Identifying Fake News in the UK

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Methodology Proposal
Potential Relevance
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Fake news on the internet is a standing issue in Web 2.0 (Peters, 2017). With the variety of sources and the number of people who stay anonymous generating content, there will always be a question of reliability. It is, therefore, paramount to equip young minds with skills and knowledge to sort the information property. The literature review on the topic of adolescents identifying fake news in the UK demonstrated certain knowledge gaps that need to be addressed to produce solutions for the named problems. Sufficient evidence has been produced by scientists such as Spratt and Agosto (2017) on the prevalence of the lack of skills, yet little is known about why teens and pre-teens consider the information on the internet reliable. Mainly, this issue persists due to the insufficiency of large-scale studies that target the specified population in the UK and assess the knowledge gaps in students.

One of the conclusions that can be made in relation to the literature review is the urgent necessity of continuous and multidimensional studies in the area of fake news. This conclusion has been drawn based on several facts. One of them is that 80% of the adolescent and pre-adolescent population uses devices with internet access to find and share content using a variety of platforms and social media (Cranwell et al. 2016). Another key finding provided by Makhdoom and Awan (2014) is that about 20% of the adolescent users do not question their sources’ validity and reliability and completely trust them. In addition, school curriculums provide students with little or no information on why it is necessary to carefully process information gained on the Internet or how to do it.

The fact that several authors outlined the scale of the issue and possible areas for further research is an obvious strength of the existing literature (Makhdoom & Awan 2014; Spratt & Agosto 2017). Their findings set the following works on the right path. Another strong point is the existence of preliminary research into ways of tackling the problem. As such, the Four Resource Model proposed by Firkins (2015) was developed to address the issue, yet its practical value and effectiveness are still under research. Among the limitations, one can name the lack of collaboration between the researchers, government, and public schools. It seems to undermine the practical usefulness of the studies and does not provide an opportunity to test innovational digital literacy methods in educational institutions. The reviewed literature seems to lead to a theoretical conviction that educators should play a major part in designing and implementing solutions for teaching schoolchildren in the UK to sort information.

In addition, it has become evident that before starting to develop methods to resolve the issue, it is paramount to investigate why young people tend to believe the information they see on the internet. The relevance of this issue is dictated by the gap in the research in this sphere. Scientists, such as Firkins (2015) or Pangrazio (2016) are more focused on the awareness of the educators of the lack of skills in their students, whereas the origins of young people’s beliefs in the Internet sources remain vaguely studied. Based on this fact, the main research question will be as follows: “why adolescents tend to believe the information they find on the Internet?” The research question appears to be ethical and does not require the potential participants of the survey to disclose personal information or any other sensitive data. According to Hammersley (2014), questions ‘why’ often indicate the explanatory nature of the research question. The present question can also be considered explanatory.

In conjunction with the conducted literature review and the identified fact that there is a lack of education and awareness of digital literacy, the following hypothesis has been formed, “most of the adolescents do not consider the question of information reliability while reading or sharing the news.” Another hypothesis will be, “the adolescents tend to check the reliability of the data more frequently shortly after they have been confronted with fake news.”

Methodology Proposal

Sample

For a broad explanatory research question to be answered with precision, there is a need for a large sample. A survey that is planned to be administered among schoolchildren will include more than 200 participants from different schools in the UK. Such a number is justified because of the requirements of generalizability and validity of the data. As such, the more participants are seleсted, the more reliable descriptive statistics will be (Montgomery 2014). In addition, the more adolescents take part in the survey the less margin of statistical errors can be identified. Ideally, the study should gather about 500 respondents, however, due to the limited resources of the researcher, this can hardly be done. To compare, World Health Organization is said to have conducted an international study that covered 440 schoolchildren (Bucknall 2014).

The study will focus on adolescents aged 13 to 18 years as they can demonstrate an adequate level of internet usage skills. Adolescents as compared to younger children are capable of and more prone to share information that is more sophisticated and may require proof. Children before the chosen age tend to focus on searching and sharing rather than recreational information, while adolescents begin to prioritize meaningful content (Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project 2011).

The study will include students of different public and private middle schools for better generalizability. Gender will be of no significance to the study. Access to the participants is planned to be gained through negotiation with school officials and teachers. An email will be sent with brief information about the study, significance and the survey questions with a request to distribute it to the students of target age. Participants aged 13 to 17 will be required to have their parents give their consent for their children to participate in the survey (Market Research Society 2014). This factor may undermine the speed of gathering the necessary number of responses as some parents may find it time-consuming to read the information about the study and send their consent.

The difference from Clark’s (2010) study is that the number of participants is significantly lower due to case-study-based research design. In addition, the ethical challenges that Clark faced are slightly different from the ones expected in this study. Since she engaged with children directly, she faced ethical and communicational barriers for which the researcher had to use different tactics. This research focuses on online participation, which relieves it from many issues faced by Clark. The location choice that was critical for her is not the problem for the current study, as all communication will be done via the Internet. However, certain commonalities can be identified and minded for designing a more effective research methodology (Cooper 2013). As such, certain ethical considerations like using simpler language could be kept in mind while developing a survey.

Data Collection Tools

The primary data collection tool will be a questionnaire. A questionnaire is an effective data collection method when there are a plethora of opinions, and a researcher needs to measure specific ones to identify a pattern. The ultimate goal of this research is to identify the main reasons why students tend to trust the information they find online to draw implications for developing measures to increase digital literacy. Such measures could be then introduced in schools as part of the curriculums. Therefore, for these measures to be developed there is a need for a large dataset that identifies what students pay attention to when assessing the credibility of a source. Surveys were successfully used by Lelkes (2016) who created a data set to assess the prevalence of fake news to be considered true.

An online tool for creating surveys provided by Google (Google Forms) will be better suited for the current study. Google provides a useful tool for collecting as many responses as possible. The benefits of the online survey include the simplicity of the data collection process. To gather responses by conventional door-to-door, or, in the case of schoolchildren, class-to-class and school-to-school there is a need for a considerable amount of traveling expenses and time. Online survey tool provides a much faster and cheaper alternative to that. In addition, an online collection of data provides less biased results. To legally have a google account and participate in a Google survey, an individual is required to be at least 13 years of age in the UK. The sample age is perfectly aligned with this requirement.

According to Bucknall (2014), during interviews children tend to be stressed and provide less meaningful data replying with “I do not know.’ Questionnaires, on the other hand, can give children more freedom and personal space to produce meaningful answers. Interview for the present research question might not be appropriate because the question itself requires certain contemplation before producing an answer. It is anticipated that many of the potential respondents do not usually challenge themselves with that question. Therefore, during an interview, there might be fewer chances to hear a meaningful answer. It is noteworthy to mention that surveys should not be limited to specified answer choices. Bucknall (2014) suggests that besides ticking boxes, a research questionnaire designed for adolescents should include space for other ideas. Therefore, from the standpoint of gathering meaningful data from schoolchildren, a questionnaire could be a more valid choice than an interview.

Another data collection tool that was considered for answering the research question is the results of similar studies. Unfortunately, the studies that focused on the reasons why adolescents chose to trust the sources of information they read or share were not found. A case study would not be applicable either. As evidenced by Clark (2010), this tool is better used to assess the effectiveness of existing mechanisms of intervention that target school educational practices. As the current study aims to explain a phenomenon, case design could be rather complicated to implement. In addition, one of the purposes of the current research is to identify a statistically reliable answer to the question ‘why,’ which presupposes vast amounts of data that case studies cannot provide.

Data Analysis

The primary analysis tool for quantitative data that will be gathered from surveys will be descriptive statistics such as mean, mode, and frequency distribution. Mean is the average score that can show how many certain answers were chosen by respondents. The mode will be used to determine which in the set of values will be the most frequently chosen. Both descriptive will be used to identify a pattern that will allow answering what drives students to put their trust with different sources of online information. Standard deviation will serve as a measure of determining the dispersion of results. As such, this statistical indicator will let us compare the values and assess their variation (Camfield 2012). One of the main tools to help calculate the descriptives and present them in a visual form is the SPSS Statistics set (Aljandali, 2016; Lampard & Pole 2015).

The key variables that will be analyzed are ‘type of source’, ‘author,’ ‘Links to proof,’ ‘none of the above,’ etc. These variables will be assessed as per their relation to age, and gender to establish additional patterns pertaining to the reasons why adolescents might trust the information on the internet. Depending on the spread of the results and prevalence of one or another variable among all of them it will be possible to tell, which gaps education programs should address first. In addition, it could say what educators should pay special attention to. Ideally, the analysis of descriptive statistics identifies one or several keys as to what serves as the source of trust for adolescents.

Time Frame

To structurize the work on the project, it is paramount to define the key stages. In Clark’s (2010) study the project consisted of three stages including data gathering, reflection, and interpretation. This approach worked for Clark as she already had interventions designed and being implemented. The present project requires more stages as the design of the tool needs to be identified as a separate process that requires resources. To design a survey that is effective enough to assess the sources of trust in adolescents towards internet information, it is essential to review appropriate sources and manuals on the construction of such a tool. It will constitute the first stage of the research. Approximately, it will take about two days. Synthesis of the information and the design itself will realistically take three days. The tool must also be validated and approved for use by school children, which will require assistance of an education specialist (Holland et al. 2010). This task will be allocated for up to a week. In addition, a note of consent should be devised for parents of students who are not yet 18 years old. Half a day will possibly be enough to design it.

Upon designing the tool, the second stage will be commenced. During this step, data will be collected. 10 to 15 schools in different parts of the UK will be selected randomly and sent an email with a request to aid with survey participation with a note of consent attached. The response should be awaited for a week and provided the necessary amount of participants sent their consent to participate, the second half of the second stage will begin. All of the students will, through their teachers, get a link to a Google survey. Response gathering should really take one to two weeks.

After the necessary amount of responses are gathered, data analysis should begin (third stage). The creation of descriptive statistics and its analysis might take up to a week. Discussion and implication parts might be completed for four to five days. The final presentation will be made in three days. In summary, the project from start to finish will require about six to seven weeks.

Ethics

According to Alderson (2014), researching young people requires strict adherence to ethics. In accordance with Alderson’s (2014) research, the present study will be guided by the principles of beneficence, non-malfeasance, justice, and respect for privacy. In particular, the research will be aimed at helping children to protect themselves from misinformation. The results will under no circumstances disclose the information because no personal information except for age and gender will be collected. Total anonymity and data safety will be additionally safeguarded by Google confidentiality policies.

One of the possible ethical issues is the data gathered without consent. For instance, some of the adolescents aged younger than 18 can submit their results to the Google form. Since no personal data will not be collected, it will not be possible to identify whose answers were illegally gathered, which undermines the ethics of conducting research. This will be addressed by the research staging. Educators and school officials will be kindly asked to navigate the process of gathering parental consent before giving the interested participants the link to the survey.

Another ethical issue that might arise in the course of the project development is phrasing the questions on an academic level that exceeds the language proficiency of an average adolescent. Students might incorrectly understand the question and submit inadequate answers, which will compromise the data set. Therefore, the questions of the survey will be composed in simple English to ensure each age group understands them to the full extent. In addition, to grant every participant the right to self-expression, the research will also include blank spaces for giving an answer that is not listed among options where appropriate.

Potential Relevance

The research project is of utmost significance due to the fact that, according to the latest estimates, 20% of the adolescents in the UK lack the necessary skills to identify fake news (Lelkes 2016). The situation is aggravated by the fact that no educational programs address that knowledge gap. The answer to the question of why adolescents in the UK fall for misinformation on the Internet will provide valuable statistical data necessary for developing meaningful interventions to school curriculums to address this issue.

One of the potential limitations is the generalizability of the research data to other countries. Perhaps, the reasons for trusting internet sources in different countries are dissimilar. The problem of fake news is persistent in many countries including the U.S., yet the research will target only UK adolescents (Spratt & Agosto 2017). In addition, survey gathers self-reported data that is often biased. The research findings will also have limited outcomes, as most of the questions are close-ended and do not provide sufficient information beyond the topic.

The target audience is educators who seek to improve the student’s digital literacy. In addition, the project might also be helpful to policymakers in the sphere of education as it provides necessary insights into how fake news is perceived as true. Other researchers might also find this research to be of use because the data produced can be examined in a variety of ways.

The educators should be aware of the fact that younger groups of students might have different reasons for trusting internet sources. They should consider this fact when using the research results in their curriculum adjustments. Policymakers might share this concern with educators. In addition, they should know that the project data needs constant updates because internet habits and skills in adolescents may change with time. Other researchers need to bear in mind the fact that this study can become a part of a longitudinal one and the author is open to cooperation.

Reaching educators will doubtfully be a problem, as they will become active participants in the project helping the author collect parental consent. All of the teachers who participated in the research will be welcome to acquaint themselves with its results. Educators and school board members of the schools-participants can also be emailed a link to the study results. Dissemination might face a problem of scarce replies (Hagedorn et al. 2015). In that case, other teachers need to be identified and contacted. Publishing them in a peer-reviewed journal with a high impact factor will certainly aid the recognition of the results among all named audiences. The problem can arise with co-authorship, as some of the assistant teachers could potentially want to be mentioned in the research. Two variants of resolution can be proposed. One is to offer partnership and continue collaboration dividing parts of the research. The other will be to mention all teachers in the “special thanks” section.

Conclusion

The research is designed to collect data with respect to the anonymity of the participants. No personal data except for age and gender will be gathered. Therefore, no issues with disseminating the research should arise. In addition, all theoretical paradigms that will be used to design and develop the theoretical basis of the study will be properly referenced to avoid intellectual property conflicts.

The practical issues with disseminating the research are also non-existent. As long as the research is published in one of the appropriate peer-reviewed journals available online, virtually any individual interested in the present study will be able to access it. Other than that, there seem to be no more barriers to dissemination.

Reference List

Alderson, P 2014, ‘Ethics’, in A Clark, R Flewitt, M Hammersley & M Robb (eds), Understanding research with children and young people, SAGE. Web.

Aljandali, 2016, Quantitative Analysis and IBM SPSS Statistics: A Guide for Business and Finance, Springer.

Bucknall, S 2014, ‘Doing qualitative research with children and young people’, in A Clark, R Flewitt, M Hammersley & M Robb (eds), Understanding research with children and young people, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 107–121, Web.

Camfield, L 2012, ‘Resilience and well-being among urban Ethiopian children: what role do social resources and competencies play?’, Social Indicators Research, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 393–410.

Clark, 2010, ‘Young children as protagonists and the role of participatory, visual methods in engaging multiple perspectives’, American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 46, no. 1–2, pp. 115–23.

Cooper, V 2013, ‘Designing research for different purposes’, in A Clark, M Hammersley, R Flewitt & M Robb (eds), Understanding research with children and young people, Sage, London, Web.

Cranwell, J, Whittamore, K, Britton, J & Leonardi-Bee, J 2016, ‘Alcohol and tobacco content in UK video games and their association with alcohol and tobacco use among young people’, CyberPsychology, Behaviour & Social Networking, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 426-434.

Firkins, A 2015 ‘The four resources model: a useful framework for second language teaching in a military context’, Technical Studies Institute Journal, Web.

Hammersley, M 2014, ‘Research design’, in A Clark, M Hammersley, R Flewitt & M Robb (eds), Understanding research with children and young people, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 107–121, Web.

Hagedorn, R, White, J, Famodu, O, Barr, M, Hanks, S, Chester, A, Colby, S, Franzen-Castle, L, Kattelmann, K, White, A & Olfert, M 2015, ‘Using high school leaders in dissemination and implementation through the health science technology academy (HSTA): icook 4-H’, in Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, vol. 47, p. S38.

Holland, S, Renold, E, Ross, N & Hillman, A 2010, ‘Power, agency and participatory agendas: a critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research’, Childhood, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 360–75.

Lampard, R & Pole, C 2015, Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research, Routledge.

Lelkes, Y 2016, ‘Mass polarization: manifestations and measurements’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 392–410.

Makhdoom, M & Awan, S 2014, ‘Education and neo-colonisation: a critique of English literature curriculum in Pakistan’, South Asian Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 411-421.

Market Research Society 2014, MRS guidelines for research with children and young people, Web.

Montgomery, H 2014, ‘Participant observation’, in A Clark, R Flewitt, M Hammersley & M Robb (eds), Understanding research with children and young people, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 107–121, Web.

Peters, MA 2017, ‘The information wars, fake news and the end of globalisation’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–4.

Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project 2011, ‘The social life of health information, 2011,’ Web.

Spratt, H & Agosto, D 2017, ‘Fighting fake news: because we all deserve the truth: programming ideas for teaching teens media literacy’, Young Adult Library Services, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 17-21, Web.

Click Here To Order Now!