I completely agree! My dad had taught me this lesson when I stated something I read at face value, and explained that just because we are supposed to be able to trust information we read, we have to be sure we can stand behind that information if we are will to spread it, and fully believe in its source.

This is so true! The other day on Facebook, I saw a relative post about a satirical article on the Onion........ being outraged by a story about millennials that merely fed into that relatives confirmation bias, not realizing the Onion is not a genuine news site.

It is scary how few people read beyond the headline. This is obvious in the comments section of the various news articles posted to Facebook, where people ask questions or state their opinions on something that, if they actually even clicked on the article, they would likely immediately retract.

Its funny that the author mentions being a "proud papa" when a student notices this. My dad had always taught to me to question who and where I am getting information from, by example. If he found an interesting statistic cited in the paper, he would go online to look into it further to see how credible the researchers were and the study they conducted, before accepting a statistic at face value.

The amplification of falsehood seems to be a responsibility that falls on the consumer, but how the initial falsehood is propagated seems like the responsibility of news sites that fail to be objective in their journalism, no?

Matches my initial hypothesis!

I would imagine that part of this lies in the psychology of emotion. If something is almost real enough not to seem fake, it makes sense that it would trigger a subconscious emotional reaction, and desire to investigate the claim in a that continues to trigger this kind of reaction, than seek the truth.

I wonder then, if this idea that wider knowledge production must be tied to monetary benefit.....is it itself a structural inequity in the form of a commonly accepted societal ideal (given our roots in capitalism). Should this notion be accepted?

Hmm.... it seems that to make this sort of comment the scholars making this claim should be cited, as should the research to support it. Without it, this sort of seems like a stereotype...?

It's interesting how it seems that at every level of one's professional career, there are certain "measuring sticks" used much like grades to delineate worthiness within one's respective field.

The idea of making local communication global is something that immediately reminded me of my time studying abroad. It is commonplace for other cultures to speak English, among many other languages. Yet I've "taken Spanish" since elementary school and it would be, frankly, an overstatement to pretend my fluency is anything beyond that of a 1st grader.

There is irony in this, that as an educator or teacher of activism, one inherently possess more power than the "student" of activism. Is there a right or wrong way to be an activist? Is successful activism measured on the basis of what is achieved, or how it is achieved?

Beyond the press, certain political groups and age groups also use the term (now commonplace) "snow flakes."

I think this is an especially important point. Before one can truly become an agent of social change, it's important to clarify core beliefs and values rather than merely adopt them based on the notion that they are "supposed to." Without this clarification, the passion required for successful change to be brought about in the midst of conflict, is lacking or even absent entirely.

I like the distinction the author makes between reflection, which in itself sounds like a sort of passive act, and "critical reflection" which embodies action and purpose. More often than not I have found true knowledge to come from this type of critical reflection process she references. It is through actively examining and reevaluating knowledge or a set of decisions that furthers growth in an individual.

Very important to remember in terms of online teaching tools. Somethings will work better than others, especially as technology continues to evolve it is important to explore new ways to interact online, and not become too attached to things that could be obsolete in the near future.

This is very true and applicable to our class! Now more than ever we have to try to expand upon the up and coming tools that allow us to achieve the kind of intimacy we do in person, such that learning, teaching, and other discussions evoke similar feelings of presence.

This was true of my elementary and middle school experience. While the comments were supplemented with a form of a grading criteria, it was not the standard A-F scale. I think this was positive because I remember feeling like the intrinsic motivation mentioned in the article.

This is especially interesting to consider. The majority of my classes are graded on a curve, such that only the top of the class can receive A's. Essentially, it suggests/trains students to believe that it actually matters less how well you do, so long as you're doing better than those around you.

Unfortunately, while nourishing a desire to learn may be the goal of many (good) teachers, the reality of our educational system is to separate high-achievers from low-achievers, such that a number of career opportunities beyond school are structured only to be available to those which meet certain "high-achiever" requirements.

This point really resonates with me and how I've learned to study and adapt for certain classes. Particularly, some teachers do not just stress that the goal is to get a good mark, but that the goal is to get what they subjectively believe is right. For example, in writing papers, or answering free response questions, it is often easier to simply write about what I know the teacher would like, rather than a dissenting opinion or choosing a riskier topic that may actually be of more interest to me.