I’m sure this will vary for many people depending on their schools, where/when they were taught, and the like, so I’m interested to see what others’ experiences have been with this.

I’m also curious about what resources some have used to learn better research skills & media literacy (and found useful) if their school didn’t adequately teach either (or they may have whiffed on it at the time).

  • etchinghillside@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    After ~7 years of book reports and essays I’d hope you’d run across at least one teacher that taught you the basics of how to reference things and not plagiarise – where I grew up.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes in the 2000s on primary school we were taught about search engines and the internet. Our classes covered how to find information, types of searches and to be skeptical of information sources. Intermediate and high-school taught everything on the internet was wrong and not to use it.

  • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m over 40 and while I was taught to do research on a Microfische, I was regularly told not to trust anything on the internet.

    As for media literacy, no way in hell. Especially after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 started allowing mass consolidation of media empires. In the 1980’s, majority of US media was owned by around 80 companies, in the modern era, it’s five that own the majority of the US media landscape.

    You say the name “Marshall McLuhan” or even “the medium is the message” and you get confused fucking looks.

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eh, they certainly tried to teach it, but teachers were scared to give assignments that required information they didn’t provide ahead of time.
    So, there was never a need to actually apply it, to realize that, hey, if I don’t know something, I should absolutely crack open the internet and read up on whatever I can find.

  • hitagi@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    We took those classes. They were very introductory though (how to cite, what are good sources, how to write a research paper, history of media, some basic media theories, etc).

  • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    So I’m going to say no but in a way different from others here.

    Technical details like libraries, even search engines, sources, quoting and citing … sure, these were at least touched on if not covered well enough.

    But as someone who has gone on to do actual research at an academic level, I’d say the essential challenge of the task wasn’t even touched. Which is getting to the bottom of a question or field, exploring the material on said topic and then digesting and synthesising all of that. Some may hit this in undergrad depending on the degree, and it’s tricky work to do well and at an advanced level.

    From what I’ve seen, the ideas and techniques required aren’t covered early on at all. Now it may be rather challenging at an early educational level, but I’d bet you it’s possible but undesirable because it’s hard to grade and takes a long time.

    Thing is, I’d suspect trying to get practiced at that kind of work would actually be beneficial. You start to get insight into what it means to know things and to work things out. What it means to ask questions that aren’t common or not immediately answerable by Wikipedia (I recall realising in my masters that Wikipedia no longer had any utility for my research, like at all) and how there are different domains and sources and levels and techniques of both knowledge and uncertainty and mystery. Whether a young student is good at this or gets far at it, trying it for a bit and seeing the process could be valuable for everyone.

    • ALostInquirer@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But as someone who has gone on to do actual research at an academic level, I’d say the essential challenge of the task wasn’t even touched. Which is getting to the bottom of a question or field, exploring the material on said topic and then digesting and synthesising all of that. Some may hit this in undergrad depending on the degree, and it’s tricky work to do well and at an advanced level.

      From what I’ve seen, the ideas and techniques required aren’t covered early on at all. Now it may be rather challenging at an early educational level, but I’d bet you it’s possible but undesirable because it’s hard to grade and takes a long time.

      Without having gone on to do actual research, but with at least undergrad completed, I’m inclined to agree. Despite having completed undergrad, even it left me wondering a fair amount how much I’d just been a terrible student or how much my education had somehow managed to sort of gloss over or speed over rather critical research skills to develop.

      Sure, I knew how to search for info and kind of weigh the sources, as some others have noted, but the more involved work like you describe? Not so much, and I’m fairly confident it was as much to do with the curriculum as it was to do with the limited time each class/course had to work with (plus accounting for the fact you’d also be muddling through multiple other classes/courses), which wouldn’t necessarily even permit for assignments that would have one digging in and really researching thoroughly.

      • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, agree, and had the same feeling through undergrad.

        If it helps, I’ve had the same feeling through post-grad too! The whole world is on timelines and productivity goals these days … no one is allowed the time to just explore and see where things take them.

        The recent Nobel Prize for medicine (for the mRNA vaccine) being a fairly glaring indictment of how much it has maybe taken academia off course. For example, here’s a psychology professor trying to address the issue on mastodon. Another example I noticed was that any older paper I’d read, though the technology and understanding (in some cases) was obviously older and less advanced, would obviously be of a better quality compared to modern papers. The main difference was that older papers were more likely to report on the story of an investigation. There’s be assides about things they’d checked or doubts they’d had etc. Modern papers tend to lean more into “marketing” and feel more rushed and manufactured. Any colleague in similar areas to me that I’ve spoken about this has shared similar feelings. Academics are pressured to publish at nearly a breakneck speed and none of them like it. Not because it’s got them working hard (though it does have that effect through secondary affects because of just how many things academics have to do to keep the system running, including peer-review), but because they aren’t allowed to work as hard as they’d like on solving problems and actually finishing projects.

        Back to the topic of education … yea I agree that curriculum and its modularity is a big part of the problem. Bottom line is, along with the above, education is manufactured now, not cultured. Allowing a student to try and inevitably fail and struggle at actual research and asking their own or at least not spoon fed questions doesn’t fit neatly into the current design philosophy of education.

        Thing is, I’m not sure there is much more of a point to education than allowing and helping someone learn and experience this process. It’s as simple as the “teach a man to fish” aphorism. All of the assessment and metrics driven design of education and curriculum to make sure someone is capable of knowing something for a short window of time is a rather superficial view of what being educated is about. With AI, chatGPT etc, the specter haunting academia and the hollowness of its value proposition is looming very large IMO, but few who are around academia or who genuinely found it valuable or value it as part of the self-worth want to question it.

  • Godort@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    We were taught basic research skills all throughout highschool, how to find information, how to read and write academic papers and how to cite things properly.

    As far as media literacy goes, but our social studies classes always opened with a discussion about the day’s news stories as well as the bias of the source it came from.

    But I think the class that really opened my eyes the most was a unit in 9th grade English where we discussed the language of advertising. In that class they taught us how anything you see in an ad has to be technically correct as to not run afowl of false advertising laws, but is very often misleading. After that, I started to spot those techniques everywhere, and not just in ads. Those few weeks were foundational to the way I approach critical thought now.

  • GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    GCSE (14-16 year olds) history is (supposed to) teach the various types of source (primary, secondary, etc.), and consideration of reliability, bias, etc.

    For the sciences, we were required to use reasonable sources (perhaps not direct papers and journals, but certainly reasonably reputable outlets that discuss their findings.

    At college level (16-19), I honestly don’t remember this being a requirement (although I did drop history). Tests and assignments were mostly based on class teaching.

    At university level, it goes full force after the first year. Everything you assert, you have to back up, using the university’s preferred referencing system.

  • Gabbro@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes. In highschool (Australia) I took Modern History in years 11-12, which was taught by a teacher who really cared about the subject. With a subject like that of course media literacy, arguments, hypothesis’s, source accuracy, claims, bias, and everything related to research skills was relevant. It was essentially a practice run for any political science course you would take at university, as the class revolved around submitting one big assessment item each term which was thoroughly researched. I chose the easy route every time and just wrote essays, but if you were the creative type you could make something else to showcase understanding.

    During one semester we did a small trip to a university campus in the city so we could gather resources for one of our projects while not hitting any paywalls.

    Of course being an elective senior subject in rural Queensland it was only about 15 of us in my class, where my cohort at large was 100 students in total (once people dropped out in Year 10).

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I went to high school in the 90s, so no. Well… we learned proper research, but not in any modern sense. We learned how to use a card catalog, microfiche, and a library. I had to teach myself how to use online and other digital sources.

  • zerbey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Secondary education did a pretty good job, but I’d say that was more on the teachers than the curriculum. I got very lucky in that regard. My community college for my BTEC, same, the one teacher who taught me how to properly write reports and assignments was really good at ensuring we cited everything properly, and gave extra marks.