opencompletion.com/research/activity34-media-literacy.yaml

default_max_attempts_per_step: 3

tokens_for_ai_rubric: |
  Evaluate the student's development of media literacy skills.
  Consider:
  - Their ability to identify credible vs unreliable sources
  - Recognition of bias and propaganda techniques
  - Understanding of fact-checking methods
  - Critical thinking about information sources
  - Application of media literacy principles

  Provide encouraging feedback and emphasize the importance of these skills in the digital age.

sections:
  - section_id: "introduction"
    title: "Welcome to Media Literacy"
    steps:
      - step_id: "welcome"
        title: "Welcome to Media Literacy"
        content_blocks:
          - "# Media Literacy & Information Evaluation 📰"
          - "Welcome to the world of critical media consumption!"
          - ""
          - "In today's information-rich world, the ability to evaluate sources is essential."
          - ""
          - "**You'll learn to:**"
          - "- Identify credible vs unreliable sources"
          - "- Recognize bias and propaganda techniques"
          - "- Fact-check claims effectively"
          - "- Detect emotional manipulation"
          - "- Understand how misinformation spreads"
          - "- Become a savvy information consumer"
          - ""
          - "**Why this matters:**"
          - "Every day we're exposed to thousands of messages - news, ads, social media posts."
          - "Some are accurate, some are biased, some are deliberately false."
          - "Media literacy helps you navigate this landscape and make informed decisions."
        question: "Ready to sharpen your information evaluation skills?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Student is expressing readiness.

          Categorize as:
          - ready: Positive, ready to begin
          - set_language: Setting language preference
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        buckets:
          - ready
          - set_language
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          ready:
            content_blocks:
              - "Excellent! Let's start with the basics of source evaluation."
            metadata_add:
              misinformation_detected: "0"
              sources_verified: "0"
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_1"
          set_language:
            content_blocks:
              - "I'll communicate in your preferred language."
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: "introduction:welcome"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's begin developing your media literacy skills! Are you ready?"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: "introduction:welcome"

  - section_id: "section_1"
    title: "Evaluating Sources"
    steps:
      - step_id: "step_1"
        title: "Understanding Source Credibility"
        content_blocks:
          - "## Understanding Source Credibility 🔍"
          - "Not all information sources are equally reliable."
          - ""
          - "**Key questions to ask:**"
          - "- **Who created this?** (Author, organization)"
          - "- **What's their expertise?** (Credentials, experience)"
          - "- **What's their motive?** (Inform, persuade, sell, entertain?)"
          - "- **Is it verifiable?** (Can you check the facts?)"
          - "- **Who else reports this?** (Corroboration from other sources)"
          - ""
          - "**Example article to evaluate:**"
          - ""
          - "**Title:** 'Scientists Confirm Chocolate Cures All Diseases'"
          - "**Source:** ChocoLovers Blog"
          - "**Author:** No author listed"
          - "**Content:** Claims a new study proves chocolate cures cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. No study is named or linked. Article includes ads for chocolate products."
          - "**No other news sources are reporting this story.**"
        question: "Is this a credible source? Why or why not? What red flags do you notice?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          This is clearly NOT credible. Red flags:
          - Extraordinary claim ("cures ALL diseases")
          - No author credentials
          - No named study or link to research
          - Biased source (ChocoLovers Blog)
          - Financial motive (chocolate ads)
          - No corroboration from other sources
          - Lacks scientific plausibility

          Categorize as:
          - correctly_identified: Recognizes this is not credible and identifies multiple red flags
          - partially_correct: Sees it's suspicious but misses some red flags
          - missed_red_flags: Thinks it might be credible or only sees one red flag
          - limited_effort: Very brief answer
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          Praise identification of red flags! Walk through all the warning signs if they missed any.
          Emphasize: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, check for conflicts of
          interest, and verify with multiple independent sources.
        buckets:
          - correctly_identified
          - partially_correct
          - missed_red_flags
          - limited_effort
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          correctly_identified:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent source evaluation! You identified the key red flags. Explain the principle: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              misinformation_detected: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_2"
          partially_correct:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Good critical thinking! You spotted some red flags. Point out any additional warning signs they missed."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
              misinformation_detected: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_2"
          missed_red_flags:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Let's examine this more carefully. Walk through the red flags: no named study, biased source, extraordinary claims, financial motive, no corroboration."
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_1"
          limited_effort:
            content_blocks:
              - "Take time to analyze this carefully. Look at the source, the claims, the evidence provided, and whether other sources report this."
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_1"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's focus on evaluating this article. Is it credible? What red flags do you see?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_1"

      - step_id: "step_2"
        title: "Comparing Sources"
        content_blocks:
          - "## Comparing Sources 📊"
          - "Great work! Now let's compare different sources on the same topic."
          - ""
          - "**Topic: A new medical treatment**"
          - ""
          - "**Source A:**"
          - "- Journal of Medicine (peer-reviewed)"
          - "- Authors: Dr. Smith et al., university researchers"
          - "- Reports: 'Preliminary study of 200 patients shows 15% improvement in symptoms'"
          - "- Lists limitations and notes more research needed"
          - ""
          - "**Source B:**"
          - "- HealthMiracles.com"
          - "- No author listed"
          - "- Claims: 'Revolutionary cure helps 99% of patients!'"
          - "- Sells the treatment for $299"
          - "- No peer review or scientific citation"
        question: "Which source is more credible, and why? What makes Source A different from Source B?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Source A is clearly more credible:
          - Peer-reviewed journal
          - Named researchers with credentials
          - Modest, specific claims (15%, not 99%)
          - Acknowledges limitations
          - No financial conflict

          Source B has red flags:
          - No author/credentials
          - Extraordinary claims (99%)
          - Selling the product (financial motive)
          - No peer review

          Categorize as:
          - correct_analysis: Identifies Source A as more credible with good reasoning
          - partial_understanding: Gets the right answer but incomplete reasoning
          - confused: Doesn't clearly distinguish credibility
          - limited_effort: Very brief
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If they correctly identify A, praise their analysis! Explain peer review process and
          why modest claims with limitations are actually MORE trustworthy than extraordinary
          promises. Discuss financial conflicts of interest.
        buckets:
          - correct_analysis
          - partial_understanding
          - confused
          - limited_effort
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          correct_analysis:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent! You understand the hallmarks of credible scientific reporting: peer review, transparency about limitations, and absence of financial conflicts. Explain why modest claims are more trustworthy."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              sources_verified: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_1"
          partial_understanding:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "You're on the right track! Expand on the specific factors that make Source A more trustworthy: peer review, credentialed authors, modest claims, acknowledged limitations."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
              sources_verified: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_1"
          confused:
            content_blocks:
              - "**Key principle:** When evaluating sources, look for transparency, credentials, peer review, and absence of financial conflicts."
              - "Which source has these qualities?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_2"
          limited_effort:
            content_blocks:
              - "Compare them systematically: Who wrote it? Is it peer-reviewed? Are the claims modest or extraordinary? Is someone selling something?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_2"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's compare these two sources. Which is more credible and why?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_1:step_2"

  - section_id: "section_2"
    title: "Recognizing Bias"
    steps:
      - step_id: "step_1"
        title: "Understanding Bias and Framing"
        content_blocks:
          - "## Understanding Bias and Framing 📰"
          - "All sources have some perspective, but recognizing bias helps you get fuller picture."
          - ""
          - "**Types of bias:**"
          - "- **Selection bias:** What facts are included or omitted?"
          - "- **Framing bias:** How is the story presented?"
          - "- **Word choice:** Loaded language vs neutral language"
          - ""
          - "**Example: Same event, two headlines:**"
          - ""
          - "**Headline A:** 'Protesters disrupt traffic, cause chaos downtown'"
          - "**Headline B:** 'Citizens march peacefully for voting rights'"
          - ""
          - "**Facts:** 5,000 people marched. Two streets closed for 3 hours. No violence or arrests. March was about voting rights legislation."
        question: "How does each headline frame the event differently? What does word choice reveal about each source's perspective?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Headline A uses negative framing: "disrupt," "chaos," focuses on inconvenience
          Headline B uses positive framing: "peacefully," "citizens," emphasizes purpose
          Both are describing the same factual event but with different emphasis and word choice.

          Categorize as:
          - recognizes_bias: Identifies how each headline frames the story differently and discusses word choice
          - partial_recognition: Sees some difference but doesn't fully analyze framing
          - missed_bias: Doesn't recognize the bias or framing differences
          - limited_effort: Very brief
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If they recognize bias, excellent! Explain how both can be factually accurate yet
          emphasize different aspects. Discuss how word choice ("disrupt" vs "march," "chaos" vs
          "peaceful") shapes perception. Emphasize importance of reading multiple sources.
        buckets:
          - recognizes_bias
          - partial_recognition
          - missed_bias
          - limited_effort
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          recognizes_bias:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent analysis of bias and framing! Explain how consuming news from multiple perspectives helps us understand the full picture."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              bias_identified: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_2"
          partial_recognition:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "You're seeing the difference! Dig deeper into the specific words used: 'disrupt' vs 'march,' 'chaos' vs 'peaceful.' How does this language shape our perception?"
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
              bias_identified: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_2"
          missed_bias:
            content_blocks:
              - "Look closely at the word choices: 'disrupt' vs 'march,' 'chaos' vs 'peaceful.'"
              - "One headline emphasizes inconvenience, the other emphasizes the purpose and peaceful nature."
              - "Same facts, different framing!"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_1"
          limited_effort:
            content_blocks:
              - "Compare the specific words used in each headline. What feeling does each create about the protest?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_1"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's analyze these headlines. How does each one frame the protest differently?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_1"

      - step_id: "step_2"
        title: "Emotional Manipulation vs Facts"
        content_blocks:
          - "## Emotional Manipulation vs Facts 💭"
          - "Some content uses emotional triggers to bypass critical thinking."
          - ""
          - "**Propaganda techniques to watch for:**"
          - "- **Fear appeals:** 'If you don't act now, disaster will happen!'"
          - "- **Bandwagon:** 'Everyone believes this, don't be left out!'"
          - "- **Name-calling:** Attacking people rather than addressing arguments"
          - "- **Glittering generalities:** Vague positive language without substance"
          - "- **Appeals to emotion** over evidence"
          - ""
          - "**Example social media post:**"
          - ""
          - "_'They're trying to hide the TRUTH from you! Don't be a sheep! Share this before it's deleted! Everyone who's smart knows this is happening! Wake up!'_"
          - ""
          - "The post contains no specific claims, sources, or verifiable facts."
        question: "What propaganda techniques do you see in this post? What red flags indicate this is trying to manipulate rather than inform?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Propaganda techniques present:
          - Fear/urgency ("before it's deleted!")
          - Bandwagon ("everyone who's smart knows")
          - Name-calling ("sheep")
          - Emotional language ("TRUTH," "Wake up!")
          - Vague claims with no specifics
          - No sources or verifiable facts

          Categorize as:
          - identified_manipulation: Recognizes multiple propaganda techniques
          - partial_recognition: Sees some manipulation tactics
          - missed_manipulation: Doesn't recognize the manipulative techniques
          - limited_effort: Very brief
          - asking_clarifying_questions: Requests explanation
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If they identify manipulation, excellent! Explain how these techniques are designed to
          bypass critical thinking by triggering emotional responses. Contrast with informative
          content that provides specific, verifiable claims.
        buckets:
          - identified_manipulation
          - partial_recognition
          - missed_manipulation
          - limited_effort
          - asking_clarifying_questions
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          identified_manipulation:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent! You spotted the emotional manipulation tactics. Explain how credible information provides specific, verifiable facts rather than emotional appeals."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+3"
              misinformation_detected: "n+1"
              bias_identified: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_1"
          partial_recognition:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Good start! Point out additional manipulation techniques they missed: fear/urgency, bandwagon, name-calling, vague claims without specifics."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
              misinformation_detected: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_1"
          missed_manipulation:
            content_blocks:
              - "Look for emotional triggers: fear ('before it's deleted'), peer pressure ('everyone who's smart'), and name-calling ('sheep')."
              - "Notice: no specific facts, no sources, just emotional language designed to make you share without thinking."
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_2"
          limited_effort:
            content_blocks:
              - "Analyze this post carefully. Is it providing facts and sources, or is it using emotions and pressure tactics?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_2"
          asking_clarifying_questions:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Answer their question about propaganda techniques and emotional manipulation."
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_2"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's analyze this social media post. What manipulation techniques do you notice?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_2:step_2"

  - section_id: "section_3"
    title: "Fact-Checking Methods"
    steps:
      - step_id: "step_1"
        title: "How to Fact-Check Claims"
        content_blocks:
          - "## How to Fact-Check Claims ✓"
          - "When you encounter a surprising claim, you can verify it!"
          - ""
          - "**Fact-checking steps:**"
          - "1. **Check the original source** - Is the claim based on a real study/document?"
          - "2. **Verify with fact-checking sites** - Snopes, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, etc."
          - "3. **Look for corroboration** - Do credible news sources report this?"
          - "4. **Check the date** - Is this old news being presented as new?"
          - "5. **Reverse image search** - Are images real or manipulated?"
          - "6. **Consider expertise** - Are experts in the field confirming this?"
          - ""
          - "**Claim to evaluate:**"
          - ""
          - "_'Breaking: Government announces pizza is now a vegetable!'_"
          - ""
          - "**Quick research reveals:**"
          - "- This claim went viral in 2011"
          - "- What actually happened: Congress ruled that tomato paste on pizza counts toward vegetable requirements in school lunches"
          - "- Pizza itself was NOT declared a vegetable"
          - "- The claim misrepresents the actual policy"
        question: "Is the viral claim accurate? What fact-checking steps revealed the truth?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          The claim is INACCURATE/MISLEADING:
          - Pizza was NOT declared a vegetable
          - The actual policy was about tomato paste servings in school lunches
          - The headline distorts what actually happened
          - Checking the date reveals this is old news

          Fact-checking revealed: date checking, finding original source, understanding context

          Categorize as:
          - correctly_debunked: Identifies the claim as false/misleading and explains why
          - partial_understanding: Sees something wrong but doesn't fully explain
          - fooled: Thinks the claim is accurate
          - limited_effort: Very brief
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If they debunk it, excellent! Explain how viral claims often distort real events to
          create outrage. Discuss importance of checking dates and finding original sources.
          This teaches the difference between "false" and "misleading."
        buckets:
          - correctly_debunked
          - partial_understanding
          - fooled
          - limited_effort
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          correctly_debunked:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent fact-checking! You identified that the viral claim distorts the real policy. Explain how misleading headlines often contain a grain of truth but misrepresent the reality."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              misinformation_detected: "n+1"
              sources_verified: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_2"
          partial_understanding:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "You're thinking critically! Clarify the distinction: the policy was about tomato paste portions, not declaring pizza a vegetable. The headline distorts reality."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
              sources_verified: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_2"
          fooled:
            content_blocks:
              - "Look at what ACTUALLY happened versus the headline: The policy was about counting tomato paste as a vegetable serving, not declaring pizza itself a vegetable."
              - "The viral claim distorts the truth to create outrage!"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_1"
          limited_effort:
            content_blocks:
              - "Read the fact-check information carefully. What's the difference between the viral claim and what actually happened?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_1"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's fact-check this claim. Is it accurate based on the research provided?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_1"

      - step_id: "step_2"
        title: "Spotting Manipulated Media"
        content_blocks:
          - "## Advanced: Spotting Deepfakes and Manipulated Media 🎭"
          - "Technology now allows realistic fake images, videos, and audio."
          - ""
          - "**Warning signs of manipulated media:**"
          - "- Unusual lighting or shadows"
          - "- Mismatched details (watch, background elements)"
          - "- Unnatural movement or expressions (in video)"
          - "- Context seems wrong (location, date, people present)"
          - "- No other sources have this image/video"
          - ""
          - "**Best practice:** Use reverse image search (Google Images, TinEye) to find original source"
          - ""
          - "**Scenario:**"
          - "You see a photo claiming to show a celebrity at a political rally yesterday."
          - ""
          - "**Reverse image search reveals:**"
          - "The same photo appears in an article from 3 years ago at a completely different event."
          - "The background has been digitally altered."
        question: "What does this tell you about the photo? Why is reverse image search such a valuable tool?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          The photo is FAKE/MANIPULATED:
          - Original image is from a different event years ago
          - Background has been altered
          - This is misinformation

          Reverse image search helps:
          - Find original context
          - Detect recycled/manipulated images
          - Verify when and where photo was actually taken

          Categorize as:
          - understood_manipulation: Recognizes the photo is fake and explains the value of reverse search
          - partial_understanding: Gets general idea but incomplete
          - confused: Doesn't fully grasp the manipulation
          - limited_effort: Very brief
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If they understand, excellent! Explain how old images are often recycled to create
          false narratives. Emphasize that reverse image search is a powerful tool anyone can
          use to verify visual claims.
        buckets:
          - understood_manipulation
          - partial_understanding
          - confused
          - limited_effort
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          understood_manipulation:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Perfect! You understand how images can be manipulated and recycled. Explain how reverse image search helps verify visual claims and find original context."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              misinformation_detected: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_4:step_1"
          partial_understanding:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Good thinking! Emphasize that reverse image search reveals when images are recycled from different contexts or digitally altered."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: "section_4:step_1"
          confused:
            content_blocks:
              - "The photo is fake - it's from a different event years ago with an altered background."
              - "Reverse image search helps you find where images really came from!"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_2"
          limited_effort:
            content_blocks:
              - "Think about what it means that the same photo appears from years ago in a different context."
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_2"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's analyze this scenario. What does the reverse image search reveal?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_3:step_2"

  - section_id: "section_4"
    title: "Building Your Media Diet"
    steps:
      - step_id: "step_1"
        title: "Creating a Healthy Information Diet"
        content_blocks:
          - "## Creating a Healthy Information Diet 🧠"
          - "You've learned to spot misinformation, bias, and manipulation!"
          - ""
          - "**Now: Building good habits**"
          - ""
          - "**Principles for healthy media consumption:**"
          - ""
          - "✓ **Diverse sources** - Read multiple perspectives, not just sources you agree with"
          - "✓ **Primary sources** - When possible, check original documents/studies, not just summaries"
          - "✓ **Slow down** - Resist the urge to share immediately; verify first"
          - "✓ **Check your emotions** - If content makes you very angry/scared, pause and fact-check"
          - "✓ **Know the difference** - News, opinion, satire, and propaganda are different"
          - "✓ **Digital hygiene** - Regularly audit your information sources"
          - ""
          - "**Question:**"
          - "You see a shocking headline that confirms something you already believe."
          - ""
          - "**What should you do BEFORE sharing it?**"
        question: "What steps should you take before sharing a shocking claim, even if it confirms your beliefs?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Good practices before sharing:
          - Check the source (is it credible?)
          - Verify with fact-checking sites
          - Look for corroboration from other sources
          - Check if it's satire
          - Be extra skeptical of claims that confirm your biases (confirmation bias)
          - Read beyond the headline

          Categorize as:
          - comprehensive_approach: Lists multiple verification steps
          - basic_verification: Mentions checking source or fact-checking
          - confirmation_bias_awareness: Recognizes need to be extra skeptical of agreeable claims
          - limited_effort: Very brief
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If they show verification thinking, excellent! Emphasize the importance of being
          especially skeptical of claims we WANT to believe (confirmation bias). Discuss the
          responsibility of sharing in the digital age - false information spreads faster than
          corrections.
        buckets:
          - comprehensive_approach
          - basic_verification
          - confirmation_bias_awareness
          - limited_effort
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          comprehensive_approach:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent! You've internalized the verification process. Emphasize that sharing misinformation, even unintentionally, contributes to the problem."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+3"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"
          basic_verification:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Good instinct to verify! Expand on additional steps: check multiple sources, use fact-checking sites, be extra skeptical of claims you want to believe."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"
          confirmation_bias_awareness:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent self-awareness! Recognizing confirmation bias is crucial. We're all more likely to believe and share claims that confirm what we already think."
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+3"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"
          limited_effort:
            content_blocks:
              - "Think about the verification steps you've learned: checking sources, fact-checking sites, looking for corroboration, being skeptical of claims you want to believe."
            next_section_and_step: "section_4:step_1"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's think about responsible information sharing. What should you do before sharing a claim?"
            next_section_and_step: "section_4:step_1"

  - section_id: "conclusion"
    title: "Media Literacy Graduate"
    steps:
      - step_id: "step_1"
        title: "Congratulations!"
        content_blocks:
          - "## Congratulations, Media Literacy Expert! 🎓"
          - "You've developed critical skills for navigating the information landscape!"
          - ""
          - "**What you've learned:**"
          - "✓ How to evaluate source credibility"
          - "✓ Recognizing bias and framing"
          - "✓ Identifying propaganda and emotional manipulation"
          - "✓ Fact-checking techniques (including reverse image search)"
          - "✓ Building a healthy media diet"
          - "✓ Spotting misinformation before it spreads"
          - ""
          - "**Why this matters in the digital age:**"
          - "- Information spreads faster than ever before"
          - "- Misinformation can influence elections, health decisions, and social trust"
          - "- Critical thinking is essential for democracy"
          - "- You have power AND responsibility as an information consumer and sharer"
          - ""
          - "**Remember:**"
          - "_'The inability to distinguish fact from fiction is the defining challenge of our age.'_"
          - ""
          - "You now have the tools to meet this challenge."
          - ""
          - "**Your media literacy checklist:**"
          - "- Check the source"
          - "- Verify with multiple sources"
          - "- Watch for emotional manipulation"
          - "- Fact-check before sharing"
          - "- Consume diverse perspectives"
          - "- Stay curious and humble"
        question: "How will you apply media literacy in your daily life? What's one specific habit you want to develop to be a more critical information consumer?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          This is a reflection question about applying media literacy skills.

          Categorize as:
          - specific_commitment: Identifies a concrete practice they'll adopt
          - thoughtful_reflection: Meaningful reflection on importance of media literacy
          - basic_reflection: Brief but genuine
          - limited_effort: Very brief
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          Provide encouraging, personalized feedback. Emphasize that media literacy is a lifelong
          practice, not a destination. Acknowledge the challenges of the information age and praise
          their commitment to critical thinking. Remind them that every time they verify before
          sharing, they help combat misinformation.
        buckets:
          - specific_commitment
          - thoughtful_reflection
          - basic_reflection
          - limited_effort
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          specific_commitment:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Excellent commitment! Support their specific practice and emphasize how individual critical thinking contributes to a healthier information ecosystem."
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"
          thoughtful_reflection:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Thoughtful reflection! Encourage them to make verification a habit and to help others develop media literacy too."
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"
          basic_reflection:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Thank them for engaging with media literacy. Emphasize the importance of these skills in the digital age."
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"
          limited_effort:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: "Acknowledge their completion and encourage them to practice verification before sharing information."
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's reflect on your learning. How will you apply media literacy skills going forward?"
            next_section_and_step: "conclusion:step_1"