Green Rose Center for Academe Inc.

Purok Gemelina Estaca Compostela Cebu

Mobile No. 0933-1617936 / Landline No. (032) 425-6216
E-mail add: greenroseacademe_119@yahoo.com, Website: http://grca.school
Government Recognition No:
PRE-ELEM: 04 S. 2017, ELEMENTARY: 5, S. 2017, JHS: 06, S.2017, SHS: 059 S.2018
School ID: 408281

Subject: Media and Information Literacy Quarter: 1

Topic: Media Information Literacy for Social Engagement
Week: 5 Notes: 5
Notes 5- Let’s LEARN: Differences and Similarities Among and Between
Media Literacy, Information Literacy and Technology Literacy
RECAP - Following are various terms associated with Media Information and Literacy.
 Literacy: refers to the ability to read and write.
 Media: involve methods or tools in which information can be exchanged and
communication can be facilitated.
 Information: pertains to knowledge obtained from investigation, study or
instruction.
 Technology: refers to the application of scientific knowledge to the practical
aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation
of the human environment.
 Media Literacy: pertains to the ability to access, analyze, and respond to a
range of media.
 Information Literacy: refers to the set of abilities requiring individuals to
recognize when information is needed, and how to locate, evaluate, and use it
effectively.
 Technology (computer) Literacy: refers to the set of skills, attitudes and
knowledge necessary to understand and operate the basic functions of
information and communications technologies, including devices and tools.
In knowledge society, there is currently a call for cultivating a combination of
media literacy and information literacy. This, however, requires cooperation from
these two separate fields of study, and uncertainty regarding their boundaries hinders
a smooth merger. It is unclear whether they are subsets of each other or separate
entities. In this study, we have explored the relationship between these two fields by
empirically mapping out their territories and discussing their similarities and
differences.
Media literacy, information literacy, and technology literacy are all similar in terms of
goals. They all share the common goal of cultivating people’s ability to access,
understand, use, evaluate, and create media messages, information, or content using
information technology.

Media literacy, information literacy, and technology literacy are all similar to the mastery
and understanding of a thing.
Media literacy, information literacy, and technology literacy’s differences are:
Media literacy uses forms of communication and produces ways of communication. It is
about media content.
Information literacy is using, managing, gathering, and verifying information. It is
about library science.
Technology literacy is applying new found knowledge from digital environments,
participating in digital media, organizing, and evaluating information.
Meaning of Information Literacy
Information literacy is the ability to identify, find, evaluate, and use information
effectively. Students learn how to evaluate the quality, credibility, validity of websites, and
give proper credit from effective search strategies to evaluation techniques. It is also
referred to as digital literacy.
Meaning of Technology Literacy
Technology literacy is the ability to help one to communicate, solve problems, and
enhance life-long learning skills for future progress. Also, it is the ability to effectively use
technology to access, evaluate, integrate, create, and communicate information to
enhance the learning process through problem-solving and critical thinking.
Meaning of Media Literacy
Media literacy provides a framework to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and participate
with media messages in a variety of forms from print to video to the internet. It builds an
understanding of the role of media in society as well as essential skills of inquiry and self-
expression needed for democratic citizens.
MEDIA LIT. INFO LIT. TECH. LIT.
SIMILARITIE  Can  Can  Can
S communicate in communicate communicate
variety of in variety of in variety of
formats formats formats
 Can relay data  Can relay  Can relay
to different data to data to
people in different different
different places people in people in
in a short span different different
of time places in a places in a
 Can reproduce short span of short span of
data time time
information  Technology  Can
 Technology is is used reproduce
used  Analyze and data
 Analyze and evaluate information
evaluate media media and  Technology
and information information is used
 Analyze and
evaluate
media and
 information

 Aware of how  Uses digital

media texts, tools
constructs and
representations technologies
of ideas, events for inquiry
and people in learning
ways that  Gains  Dependent
DIFFERENCES impact competence available
democratic and technology
processes confidence
 Understand with digital
media systems technologies
and the political by practicing
economy of the and self-
media learning
How to fight lies, tricks, and chaos online?
#1: Evaluate, Evaluate, Evaluate
Use criteria to evaluate a source. In Libraries, we often use the CRAAP Test* to
evaluate websites, and these criteria are useful for evaluating news as well. These
criteria are:
Currency: is the information current? Many times on Facebook, you will click on a
story and notice that the date was from a few months or years ago, but your "friends"
are acting outraged as if it is happening in the moment.
Relevance: is the information important to your research needs? This criterion perhaps
applies most if you are out seeking information, rather than just stumbling across it.
Does the information relate to your question and at the appropriate-level
(elementary/advanced)? Have you looked at a variety of sources before selecting this
one?
Authority: who is the author/publisher/sponsor of the news? Do they have authority
on the subject? Do they have an agenda?
Accuracy: Is the information supported by evidence? Does the author cite credible
sources? Is the information verifiable in other places?
Purpose: What is the purpose of this news? To outrage? To call to action? To inform?
To sell? This can give you clues about bias.
So, finally, is your news source CRAAP? More on Fact-Checking:

STEP ONE: WHEN TO BE WORRIED

It’s hard to be vigilant all the time, but there are a few red flags that indicate something
might be misleading.
The first step is honing your sense of when a given piece of content is too good (or
bad) to be true. Once you start looking, you’ll notice specific subtypes of this content —
like rage bait designed to get traffic from people’s anger, hyper partisan appeals that
twist the facts, or outright scams. The techniques are relatively common across
different types of story, and they’re not hard to recognize.
Outside these specific cases, the general technique is almost stupidly simple: if a story
grabs your attention for any reason, slow down and look closer.
Looking Deeper
 You have a strong emotional reaction
 A story seems totally ridiculous — or perfectly confirms your beliefs
 You’re going to spend money because of it
 You immediately want to amplify the story
FIRSTHAND SOURCES
Even if you don’t trust a particular outlet, you can often use their reporting to work
back to primary sources, which you can use to fact-check what the outlet is saying or
cast it in a different light. Here are some particular sources to look for:
1. A LEGAL FILING
2. INTERVIEWS AND DIRECT QUOTES
3. LEAKED DOCUMENTS
4. A PRESS RELEASE

#2: Google It!

If you found out something via social media, you should take 5 seconds and just Google
it! More often than not, a Google search will show:
If other reputable news sites are reporting on the same thing.
If a fact-check website has already debunked the claim.
If only biased news organizations are reporting the claim -- in this case, it may require
more digging.
I would say that most of the time, 5 seconds is all you need before you hit the angry,
the like, the love, or - WORSE! - the share button!
STEP TWO: HOW TO CHECK OUT A LINK
Once you’ve decided to look more deeply at a story online, it’s time to figure out where
and when it comes from. Internet news can work like a game of telephone: every time
somebody reposts or rewrites something, there’s a chance that important details will
get lost.
The first step in that process is finding the date of the original story — which is one of
the most helpful pieces of information you can get. If the story’s being shared in a
Facebook post or a tweet, click on the post and find its date, otherwise known as the
timestamp. You should also look for the source of the relevant information. Sometimes
a news story will explicitly cite its sources, whether that’s by making clear that the
author performed firsthand research and interviews, or by linking to a press release or
another news outlet. If it’s the latter, just click through to see where the information is
coming from, and make sure to check the timestamp on that as well.
Sometimes, though, it’s unclear where news originated — a story might print an
inflammatory quote without saying where or when it’s from, or a Twitter account might
share a photo with a description that might be wrong. In those cases, do a quick search
for more coverage and original sourcing, generally using a search engine like Bing,
DuckDuckGo, or Google.
Looking Deeper
 Check the verification
 Look for names and keywords
 Find survey and infographic sources
 Search for quotes
 Identify photos and videos
 Consider how time-sensitive the story is
 See if an old story is still accurate
WHY TIMESTAMPS MATTER
There’s a term called “context collapse” that’s very useful when discussing
internet news. Popularized by scholar danah boyd, it describes how the internet
“flattens multiple audiences into one” — if you’re browsing Twitter, for example, an
offhand comment from your friend sits right alongside a statement from the president
of the United States. Internet news suffers from its own variation of context collapse:
no matter how far away or long ago a story happened, it can sound like it’s happening
right now, in your neighborhood.
#3: Get News from News Sources
One of the easiest ways to avoid the trap of fake news to begin with may seem
obvious: Go directly to credible news websites for your news. Relying on Facebook to
see what is "trending" or what is being shared across your newsfeed means you have
to verify every single meme or news article you come across. Why not rely on news
apps on your phone that go to news websites for that?
STEP THREE: HOW TO FIND THE CONTEXT
Some online disinformation is blatantly fake or misleading. But other stories are more
subtly wrong. They might omit important details, blow small controversies out of
proportion, or use legitimate news to attract people before feeding them bad
information.
The key here is looking for gaps in a story, or mismatches between a story’s claims and
its actual source material. These might be honest mistakes — like accounts sharing
satirical news without realizing it. Or they might be a deliberate attempt to fool people.
There’s no step-by-step guide for understanding a story’s full context. But there are a
few principles you can keep in mind.
Looking Deeper
 Is it satire?
 Who’s providing the information?
  What’s the scale of the story?
 If there’s an “outrage,” are people actually upset?
 How do different news outlets present the story?
CROWDFUNDING CREDIBILITY
Lots of news outlets cover cool crowdfunded products on Kickstarter and Indiegogo, or
mention that a story’s subject is raising money on GoFundMe. Before you give money to
these campaigns, though, you should make sure they’re not unrealistic or scam.
#4: Distinguish Opinion from Fact
Even news websites and programs have spaces or shows dedicated to people's opinions
of news stories. In newspapers, these sections may be called:

 Editorials
 Letters to the Editor
 Op-Eds
 Opinion
Opinion shows many times now dominate cable news sources. You may agree with the
opinions presented, or they may contextualize the facts for you in a way that makes
sense. However, realize they are presenting the facts in a way that meets their agenda
and think for yourself: How might "the other side" present these same facts?
Examples of opinion shows on news channels are:

 The O'Reilly Factor

 Hardball with Chris Matthews
 Fox & Friends
 The Rachel Maddow Show
 Anderson Cooper 360

STEP FOUR: HOW TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE

At this point, you probably understand the story you started with pretty well.
You’re ready for the last, most subjective step of the process: deciding what it means.
If you’ve been momentarily fooled by an Onion link or some other fake story — and
seriously, it’s happened to all of us — this isn’t a tough step. If it’s a real piece of news,
things get a lot harder.

You obviously don’t want to believe everything you see or read. But uncritically
disbelieving everything is just as bad. Some news sources really are more consistently
accurate than others. Some expert opinions are more trustworthy than your own
amateur research. If you only believe things that you’ve checked with your own eyes,
you’ll have an incredibly blinkered view of the world.
So the goal here isn’t to identify why a story is wrong. It’s to identify how the story
works — which parts are complicated and subjective, which parts are probably
accurate, and how much it should change your opinions or behavior.

Looking Deeper
 Are important facts getting left out or distorted?
 What’s the larger narrative?
 What happens if you’re wrong?
 Why share this story?

SOMETIMES EVERYBODY GETS THINGS WRONG

Sometimes, even the most well-regarded news sources release stories that aren’t true.
In one extreme 2013 example, hackers took over the Associated Press Twitter account
and claimed there were explosions at the White House. The story was quickly
debunked, but for the first few minutes, the average reader could very reasonably
assume the news was real.

More commonly, sources can lie, documents can be faked, and reporters can mishear
quotes. Breaking news stories can be unreliable because nobody — including
government officials and other authorities — knows what’s going on. Radio station
WNYC published an excellent “Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook” for just this
reason.

If you share stories on social media, there’s a good chance you’ll eventually post
something that’s inaccurate or misleading, even if you’re diligently doing research. That
doesn’t mean that nothing is true or that every site is equally fake. You might see a bad
story from an outlet that carefully outlines its sources, explains the context of an event,
and corrects mistakes when it finds them. You’re much more likely to see a bad story
from an outlet that posts context-free rumors and doesn’t explain where it’s getting
information. If you read a site regularly over time, you’ll get a better sense of how
much to trust it. By the same token, you might occasionally believe something false if
you’re careful. But if you don’t care about getting things right, it’ll happen much more
often.
#5: Watch out for red flags!

 Does the link end with .co instead of .com?

 Are there small disclaimers, something that says "satire"?
 When you click on a story in social media, is it a story that is outdated? Why is it
being circulated now?
 Is it posted by so-and-so? ...We all have that one friend on social media.
Let’s DEVELOP: Social Engagement
Social media is such a staple of our evolving digital culture that it’s almost hard to
imagine a time without updates, likes, and shares. Where else are you going to find a
huge database of your target demographic who are already in the mind frame to read,
click on, and share your message?
Take a look at the number of active monthly users for the most popular social platforms
(and these numbers are increasing every month!):
Despite these numbers, many companies still doubt the power of social media because
it seems unquantifiable. How do you know if your social media strategy is working?
The answer is simpler than many marketers realize. It all boils down to engagement,
which is any type of interaction from your customer that goes beyond passive
acknowledgment.
In the first half of this post, we’ll go over ten ways to dependably measure your social
media engagement. In the second half, we’ll show you seven awesome tools to
measure it.
While a general consensus exists that audience engagement with your social media
accounts is of great value, the measurement strategy of those social engagements is far
from unanimous.
WHAT EXACTLY IS SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT AND HOW IS IT CALCULATED?
Broadly speaking, social media engagement consists of the metrics that track how
actively involved with your content your audience is.

What makes gaining a firm understanding of social engagement difficult are the various
engagement options available within each social platform. For example, Facebook posts
can be shared whereas Instagram posts cannot. As a result, there is no amplification
component to an engagement calculation for Instagram while there is with Facebook.
In addition, no standard metric naming convention exists between social platforms.
Using social conversation metrics as an example, Twitter refers to this metric as
“replies” while Facebook refers to it as “comments.” Due to these difficulties, there is no
universally accepted way to calculate social engagement, and that is problematic as we
need to utilize a consistent methodology across channels and platforms to allow for
common measurement and analysis.
To solve this issue, Ohio State calculates social engagement and social engagement
rate with the following formulas.
Engagement = Applause + Conversation + Amplification + Engagement Clicks + Clicks
to Web
Engagement Rate = Engagement / Impressions
If you are beginning to feel uneasy or confused, rest assured that these are all metrics
you are familiar with, but have adopted a universal name. Common elements with
different names led to a need to categorize those different engagement opportunities
across platforms. In addition, we want to ensure that we can clearly understand what
each metric means and that it is independent of other metrics so we aren’t double-
counting engagements.