Debating claims of fact in public health: A pedagogical activity
https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2024.11690
Accepted: 11 January 2024
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
This pedagogical activity asks instructors or workshop administrators to guide students through the process of evaluating evidence used in recurring health misinformation. Taking an approach based in argumentation and debate, instructors will facilitate understanding of how to evaluate evidence using specific criteria. Students are asked to develop cases to refute or defend a factual claim about human health, construct oral and written arguments for their case, and share them with other students who will evaluate the strength and quality of evidence used by each side. Ultimately, students will learn to: i) Understand how arguments are constructed that both support and refute a health claim; ii) develop strategies to evaluate evidence used for both sides of a claim of fact; and iii) know how to identify health misinformation, particularly in an online context.
Auxier, B. (2020, October 15). 64% of Americans say social media have a mostly negative effect on the way things are going in the U.S. today. Pew Research Center. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/15/64-of-americans-say-social-media-have-a-mostly-negative-effect-on-the-way-things-are-going-in-the-u-s-today/
Barthell, M., Mitchell, A., & Holcomb, J. (2016, December 15). Many Americans believe fake news is sowing confusion. Pew Research Center. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/
Bonnet, J.L., & Rosenbaum, J.E. (2020). Fake news, misinformation, and political bias: Teaching news literacy in the 21st century. Communication Teacher, 34(2), 103-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2019.1625938
Brenan, M. (2022, October 18). Americans’ trust in media remains near record low. Gallup. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/403166/americans-trust-media-remains-near-record-low.aspx
Dentzer, S. (2009). Communicating medical news: Pitfalls of health care journalism. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0805753
Gottfried, J., Mitchell, A., Jurkowitz, M., & Liedke, J. (2022, June 14). Journalists sense turmoil in their industry amid continued passion for their work: Journalists highly concerned about misinformation, future of press freedoms. Pew Research Center. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2022/06/14/journalists-highly-concerned-about-misinformation-future-of-press-freedoms/
Haraway, D. (1998). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
Jasinski, J. (2001). Argument. In Sourcebook on Rhetoric. Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452233222.n10
Lyons, B. A., Montgomery, J. M., Guess, A. M., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2021). Overconfidence in news judgments is associated with false news susceptibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2019527118
Murthy, V. (2021). Confronting health misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a healthy information environment. U.S. Public Health Service. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-misinformation-advisory.pdf
Sismondo, S. (2010). Introduction to science and technology studies. (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Zarefsky, D. (2019). The practice of argumentation. Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139540926
Copyright (c) 2024 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Downloads
Citations
