Category: 23 good reasons
-
Separating Fake from Truth in Education
Today’s article is written by Mitja Jermol
Mitja Jermol is the holder of the UNESCO Chair on Open Technologies for Open Educational Resources and Open Learning and the member of the board of the International Research Center on Artificial Intelligence under auspices of UNESCO (IRCAI), both at Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana Slovenia.
According to a study conducted by Stanford in 2016, more than 80% of middle school students struggle to distinguish between fabricated content and real news stories online (Wineburg et al., 2016). The study has been regularly adapted since (https://purl.stanford.edu/gf151tb4868 ) and results are getting worse not better.
This alarming statistic underscores a growing crisis in education – the production of misinformation and its impact on student learning.
The digital age that brought unprecedented access to information comes with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex landscape of truth and falsehood. Educational and academic institutions, traditionally bastions of knowledge and critical thinking, are facing the difficult task to prepare students to distinguish fact from fiction in an environment where misinformation spreads at unprecedented speeds through social media, apps, and digital platforms.
With the appearance of more and more powerful generative AI that allows everyone to create millions of compelling but untruth stories the challenge is becoming increasingly complex as the line between authentic and artificially generated content becomes ever thinner.
Several studies revealed the complex nature of misinformation and its impact on learning. Researchers (Ecker et all 2022) found that exposure to misinformation can create persistent misconceptions that resist correction, even when students are later presented with accurate information. Study firstly published in Scientific American in 2018 (Greenemeier 2018) demonstrated that misinformation spreads up to six times faster on social media platforms than facts, making it particularly challenging for students to maintain accurate understanding of current events.
Figure generated by AI
It looks like humanity is rapidly moving from the real world based on data, facts and common truth devised through a scientific method to a pure fiction and narrative-based reality, where the line between truth and fabrication becomes increasingly blurred. These challenges pose significant risks to the educational process. Students who cannot effectively evaluate information sources may develop misconceptions that hamper their learning, make decisions based on false baselines, and propagate the spread of misinformation. In addition, the inability to distinguish credible from non-credible information undermines the fundamental goals of education – developing informed, critical thinkers.
Several studies (Centola et all, 2018, Xie J et all, 2011) demonstrated that only from 10-25% of the whole population in a country can be enough to flip social conventions or establish new norms. So, if one combines the power of Generative AI, with the amplifying effect of social media and use them strategically on population that grew in the complex world of fake and truth without proper mechanisms and methods to distinguish between them, the potential for manipulation and erosion of trust in institutions and information itself becomes incredibly dangerous.
However, there are already several mechanisms in place to address misinformation and several new attempts to address these challenges in education combining traditional critical thinking skills with modern digital literacy techniques, supported by systematic curriculum integration, critical pedagogy and continuous assessment.
The SIFT method (Stop, Investigate, Find better coverage, Trace claims) for example, developed by Caulfield (Caufield 2023) has shown promising results in improving students’ ability to evaluate online information. The CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) developed by (Blakeslee 2004) mainly used by librarians might be properly adapted to address information platform-specific factors such as algorithmic bias, user-generated content, and the spread of misinformation within closed networks. This adaptation might include motivation and author’s credibility as well, emotional impact and more.
Several more traditional approaches include various combinations of inquiry-based learning, lateral reading and source evaluation, collaborative fact-checking projects, simulations and role-playing, critical analysis of media narratives.
Finally, we always like to conclude with teachers and put all the burden on them. It is true that teachers should serve as models of critical evaluation while teaching students. It is also advisable that their professional development should involve being informed about emerging misinformation trends, they should learn and teach evaluation techniques, should develop skills in guiding student discussions about controversial topics, and more. While teachers, schools, and educational systems are crucial, the issue of separating fake from truth in education extends far beyond the classroom. The teachers are only one component of a broader societal challenge that requires a coordinated approach. Addressing this complex issue demands a comprehensive strategy that involves family involvement, community engagement, media literacy initiatives, platform accountability, and ongoing research into the nature and impact of misinformation.
The ability to separate fake from truth has become a fundamental skill for the 21st century. The future of informed citizenship and democratic discourse depends on our ability to prepare students for an increasingly complex information landscape. The truth is that we are not very good at it today and that the rapid development of technologies, fast dissolvement of norms and practicing miss-information at the highest levels of society without accountability does not serve as an example.
References
Blakeslee S, (2004) “The CRAAP Test,” LOEX Quarterly: Vol. 31: No. 3, Article 4.
Available at: https://commons.emich.edu/loexquarterly/vol31/iss3/4Caulfield M, Wineburg S, (2023), “How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe”, University of Chicago Press; First Edition (November 16, 2023)
Centola D, Becker J, Brackbill D, Baronchelli A. (2018) “Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention” .Science 360,1116-1119(2018).DOI:10.1126/science.aas8827
Ecker U.K.H., Lewandowsky S., Cook J. et al (2022). “The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction”. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 13–29 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
Greenemeier L (2018), “False news travels 6 times faster on Twitter than truthful news”, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/false-news-travels-6-times-faster-on-twitter-than-truthful-news
Wineburg S, McGrew S, Breakstone J, Ortega T. (2016).” Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning”. Stanford Digital Repository. Available at: http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
Xie J, Sreenivasan S, Korniss G, Zhang W, Lim C, Szymanski BK. (2011) “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities”. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2011 Jul;84(1 Pt 1):011130. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.84.011130. Epub 2011 Jul 22. PMID: 21
-
Development of Evaluative Judgment
Today’s article is written by Loubna Terhzaz
Loubna Terhzaz is a lecturer at the Faculty of Science, Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco. She is a member of the ICESCO Chair for Open Education, the UNITWIN network UNOE and Secretary General of the Averroès Foundation for the promotion of scientific research, innovation and sustainable development.
Open education is an educational practice that facilitates open access to education, offering learners accessible, diverse, collaborative, and personalized learning. It provides the learner with an opportunity to develop critical thinking skills, a major challenge in the age of AI, through the competence of evaluative judgment.
According to Cowan (2010), evaluative judgment is the high-level cognitive skill required for lifelong learning. In other words, it is the ability to make judgments about the quality of one’s own work and that of others with accuracy, objectivity, and with the goal of improving and responding to future learning needs, especially in the era of artificial intelligence.
As a professor at Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco, I observe that the rise of AI has profoundly changed the way students approach their assignments. The ease with which they can now generate reports using AI platforms is undeniable. These tools allow them to quickly obtain well-structured presentations, but they do not necessarily contain reliable content. This is where critical thinking becomes essential. Open education, with its pedagogical approach focused on learner autonomy, offers an ideal framework for developing this crucial skill of evaluative judgment.
Open education, through Open Educational Resources (OER), allows students to modify, retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute the educational resources (the 5 Rs) according to the approved license. It enables students to develop their ability to express, formulate judgments, and evaluate education, a common practice in Anglo-Saxon universities but still not widespread elsewhere (Younès, 2007). This evaluative judgment process gives students the opportunity to compare the relevance and quality of information, including that generated by AI. It also allows professors a valuable tool to identify needs and gaps in their content and pedagogical approach, especially when facing the challenges of artificial intelligence.
At the same time, and in line with this goal of developing critical thinking, the assessment of students by professors should also prioritize the ability to analyze and judge over the mere accumulation of knowledge.
Furthermore, open discussion forums present important spaces for exchange. They allow students to confront their ideas and construct new knowledge. The support and presence of professors in these forums are essential to guide these exchanges and ensure the success of all students, particularly those facing social difficulties, refugees, or immigrants. These opportunities for exchange also encourage students to analyze, evaluate, and question information while fostering a relationship of trust and mutual respect that enhances learning
“Jugement évaluatif de l’enseignement” by Loubna TERHZAZ. CC-BY
Although open education provides an environment conducive to evaluative judgment, measures must also be taken within traditional education to optimize its application until open education becomes more widespread.
To prepare students and professors to take advantage of this approach, the following measures would be relevant:
1. Integrate critical thinking education into curricula at various levels, organizing practical exercises where students must analyze situations involving AI and provide tools for evaluating the credibility of information sources.
2. Train professors and educational staff by offering training on new technologies, partnerships with AI specialists, and creating networks for sharing best practices and resources on integrating ethics and evaluative judgment into AI education.
3. Develop tools to support critical thinking and ethical reflection, encouraging the creation of software or platforms and environments where students can interact with AI systems and analyze the results produced by them.
4. Encourage a reflective learning environment by being autonomous and responsible for their own learning, which fosters strong judgment skills. However, students today are often more focused on finding a quick and easy answer by using AI responses, which limits the personal reflection that this autonomy promotes.
5. Encourage a collaborative and participatory approach through forums, learning networks, or knowledge-sharing platforms that allow for enriching evaluative judgment and developing a more balanced and reasoned approach.
Through the implementation of measures in traditional education, we can prepare students to develop sharp critical thinking and solid evaluative judgment, enabling them to thrive in an open education environment in the future and face the challenges of AI.
Cowan, J. (2010). Developing the ability for making evaluative judgements. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510903560036.
Younès, N. (2007). À quelles conditions l’évaluation formative de l’enseignement par les étudiants est-elle possible en France ? Revue française de Pédagogie, 161, 25-40.
Please note that this article has been translated with the help of artificial intelligence and reviewed by individuals who are not professional translators. Despite our efforts to ensure accuracy and fidelity, errors or inaccuracies may remain. Feel free to let us know at: chaireunescorelia@univ-nantes.fr
-
Encouraging autonomy
Today’s article is written by Paul Stacey
Paul Stacey works globally in higher education strategically enabling and connecting open education with open science, and other forms of open. Paul has deep experience in open through his work at Creative Commons and as executive director for five years of Open Education Global. He now works independently as an open researcher and consultant at https://paulstacey.global.
As humans we have an urge to lead our own lives, make our own decisions, develop ourselves as we see fit. Yet we live in a social context with others. Full individual autonomy is counterbalanced by equal autonomy of others. Directing our own lives inevitably entails accommodating others. The freedom to lead our own life involves choosing between different courses of action as defined by oneself and others.
Autonomy is the state of mind that makes our choices meaningful. We’re autonomous when we have enough understanding and self-awareness to be able to make choices that align with our values and genuine interests. We’re autonomous when we know enough (about the world, and about ourselves) to be able to not follow the crowd unless it’s going where we want to go. When our autonomy is low, our choices are more likely to be whimsical, biased, ill-informed, or just “because everyone else is doing it;” and more likely to be self-destructive. When our autonomy is high, we’re more likely to make choices we’ll never regret, choices we can be proud of. Autonomy, therefore, liberates us to be our best selves. (Nicholas Alchin, Student Choices, Student Autonomy, and Student Agency: What are the Relationships?, 2021)
We have an innate drive for knowledge, to improve our skills to advance our understanding. Fuelled by curiosity we explore the world and learn from it. The extent to which we can take charge of our own learning represents our learning autonomy.
Learning occurs in a social context shaped by history, heritage, culture, language, customs, rules, laws and other external forces. Our social context can take many forms, a friend network, a club, a team, a school, a city, a nation. These social groups take on their own autonomy based on the individuals involved coming together and working toward a common end. This collective action, in the service of something larger than the individual, is achieved by creating mutually beneficial interdependencies within a larger social network. Individual autonomy and social autonomy come together in a way that creates a sense of connectedness, community, and belonging.
Autonomy in education involves empowering students, teachers, and schools to have choices and make decisions. Autonomy generates greater engagement, motivation, better learning experiences and more efficient use of resources. Student autonomy, teacher autonomy, and institutional autonomy are all interrelated and are all affected by external controls. Our society sets academic standards. Programs of study specify scope and sequence. Rates of learning and dates for learning are predefined. Schools are created as places of learning. Education is increasingly centralised, regulatory and marketized. These external forces influence and shape our individual learning autonomy. They affect the extent to which we can direct our own learning. They affect the control we have over what we learn, where we learn, and how we learn.
One of the unique propositions of open education is that it encourages autonomy for learners, educators and institutions.
For students open education offers immediate no, or low cost, access to education materials and resources. Open educational resources can be retained by students for life giving students the autonomy to engage in lifelong learning by referencing materials on an ongoing basis whenever needed. Open educational resources can be adapted, translated, localized and continuously improved enabling students to customize and personalize their own learning.
And open education goes well beyond simply teaching and learning materials. Open education pedagogies give learners greater agency over their own learning. Instead of passive lectures, learners may co-create teaching and learning materials with the instructor, producing knowledge that will then be used by all those who come after them. They may engage in assignments that generate local or global public goods making their learning publicly visible and contributing in real ways to social needs. In higher education open education utilizes open research and open research data enabling learners to gain a literacy and understanding of what it means to be a researcher and to see how open accelerates the advancement of knowledge.
For educators open education provides greater choice. Teachers can develop and customize curricula to match their own understanding of a domain. They can create materials in their own language, localized to their own social context. Open education, like research, is openly shared enabling educators to learn from their professional peers and use the best materials available from across their domain. Open education turns the creation of learning materials from a solo effort into a team effort. In a profession frequently constrained by time it is helpful to reduce redundant effort and instead participate in mutually beneficial producing, sharing and stewarding of teaching and learning materials. In this context autonomy is not independence or just being left alone. The greater autonomy of open education brings with it greater accountability, including responsibility to contribute to the body of professional knowledge. Open education encourages the autonomy of educators by giving them more control, and responsibility, for knowledge production and opportunities to innovate teaching and learning, finding new ways to make learning meaningful and engaging for students.
For institutions open education provides the autonomy to better manage their own education systems and processes. Open education shifts the locus of control from external agencies to internal ones giving institutions greater resiliency to handle crises and self govern. The principles that underlie open education align with institution mission and vision statements particularly around providing access to education, making education affordable, providing equal opportunity, and greater inclusion. In addition, open education increases the social relevance of knowledge and research by increasing public engagement and connection with society.
At a time of high interest in sovereignty, open education provides a means for having choice and reclaiming control over the resources, methods, and systems that shape education.
Open education is only one of many forms of open in higher education. It is part of a broader spectrum of opens including open research, open science, open access,open data, open innovation, open hardware, open source, and open governance. Each open provides additional autonomy. Combining them together creates a synergistic effect that maximizes autonomy for the good of all involved.
-
Translation and localisation
Open education enables linguistic and cultural diversity
Today’s article is written by Glenda Cox
Associate Professor Glenda Cox works in the Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching (CILT: http://www.cilt.uct.ac.za/) at the University of Cape Town and her portfolio includes postgraduate teaching, Curriculum change projects, Open Education, and Staff development.
She holds the UNESCO chair in Open Education and Social Justice (2021-2025) and is a member of the UNITWIN network on Open Education (2024-2028). She is also Vice president of the Board of Open Education global organisation.
She is passionate about the role of Open Education in the changing the world of Higher Education.Open education researchers and advocates have consistently worked towards building quality education for all. This priority remains crucial and currently, the hype of AI has diverted attention from meeting students’ educational needs. It’s time to recentre on the fundamental principles and powerful affordances of open education.
Open education plays a key role in addressing social injustice. Nancy Fraser (2005) identifies three interconnected dimensions of justice: economic (distribution of resources), cultural (recognition of different identities and groups), and political (representation of participation and voice). Research in open education has focused on cost-saving and equity of access to materials. Recently, the emphasis has shifted to the multiple affordances of open education to remedy cultural and political injustices.
This blog focuses on cultural recognition through translation and localisation of open education. Cultural misrecognition is a globally pervasive form of injustice. Nancy Fraser refers to it as the devaluing of cultural values. A just response includes recognizing and valuing people’s attributes and their ways of being in, understanding, and acting upon the world.
Image by: Pietro Soldi https://thegreats.co/artists/pietro-soldi. Published under Creative Commons-Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC-BY-NC-SA).
There is evidence of the dominance of the English language in higher education globally (Doiz et al. 2013). Many students enter higher education with English as a second or third language, facing challenges in mastering the language while adapting to a new culture. One remedy is translating key concepts in existing open textbooks. With the rise of automatic translation tools and large language models, these tools can support the use of multiple languages in open education, Open Science (UNESCO 2021), and Open Access. However, efforts to reach the world’s more than 7000 languages remain a distant dream (Bowker, 2024). Meta AI’s project No Language Left Behind aims to support 200 languages (Costa-Jussà et al. 2022). English remains the target language, placing the responsibility for translation on non-Anglophone scholars, while English-speaking scholars remain privileged (Bowker, 2024).
In addition to translating materials, it is fundamental for students to have epistemological access through inclusive pedagogies and curriculum change. Epistemological access moves beyond physical or formal access to meaningful access to university resources. Faculty need to understand their student cohort’s needs, as there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Open textbook authors at the University of Cape Town describe localisation as contextualising teaching and loosening the grip of European and American perspectives. Relevance includes local case studies representing students’ lived experiences. Curriculum transformation involves updating courses and materials to reflect new forms of thought, ensuring the teaching body reflects the student body.
A conversation about curriculum transformation must include decolonisation. The decolonial discussion is prominent in many higher education institutions, especially in previously colonised countries. Hölscher, Zembylas, and Bozalek (2020) highlight two key aspects of decolonisation: resisting Eurocentrism and acknowledging the contributions of colonised populations, and righting the wrongs of colonial domination with an ethical stance towards justice for those affected by persistent forms of coloniality. Open education provides just ways to teach, select, and produce content.
Open education has not resolved the economic and socio-political challenges facing universities and learners. However, for example, open textbooks enable open educational practitioners to take steps toward transforming the curriculum. Local, relevant, and accessible content is essential for redress. Open education provides a means to showcase cultural and linguistic diversity. The goal is for students to have course materials that are translated, locally sourced, and relevant to their lived realities.
References
Bowker, L., (2024) “Multilingualism in Scholarly Communication: How Far Can Technology Take Us and What Else Can We Do?”, The Journal of Electronic Publishing 27(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.6262
Costa-jussà, Marta R., James Cross, Onur Çelebi, Maha Elbayad, Kenneth Heafield, Kevin Heffernan, Elahe Kalbassi, et al. 2022. No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.04672
Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J. (2013). Globalisation, internationalisation, multilingualism and linguistic strains in higher education. Studies in Higher Education [online], 38(9), pp. 1407–1421. Available from: https://doi10.1080/03075079.2011.642349
Fraser, N. (2005) Re-framing justice in a globalising world. New Left Review 36, 69–88. Available from: https://newleftreview-org.ezproxy.uct.ac.za/issues/ii36/articles/nancy-fraser-reframing-justice-in-a-globalizing-world.
Hölscher,D., Zembylas,M., and Bozalek, V. (2020). “Neoliberalism, Coloniality and Nancy Fraser’s Contribution to the Decolonisation Debate in South African Higher Education: Concluding Thoughts,” in Nancy Fraser and Participatory Parity: Reframing Social Justice in South African Higher Education, ed. Vivienne Bozalek, Dorothee Hölscher and Michalinos Zembylas. London: Routledge.
UNESCO. 2021. Recommendation on Open Science. https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/about
