• thesohoriots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 days ago

    It’s not so much that they don’t give a damn, but that they can’t tell. I taught some basic English courses with a research component (most students in their first college semester), and I’d drag them to the library each semester for a boring day on how to generate topics, how to discern scholarly sources, then use databases like EBSCO or JSTOR to find articles to support arguments in the essays they’d be writing for the next couple years. Inevitably, I’d get back papers with so-and-so’s blog cited, PraegerU, Wikipedia, or Google’s own search results. Here’s where a lot of the problem lies: discerning sources, and knowing how to use syntax in searches, which is itself becoming irrelevant on Google etc. but NOT academic databases. So why take the time to give the “and” and “or” and “after: 1980” and “type: peer-reviewed” when you can just write a natural-language question into a search engine and get an answer right away that seems legit in the snippet? I’d argue the tech is the problem because it encourages a certain type of inquiry and quick answers that are plausible, but more often than not, lacking in any credibility.

    • terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      I think my kid is gonna be just fine. He rarely believes anything i tell em without follow up evidence…He’s 5.

      But Ive always focused on critical thinking skills from as early as possible.

    • Invertedouroboros@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      22 days ago

      Is it the tech? Or is it media literacy?

      I’ve messed around with AI on a lark, but would never dream of using it on anything important. I feel like it’s pretty common knowledge that AI will just make shit up if it wants to, so even when I’m just playing around with it I take everything it says with a heavy grain of salt.

      I think ease of use is definitely a component of it, but in reading your message I can’t help but wonder if the problem instead lies in critical engagement. Can they read something and actively discern whether the source is to be trusted? Or are they simply reading what is put in front of them then turning around to you and saying “well, this is what the magic box says. I don’t know what to tell you.”.