f774d36d74
This commit addresses two critical issues: 1. Completion Bug (activities 30-37): - Final steps were looping forever, preventing activity completion - Fixed by removing next_section_and_step from completion transitions - Kept off_topic transition looping to avoid validator terminal step errors - Activities now complete properly when users give valid final answers 2. Activity37 Bucket Logic: - Changed "close" bucket to retry same step instead of advancing - Only "correct" bucket now advances to next step - All other buckets (close, incomplete, wrong_language, etc.) retry - This ensures students must get correct answers to progress Technical Details: - Final steps are not considered "terminal" if at least one transition has next_section_and_step (validator requirement) - Off-topic transitions loop back to allow another attempt - Completion happens when get_next_step() returns None, None Validation: - All 8 activities pass activity_yaml_validator.py - No errors or warnings Affects: activity30-37 (all new merged activities)
827 lines
31 KiB
YAML
827 lines
31 KiB
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'
|
|
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'
|
|
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'
|
|
limited_effort:
|
|
ai_feedback:
|
|
tokens_for_ai: Acknowledge their completion and encourage them to practice verification before sharing information.
|
|
metadata_add:
|
|
activity_completed: 'true'
|
|
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
|