when we point what seem obvious contradictions to certain arguments and someone is willing to persist in a flawed understanding. We have encountered a challenge of motivated cognition.

Motivated cognition is a psychological concept that refers to the tendency of individuals to interpret and process information in ways that align with their preexisting beliefs, values, and desires. My favorite example when I was teaching was to recognize the predictable reaction of sports fans who witness a close call say charging or pass interference and come to the opposite opinion on what the correct call should be. Same data, different interpretations easily predicted from the team they were rooting for. Such examples involve a cognitive bias where people are more likely to accept, remember, and give greater weight to information that supports their existing views while disregarding or downplaying information that contradicts their beliefs. In essence, motivated cognition can lead to selective perception and interpretation of information to maintain a preferred mindset or belief system.

This phenomenon can occur across various domains, such as politics, religion, social issues, and personal beliefs. Motivated cognition can significantly influence how people form opinions, make decisions, and engage in discussions or debates. It plays a crucial role in the formation and reinforcement of attitudes, as well as in the persistence and spread of misinformation.

What can be done in such situations which have become predictive of how people take positions on such important issues as climate change or the value of inoculations? Prebunking, originally called inoculation in the research literature, proposes an intervention before flawed inputs have been fully processed. It is technically a little different from techniques that attempt to create cognitive conflict by acknowledging flawed beliefs as might be the case in a textbook. but similar. I came across a field research study making use of short videos to point out common misinformation techniques. The idea is that by labeling misinformation as it is encountered the processing of that information will be modified or the information ignored.

The prebunking intervention in this study (reference appears below) consisted of short videos explaining six different manipulative strategies – using strong emotional language, using incoherent arguments, presenting false dichotomies, scapegoating individuals or groups, and ad hominem attacks (attacking the person rather than the argument). Exposure to these videos (experimental vs control) resulted in more accurate detection of misinformation immediately and after a year. The researchers also tested their technique by posting two of their videos on YouTube as ads and then comparing the impact on those who had viewed and not viewed their ads on a dependent variable – reaction to misinformation.

Other writers have recognized the potential of debunking in the context of predicting AI will only increase the amount and personalization of misinformation. https://thedispatch.com/article/fake-news-meets-artificial-intelligence/

While the researchers do demonstrate significant consequences for exposure to the debunking videos, it is important to recognize the practical magnitude of the benefits is not great. Prebunking videos perhaps like other educational efforts to sensitize learners to propaganda techniques does not come close to eliminating the problem. Debunking efforts must continue as well.

Again, I think educators could make use of the videos the researchers have made available. https://inoculation.science/inoculation-videos/

References:

Nickerson, Raymond S. (June 1998), “Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises”, Review of General Psychology, 2 (2): 175–220

Roozenbeek, J., Van Der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34), eabo6254

The Impact of Social Media on Youth Mental Health

A couple of recent resources concerned with the relationship between social media use and mental health. As an educational psychologist with an interest in technology. I find myself in the middle when addressing this topic. I see value in the use of online sources and I also have studied cyberbullying through social media and have some insights into at least that peril. A significant challenge in the actual study of this general question is the difficulty of applying experimental research methods. When you collect data without control (correlational research), you must deal with problems interpreting the direction of causation (does too much social media cause mental health issues or do those with mental health issues turn to social media) and the illusion of a relationship because both variables are related to a third variable. There is also the possibility that the relationship works differently for different individuals. Some may benefit and some may be harmed. What do you do then?

People often tire of researchers offering the results of their studies and then arguing more research is needed. However, this is probably the best advice as looking for simple answers often does not seem to fit the data. Why does this caution matter? Consider that politicians are being pressed to address social media issues. Those who work in specific fields frequently ridicule the knowledge of politicians. Aside from situations that this is legitimate, there are many situations in which there seems great pressure from the public for action. However, sometimes simple responses are not ideal.

In the digital age, social media has become a significant part of our lives, especially for the younger generation. However, its influence on youth mental health is a topic of growing concern and research. A summary of the two sources I mentioned follows. As always, I provide links and encourage your own reading of these documents if the material covers a topic you find of great importance.

According to the Surgeon General’s Report on Social Media up to 95% of youth aged 13-17 report using a social media platform. The influence of social media on youth mental health is shaped by complex factors, including the amount of time spent on platforms, the type of content consumed, and the degree to which it disrupts essential activities like sleep and physical activity.

While social media can provide benefits by fostering positive community and connection, especially for marginalized youth, it also poses significant risks. A longitudinal cohort study found that adolescents who spent more than 3 hours per day on social media faced double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety.

The Atlantic Article on Teens and Social Media further explores this complex relationship. It suggests that social media’s effects depend a lot on the person using it, playing different roles for different demographics and at different stages of life. The article also highlights the need to identify which aspects of social media are riskiest and which adolescents are most susceptible to its harm.

The article also discusses the importance of externalizing our thoughts and feelings, suggesting that those who view social media more positively and feel in control of their use report better outcomes. This highlights the potential for social media to be a tool for expression and connection when used mindfully and responsibly.

However, the relationship between social media and youth mental health remains complex and potentially bidirectional. It’s crucial to continue researching and understanding this relationship to develop effective strategies for mitigating potential harms and promoting positive online behavior.

The Surgeon General’s Report includes specific recommendations for policy makers, companies, parents, and young people.