# data[].attributes.body
https://schoolguide.casel.org/resource/creating-shared-agreements/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This tool provides guidance for creating staff shared agreements about how they will work together to achieve a shared vision for schoolwide SEL.

Download Resource Purchase A Printed Copy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This tool provides guidance for creating staff shared agreements about how they will work together to achieve a shared vision for schoolwide SEL. Download Resource Purchase A Printed Copy

# data[].attributes.body
https://medium.com/@CWContent/6-ways-to-overcome-the-forgetting-curve-354151c355c

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"What did she tell me about that issue when we met this morning? We covered so much. I just can't remember." "My financial advisor sent me something about that recently, but I don't recall exactly what the article said."
We've all had these kinds of experiences. Information is just on the edge of your memory and nearly impossible to recall, even though you've heard or seen it just earlier in the day. Or, you know you've read about a subject, but you just can't remember the details precisely or where the article appeared.

You are't alone. Humans forget approximately 50 percent of new information they encounter within an hour and an average of 70 percent within 24 hours, cognitive science expert Art Kohn notes. After a week, he says, that average goes up to 90 percent.

Here's a great infographic about the Forgetting Curve and factors that impact our ability to remember. http://elearninginfographics.com/memory-retention-and-the-forgetting-curve-infographic/

This pattern is common to us all. It is known as the forgetting curve and was first presented by Hermann Ebbinghaus in his 1885 book on memory.

Ever since, teachers, leaders, orators, politicians and business people have been looking for ways to overcome this basic human characteristic and be more memorable. But, our human brains naturally channel out much of the vast river of information that flows in every minute. This function helps us focus on one or two important items and make room for others, according to Kohn.

For leaders, professional service advisors, marketers and communicators, this can be very frustrating. I have seen countless surveys of groups in which the results show the audience has very limited recall of information that project teams and managers feel they have been relentlessly communicating.

Training and education professionals have similar experiences with the content they deliver in school and as part of corporate curriculums. As a result, they've developed a range of techniques for helping students improve retention of the information they teach. We as business leaders, professionals, communicators and marketers can learn from their work and translate it to be memorable with our audiences.

Here are six tips for helping your audience overcome the Forgetting Curve:

1. Have a focus: Before you create any kind of content, you should be able to express your main point in one or two sentences. If you don't have that level of clarity, then your audiences won't either. This includes making sure the complexity of your main theme is appropriate for your audience. Ebbinghaus' research showed that the difficulty of the content for a person has an impact on memory.

2. Space it out: Delivering information in bite-sized pieces over a period of time is a technique used widely by professional educators drawing on the concept of spaced repetition. The approach is the opposite of the "cramming" technique many of us may have used in college which doesn't support long-term memory recall. For communicators and marketers, this means planning a series to convey a complex message over time rather than putting it all into one blog post, article, executive letter, video or presentation.

3. Make a connection: If you have done your homework and know your audience, you can help them reduce the speed of forgetting by connecting your information to something they already know. Draw a parallel between your main point and something that is commonplace for them.

4. Say it first, say it last: Ebbinghaus also discovered that information positioned at the beginning and the end of a communication is better remembered. Whether it is a blog post, a presentation or any kind of information delivery, be sure to follow the classic structure of book ending your piece with your most important point.

5. Revisit the information frequently: A common technique recommended to university students is to review notes and readings after a class session at frequent intervals. Through this practice, the brain is able to recall the information more quickly each time. In business we can encourage our clients, employees, colleagues and partners to revisit our points by delivering our core themes repeatedly - even when we as creators tire of sending out the same information.

6. Deliver it multiple ways: The base shape of the forgetting curve is the same for everyone. Individuals make a difference in their memory abilities by adopting techniques that work for them. So, using a variety of methods to deliver information is critical. We see this in schools with different approaches used for visual, auditory, and hands on learners. In business, we must take a similar approach by delivering our content in a variety of formats from blogs to videos to infographics to slide presentations.

When considering your next content creation effort, help your audiences overcome the Forgetting Curve by using these six tips - and become more memorable as a result.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"What did she tell me about that issue when we met this morning? We covered so much. I just can't remember." "My financial advisor sent me something about that recently, but I don't recall exactly what the article said." We've all had these kinds of experiences.

# data[].attributes.body
thinkdothrive.org

# data[].attributes.body
https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the last year and a half, the Stanford History Education Group has prototyped, field tested, and validated a bank of assessments that tap civic online reasoning-the ability to judge the credi...

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-12-27-fighting-fake-news-in-the-classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PISA scores were recently released, and results of the international test revealed that only 14 percent of U.S. students were able to reliably distinguish between fact and opinion.

This is particularly alarming because we live in an era when, according to Pew Research Center, 68 percent of American adults get their news from social media-platforms where opinion is often presented as fact. While Facebook and other social media outlets have pledged to tackle fake news, the results are lackluster.

Even on seemingly-serious websites, credibility is not a given. When I was in middle and high school, we were taught that we could trust .org websites. Now, with the practice of astroturfing, responsible consumers of information must dig deeper and go further to verify the legitimacy of information.

As a former middle and high school classroom teacher, my first thought is: What can I do to fix this? With social media so tightly woven into the fabric of society, it is unrealistic to think that I can get people to stop using it to obtain information. And, frankly, I'm part of that 68 percent.

So, if we won't stop getting information from these sources, what is the next best option? We, as educators and parents, must consider how to make a difference.

We can take on the task of educating our students how to distinguish fact from opinion and how to identify false or biased information.

Neglecting to Teach Information Literacy

As a teacher, I was incentivized to get my students to memorize as many facts as possible so they could regurgitate them on the statewide test at the end of the school year. While I did my best to make the learning engaging, differentiated and rigorous, I knew that a significant portion of my annual evaluation was based on how well my students performed on the test. I was pressed to use my class time for maximum memorization. I didn't want to risk confusing my students or clouding their memories by giving them anything other than learning experiences that would drill the facts into their minds. I learned to justify my teaching approach by telling myself, "This is what students need to be successful."

I was partly right-they did need to memorize information to be successful on the test. But now, when I think about the skills and knowledge people need to be well-informed citizens capable of digesting and synthesizing complex information, I wish I could go back and redesign my teaching approach.

For example, my cell structure and function unit would no longer merely ask students to describe the structure and function of cells and organelles. It would help students learn how to use credible sources of information to learn about a scientific topic related to cells. For example, I could ask students to describe how cancer originates and progresses in the body; distinguish between cancer treatments based on their methods, effectiveness, limitations and side effects; identify reasons why cancer is so difficult to treat; and, maybe most importantly, interview doctors.

Another redesigned approach, particularly for a science unit on water, would be one that begins by introducing Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) and the controversy surrounding it. Students can visit this website and research the effects that DHMO has on the environment, cancer rates and even the dairy industry. As students learn more about DHMO online, they are likely to get increasingly upset about its negative effects. Students could even be encouraged to become activists and have their peers, teachers and family sign a petition banning DHMO. Eventually, the strategic reveal that DHMO is just a clever name for water can get students thinking critically about why they allowed themselves to get duped by the fake news website. Thirsty for another example? Do it to them again with the Endangered Northwest Tree Octopus.

Experiences like these, where students are challenged to consider the validity of information and sort what's real from what's fake, would better prepare them not only to be savvier consumers of news, but also to someday digest contradictory information to make complicated decisions about their own health care, finances or civic engagement.

How Educators Can Help

My challenge to educators today is to get students to think critically and ask questions about the information they consume. In schools, students tend to receive only facts because of the requirements we place on teachers. This doesn't prepare students for the real world, where they have to evaluate information and its sources to discern between fact, opinion and bias.

Fortunately, there are many freely available resources to help educators teach how to vet information and think critically about real-world topics. To name a few:

Common Sense Media has free K-12 curricula and lesson plans to promote digital citizenship.

KQED has classroom resources like Engineering for Good that support teachers as they bring engineering design (which involves researching and brainstorming solutions) into the classroom, as well as KQED Learn, where students build media literacy and critical thinking skills while researching and discussing contemporary issues.

National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science has free resources for teachers that facilitate research, vetting of information, critical thinking and Socratic discourse among students.

PBL Works has tons of sample problem-based learning units, guides and rubrics that will give your students opportunities to research and vet information while developing solutions to real-world problems.

The New York Academy of Sciences has a free Innovation Curriculum that supports teachers as they get students thinking critically about a topic by asking questions, performing research, interviewing experts, etc.

Additionally, add some research-based instructional strategies to what you're already doing in your classroom:

Claim, Evidence, Reasoning (CER) is a strategy in which students make a claim, support it with evidence and rationalize how the evidence supports the claim. You can even apply the CER strategy to news or journal articles that you have students read. Ask students to highlight claims in yellow, evidence in pink and reasoning in blue. After that, you can discuss whether the claims are based in fact or opinion.

Formative assessment strategies can get students practicing ways to verify information. If students set goals for themselves and then monitor their progress toward that goal, require that they provide evidence to support their growth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fighting Fake News in the Classroom - EdSurge News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PISA scores were recently released, and results of the international test revealed that only 14 percent of U.S. students were able to reliably distinguish between fact and opinion. This is particularly alarming because we live in an era when, according to Pew Research Center, 68 percent of American adults get their news from social media-platforms where opinion is often presented as fact.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fake news is thriving thanks to social media users, study finds, PEW 2019 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fake news is thriving thanks to social media users, study finds, PEW 2019 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnet.com/news/fake-news-more-likely-to-spread-on-social-media-study-finds/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites have been stepping up their efforts to combat the spread of fake news on their platforms but that hasn't stopped Americans from sharing misinformation.

It turns out US adults who prefer to get their news through social media are more likely to share fake news than those who prefer to get news via conventional methods, such as newspapers, TV or websites, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center.

Pew Research Center

About 60% of US adults who prefer getting news through social media said they had shared false information. But the situation was only a little better with US adults who preferred conventional media, such as newspapers and TV. Of that group, 51% said they had shared fake news. Both groups were about as likely to encounter fake news often, the study found.

The findings were part of a 72-page report that show Americans see fake news as a problem that needs to be fixed. The Pew Research Center surveyed more than 6,000 US adults from Feb. 19 to March 4 for the study. As part of the survey, Americans were asked how often they got news from social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter or Snapchat.

About two-thirds of Americans said they came across altered images or video sometimes or often. The issue has prompted renewed concern since doctored videos of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi making her appear drunk spread on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. One version of the video on appears to be gone, even though the social network has denied pulling it down.

Most Americans blamed political leaders and activists for spreading misinformation. They also thought journalists had more of a responsibility to help fix the problem. Only 9% of US adults thought tech companies carried the most responsibility to reduce the amount of misinformation out there.

Most Americans -- about 56% of US adults -- also think the problem of made-up news will get worse over the next five years, according to the survey.

"While Americans want the issue of made-up news addressed, they are also conscious of the huge challenge posed by partisan divides in our country today - challenges that are pronounced in the level of blame members of each party place on the news media," said Amy Mitchell, the center's director of journalism research, in a statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fake news is thriving thanks to social media users, study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites have been stepping up their efforts to combat the spread of fake news on their platforms but that hasn't stopped Americans from sharing misinformation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Many Americans Say Made-Up News Is a Critical Problem That Needs To Be Fixed

# data[].attributes.subject
Many Americans Say Made-Up News Is a Critical Problem That Needs To Be Fixed

# data[].attributes.body
https://pewrsr.ch/36yvSTu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many Americans say the creation and spread of made-up news and information is causing significant harm to the nation and needs to be stopped, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of 6,127 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 19 and March 4, 2019, on the Center's American Trends Panel.

Indeed, more Americans view made-up news as a very big problem for the country than identify terrorism, illegal immigration, racism and sexism that way. Additionally, nearly seven-in-ten U.S. adults (68%) say made-up news and information greatly impacts Americans' confidence in government institutions, and roughly half (54%) say it is having a major impact on our confidence in each other.

U.S. adults blame political leaders and activists far more than journalists for the creation of made-up news intended to mislead the public. But they believe it is primarily the responsibility of journalists to fix the problem. And they think the issue will get worse in the foreseeable future.

The vast majority of Americans say they sometimes or often encounter made-up news. In response, many have altered their news consumption habits, including by fact-checking the news they get and changing the sources they turn to for news.

In addition, about eight-in-ten U.S. adults (79%) believe steps should be taken to restrict made-up news, as opposed to 20% who see it as protected communication.

Similar to Americans' news attitudes generally, stark partisan differences exist when it comes to made-up news and information, particularly in the area of assessing blame. Differences also emerge based on political awareness and age. In general, Republicans, the highly politically aware and older Americans express higher levels of concern about the impact of made-up news than their counterparts.

These concerns about made-up news are mingled with pessimism about the future of the issue. Most of those surveyed (56%) think the problem will get worse over the next five years. Only one-in-ten believe progress will be made in reducing it.

Americans do not blame journalists the most for creating made-up news and information, but put most responsibility on them to fix it

The public singles out two groups of people as the primary sources of made-up news: political leaders and activist groups. Close to six-in-ten U.S. adults (57%) say political leaders and their staff create a lot of made-up news, and about half (53%) say the same thing of activist groups.

About a third feel journalists (36%) or foreign actors (35%) create a lot, while about a quarter (26%) put the blame on the public.

Even though Americans do not see journalists as a leading contributor of made-up news and information, 53% think they have the greatest responsibility to reduce it - far more than those who say the onus mostly falls on the government (12%) or technology companies (9%).

A somewhat larger percentage of those surveyed (20%) say the public itself bears the most responsibility to reduce it. But another finding suggests the challenges inherent in that effort. Of the 52% of Americans who say they have shared made-up news themselves, a vast majority of them said they didn't know it was made up when they did so.

Much of the public has taken actions in response to the issue of made-up news and information

Almost four-in-ten Americans (38%) say they often come across made-up news and information, and another 51% say they sometimes do. Given their concerns about made-up news, Americans have also changed their news and technology habits. Almost eight-in-ten (78%) say they have checked the facts in news stories themselves. Roughly six-in-ten (63%) have stopped getting news from a particular outlet, about half (52%) have changed the way they use social media and roughly four-in-ten (43%) have lessened their overall news intake.

Concern about made-up news has also affected how U.S. adults interact with each other. Half say they have avoided talking with someone because they thought that person would bring made-up news into the conversation.

In the digital environment, half of social media news consumers have stopped following someone they know because they thought the person was posting made-up news and information, and the same percentage have stopped following a news organization for this reason.

Republicans express far greater concern than Democrats about the issue and place far more blame on journalists

Not all Americans say they experience the same level of exposure to made-up news and information or express the same level of concern. In addition, people disagree about who is responsible for it and who should shoulder the burden to reduce it. Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the greatest divides occur along party lines.

Just as Republicans express greater skepticism than Democrats about news coverage and the news media more generally, they see made-up news as a bigger problem and place far more blame on journalists.

A solid majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (62%) say made-up news is a very big problem in the country today, compared with fewer than half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (40%). Republicans also register greater exposure to made-up news. About half of Republicans (49%) say they come across it often, 19 percentage points higher than Democrats (30%).

One of the starkest differences, though, is in assigning blame for creating made-up news and information. Republicans are nearly three times as likely as Democrats to say journalists create a lot of it (58% vs. 20%).

Republicans also place more blame on activist groups, with about three-quarters (73%) saying these groups create a lot, close to twice the rate of Democrats (38%). Political leaders and their staff, though, rank high for both sides of the aisle - half or more of each party say they create a lot. And while members of both parties say the news media bear the primary responsibility for fixing the situation, that feeling is considerably more pervasive among Republicans (69%) than Democrats (42%).

Other factors contribute to differences in how the threat of made-up news and information is perceived. Political awareness - based on how closely one follows politics and answers to three political knowledge questions - also plays a substantial role. For example, highly politically aware Americans say they see more made-up news than do those who are less politically aware, and they feel it has a more negative impact on our democratic system. People who are less politically aware, on the other hand, are more likely to spread made-up news and to have reduced their news intake in response to it.

While much of the public discussion around made-up news is about its spread on social media, those who prefer to get their news through social media do not appear to be all that different from adults who prefer other ways to get news. In fact, Americans who prefer social media are about as likely as those who prefer other news pathways to say they frequently come across made-up news. The only areas where those who prefer social media really stand apart are in being somewhat less pessimistic about how the issue will evolve and more likely to share it.

There are also some age-based differences in attitudes toward made-up news. The youngest American adults - those ages 18 to 29 - tend to be less concerned about the impact of made-up news than those older than them, say they see less of it, and are less likely to blame politicians, activists, journalists and foreign actors for it. And like those who prefer social media for news, younger Americans tend to be less pessimistic than their elders about the future of the issue.

Americans react differently to different forms of misinformation, see made-up news and altered videos as biggest problems

Most of this study focuses specifically on made-up news and information that is intended to mislead the public. But it also examines some other potentially inaccurate or misleading types of information.

Americans make clear distinctions among five kinds of misinformation asked about in this survey, expressing the greatest concern about fully made-up news as well as altered videos and images. Two-thirds (67%) say that made-up news designed to mislead causes a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current issues, while 63% feel the same way about a video that is altered or made up. And by large majorities, 79% and 77% respectively, they favor restrictions on these kinds of content.

There is significant but less concern about breaking news that is not fully checked and factual information presented in such a way as to favor one side. About half of Americans say those two forms of potentially inaccurate or misleading information cause a great deal of confusion about basic facts, although there is more support for restricting unchecked breaking news (54%) than factual information that is biased (37%).

One form of misinformation that is not perceived nearly as negatively is satire about an issue or event. Only about a quarter of Americans (24%) believe it causes a great deal of confusion about facts and three-in-ten believe it should be restricted.

Other key findings

Americans feel that political divides in the country are the greatest obstacle to addressing the problem of made-up news and information. Almost two-thirds (64%) see those divides as a very big challenge. Between 41% and 44% cite the ability to make money from made-up news, digital technology, the public's lack of effort and low awareness about current events as very big hurdles to a solution.

Americans see a lot of made-up news and information being generated around two major topics: politics and elections (73%) and entertainment and celebrities (61%). Both politics and entertainment far exceed all of the other four topics asked about.

In a related finding, Americans say that far more made-up news gets created around national issues and events than around local ones. About six-in-ten (58%) say a lot of made-up news is created around national issues, compared with 18% who say the same about local issues.

When it comes to identifying very big problems connected to keeping the public informed about current issues and events, about half of Americans (49%) put the amount of made-up news and information in that category. A similar percentage (51%) cites the public's ability to distinguish between facts and opinions as a very big problem, compared with 37% who see journalists inserting their own views into coverage as a very big problem in how the public stays informed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Many Americans Say Made-Up News Is a Critical Problem That Needs To Be Fixed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many Americans say the creation and spread of made-up news and information is causing significant harm to the nation and needs to be stopped, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of 6,127 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 19 and March 4, 2019, on the Center's American Trends Panel.

# data[].attributes.headline
March 11, 2020The Day Everything Changed

# data[].attributes.subject
March 11, 2020The Day Everything Changed

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/975663437/march-11-2020-the-day-everything-changed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A year into the coronavirus pandemic, the enormous changes in our lives have become unremarkable: The collection of fabric masks. Visits with friends or family only in small outdoor gatherings. Working or learning from home. Downtowns deserted at noon on a weekday.

While some changes happened gradually, there was one day that marked the beginning of the new normal.

March 11, 2020.

On that day in the United States, the pandemic future arrived all at once.
A historic day begins with other news
March 11 was a Wednesday. Joe Biden had won primaries the night before in Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi and Missouri, putting him on a path toward clinching the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders said he was staying in the race, despite his disappointing results.

The big news in the morning - and what was expected to be the top headline of the day - was the sentencing of movie mogul Harvey Weinstein. Sitting in a Manhattan courtroom, Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in prison for rape and sexual abuse.

Two days earlier, stocks had tumbled in reaction to Saudi Arabia cutting the price of oil, spurring the market's worst drop since 2008.

And the coronavirus - which had already sparked lockdowns in China and Italy - had become a major concern in the U.S. The first case in the U.S. was announced on Jan. 21 in Everett, Wash. On Jan. 30, the World Health Organization declared a global health emergency.

Some schools in the U.S. had already closed, affecting about 850,000 students. And some Americans were trying to figure out whether to cancel the expensive cruises they had booked - days earlier, the State Department had put out a warning against such travel, following outbreaks on several ships.

The CDC had issued guidance on getting tested for the virus, but it was hard to figure out where such tests might be available. And there were - as there continue to be - instances of racism and xenophobia targeting Asian Americans as fears of the virus spread through the U.S.
Dr. Fauci testifies: "It's going to get worse"
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, had been called to testify about the coronavirus on March 11 before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Observers in the chamber sat shoulder to shoulder, and there was not a mask in sight.

"Is the worst yet to come, Dr. Fauci?" asked Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the committee chairwoman.

"Yes, it is," Fauci replied. He explained that the U.S. was seeing more cases from both community spread and international travel.

"I can say we will see more cases, and things will get worse than they are right now," Fauci said. "How much worse we'll get will depend on our ability to do two things: to contain the influx of people who are infected coming from the outside, and the ability to contain and mitigate within our own country."

The virus had by then infected more than 1,000 people in 40 states. At least 31 people in the U.S. had died from COVID-19, most of them in Washington state.

"Bottom line," Fauci said, "it's going to get worse."

WHO declares a pandemic - and stocks plunge
In Geneva, the WHO was holding a briefing. Eight countries, including the U.S., now had more than 1,000 cases.

"In the past two weeks, the number of cases of COVID-19 outside China has increased 13-fold, and the number of affected countries has tripled," said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

"WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction," he said.

"We have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic."

The global health emergency was now officially a pandemic - the first one to be caused by a coronavirus.

The stock market reacted quickly to the new designation: the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 1,200 points.

By the end of the day, the Dow was down more than 20% from its peak in February - and had entered bear market territory. An 11-year bull market had come to an end.
In prime-time Oval Office address, Trump bans travel from Europe
At 3:18 p.m., with the pandemic now official and stocks cratering, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet: "I am fully prepared to use the full power of the Federal Government to deal with our current challenge of the CoronaVirus!" He said he would address the nation from the Oval Office that evening.

At 9:02 p.m., Trump began his remarks: "My fellow Americans: Tonight, I want to speak with you about our nation's unprecedented response to the coronavirus outbreak that started in China and is now spreading throughout the world."

"This is the most aggressive and comprehensive effort to confront a foreign virus in modern history," he continued. "I am confident that by counting and continuing to take these tough measures, we will significantly reduce the threat to our citizens, and we will ultimately and expeditiously defeat this virus," he said.

Then he made a stunning announcement: a 30-day ban on travel from European countries to the U.S., beginning on Friday at midnight - just two days later - "to keep new cases from entering our shores."

Experts were skeptical the ban would make much of a difference. "It may have political value, but [it] has zero public health value," Lawrence Gostin, a global health law professor at Georgetown University, told NPR.

"Most of Europe has the same or fewer cases than the U.S. Restricting travel certainly won't make America safer," Gostin said.

Confusion followed the speech, about who and what would be affected by the ban. Trump soon tweeted a clarification: "trade will in no way be affected by the 30-day restriction on travel from Europe. The restriction stops people not goods."
Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson test positive for the virus
Shortly after 9 p.m. ET, Tom Hanks posted a photo to Instagram of a surgical glove in a trash can, along with an announcement: He and his wife, actress Rita Wilson, were sick with the coronavirus.

"We felt a bit tired, like we had colds, and some body aches. Rita had some chills that came and went. Slight fevers too," he wrote. The two were in Australia for preproduction on a film starring Hanks.

"Well, now. What to do next?" Hanks continued. "The Medical Officials have protocols that must be followed. We Hanks' will be tested, observed, and isolated for as long as public health and safety requires. Not much more to it than a one-day-at-a-time approach, no?"
An NBA game is halted just before tipoff
In Oklahoma City, the Thunder were about to take on the visiting Utah Jazz. Around 8 p.m. ET, shortly before tipoff, the referees and coaches conferred about an unsettling development: Jazz center Rudy Gobert's coronavirus test had just come back -positive.

The teams returned to their locker rooms. The halftime act, Frankie J, was brought out to perform for the packed arena, where fans were stirring in confusion. "Wild times," said an ESPN commentator on the game's broadcast. "The fans here in the arena don't know what's going on, we don't know what's going on."

A moment later, the public address announcer took to the microphone. "The game tonight has been postponed. You are all safe," he said. Cries of dismay rang out from the stands. "Take your time in leaving the arena tonight, and do so in an orderly fashion."

The Jazz tested the rest of its players and traveling party and found that a second player, Donovan Mitchell, was also positive for the virus.

Word soon got out of even bigger news: The NBA would be postponing its entire season. In Dallas, ESPN trained a camera on Mavericks owner Mark Cuban as he got the news on his phone.

He reacted in shock: His jaw dropped, and he leaned way back in his chair. "Now it's much more personal. You've seen what's happening in other countries," he told a reporter a few minutes later. "But just the whole idea that it's come this close, potentially a couple players have it ... just stunning isn't the right word. It's crazy."

The players on the Mavericks bench were aware of the news and talking about it, Cuban said - the only ones who didn't know were the players still in the game.

At 9:46 p.m., the NBA made it official: The season was suspended until further notice.

"This is much bigger than just the NBA," Cuban told the reporter.

"Do we send our kids to school tomorrow? Is it that big?" he mused. "It's like out of a movie. It doesn't seem real."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
March 11, 2020: The Day Everything Changed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The WHO declared a pandemic. The NBA shut down its season. President Trump banned travel from Europe. Tom Hanks tested positive. On one day a year ago, the coronavirus became very real in America.

# data[].attributes.body
https://naaee.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
North American Association for Environmental Education

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2019/06/05/many-americans-say-made-up-news-is-a-critical-problem-that-needs-to-be-fixed/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Journalism Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many Americans say the creation and spread of made-up news and information is causing significant harm to the nation and needs to be stopped, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of 6,127 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 19 and March 4, 2019, on the Center's American Trends Panel.

Indeed, more Americans view made-up news as a very big problem for the country than identify terrorism, illegal immigration, racism and sexism that way. Additionally, nearly seven-in-ten U.S. adults (68%) say made-up news and information greatly impacts Americans' confidence in government institutions, and roughly half (54%) say it is having a major impact on our confidence in each other.

U.S. adults blame political leaders and activists far more than journalists for the creation of made-up news intended to mislead the public. But they believe it is primarily the responsibility of journalists to fix the problem. And they think the issue will get worse in the foreseeable future.

The vast majority of Americans say they sometimes or often encounter made-up news. In response, many have altered their news consumption habits, including by fact-checking the news they get and changing the sources they turn to for news.

In addition, about eight-in-ten U.S. adults (79%) believe steps should be taken to restrict made-up news, as opposed to 20% who see it as protected communication.

Similar to Americans' news attitudes generally, stark partisan differences exist when it comes to made-up news and information, particularly in the area of assessing blame. Differences also emerge based on political awareness and age. In general, Republicans, the highly politically aware and older Americans express higher levels of concern about the impact of made-up news than their counterparts.

These concerns about made-up news are mingled with pessimism about the future of the issue. Most of those surveyed (56%) think the problem will get worse over the next five years. Only one-in-ten believe progress will be made in reducing it.

Americans do not blame journalists the most for creating made-up news and information, but put most responsibility on them to fix it

The public singles out two groups of people as the primary sources of made-up news: political leaders and activist groups. Close to six-in-ten U.S. adults (57%) say political leaders and their staff create a lot of made-up news, and about half (53%) say the same thing of activist groups.

About a third feel journalists (36%) or foreign actors (35%) create a lot, while about a quarter (26%) put the blame on the public.

Even though Americans do not see journalists as a leading contributor of made-up news and information, 53% think they have the greatest responsibility to reduce it - far more than those who say the onus mostly falls on the government (12%) or technology companies (9%).

A somewhat larger percentage of those surveyed (20%) say the public itself bears the most responsibility to reduce it. But another finding suggests the challenges inherent in that effort. Of the 52% of Americans who say they have shared made-up news themselves, a vast majority of them said they didn't know it was made up when they did so.

Much of the public has taken actions in response to the issue of made-up news and information

Almost four-in-ten Americans (38%) say they often come across made-up news and information, and another 51% say they sometimes do. Given their concerns about made-up news, Americans have also changed their news and technology habits. Almost eight-in-ten (78%) say they have checked the facts in news stories themselves. Roughly six-in-ten (63%) have stopped getting news from a particular outlet, about half (52%) have changed the way they use social media and roughly four-in-ten (43%) have lessened their overall news intake.

Concern about made-up news has also affected how U.S. adults interact with each other. Half say they have avoided talking with someone because they thought that person would bring made-up news into the conversation.

In the digital environment, half of social media news consumers have stopped following someone they know because they thought the person was posting made-up news and information, and the same percentage have stopped following a news organization for this reason.

Republicans express far greater concern than Democrats about the issue and place far more blame on journalists

Not all Americans say they experience the same level of exposure to made-up news and information or express the same level of concern. In addition, people disagree about who is responsible for it and who should shoulder the burden to reduce it. Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the greatest divides occur along party lines.

Just as Republicans express greater skepticism than Democrats about news coverage and the news media more generally, they see made-up news as a bigger problem and place far more blame on journalists.

A solid majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (62%) say made-up news is a very big problem in the country today, compared with fewer than half of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (40%). Republicans also register greater exposure to made-up news. About half of Republicans (49%) say they come across it often, 19 percentage points higher than Democrats (30%).

One of the starkest differences, though, is in assigning blame for creating made-up news and information. Republicans are nearly three times as likely as Democrats to say journalists create a lot of it (58% vs. 20%).

Republicans also place more blame on activist groups, with about three-quarters (73%) saying these groups create a lot, close to twice the rate of Democrats (38%). Political leaders and their staff, though, rank high for both sides of the aisle - half or more of each party say they create a lot. And while members of both parties say the news media bear the primary responsibility for fixing the situation, that feeling is considerably more pervasive among Republicans (69%) than Democrats (42%).

Other factors contribute to differences in how the threat of made-up news and information is perceived. Political awareness - based on how closely one follows politics and answers to three political knowledge questions - also plays a substantial role. For example, highly politically aware Americans say they see more made-up news than do those who are less politically aware, and they feel it has a more negative impact on our democratic system. People who are less politically aware, on the other hand, are more likely to spread made-up news and to have reduced their news intake in response to it.

While much of the public discussion around made-up news is about its spread on social media, those who prefer to get their news through social media do not appear to be all that different from adults who prefer other ways to get news. In fact, Americans who prefer social media are about as likely as those who prefer other news pathways to say they frequently come across made-up news. The only areas where those who prefer social media really stand apart are in being somewhat less pessimistic about how the issue will evolve and more likely to share it.

There are also some age-based differences in attitudes toward made-up news. The youngest American adults - those ages 18 to 29 - tend to be less concerned about the impact of made-up news than those older than them, say they see less of it, and are less likely to blame politicians, activists, journalists and foreign actors for it. And like those who prefer social media for news, younger Americans tend to be less pessimistic than their elders about the future of the issue.

Americans react differently to different forms of misinformation, see made-up news and altered videos as biggest problems

Most of this study focuses specifically on made-up news and information that is intended to mislead the public. But it also examines some other potentially inaccurate or misleading types of information.

Americans make clear distinctions among five kinds of misinformation asked about in this survey, expressing the greatest concern about fully made-up news as well as altered videos and images. Two-thirds (67%) say that made-up news designed to mislead causes a great deal of confusion about the basic facts of current issues, while 63% feel the same way about a video that is altered or made up. And by large majorities, 79% and 77% respectively, they favor restrictions on these kinds of content.

There is significant but less concern about breaking news that is not fully checked and factual information presented in such a way as to favor one side. About half of Americans say those two forms of potentially inaccurate or misleading information cause a great deal of confusion about basic facts, although there is more support for restricting unchecked breaking news (54%) than factual information that is biased (37%).

One form of misinformation that is not perceived nearly as negatively is satire about an issue or event. Only about a quarter of Americans (24%) believe it causes a great deal of confusion about facts and three-in-ten believe it should be restricted.

Other key findings

Americans feel that political divides in the country are the greatest obstacle to addressing the problem of made-up news and information. Almost two-thirds (64%) see those divides as a very big challenge. Between 41% and 44% cite the ability to make money from made-up news, digital technology, the public's lack of effort and low awareness about current events as very big hurdles to a solution.

Americans see a lot of made-up news and information being generated around two major topics: politics and elections (73%) and entertainment and celebrities (61%). Both politics and entertainment far exceed all of the other four topics asked about.

In a related finding, Americans say that far more made-up news gets created around national issues and events than around local ones. About six-in-ten (58%) say a lot of made-up news is created around national issues, compared with 18% who say the same about local issues.

When it comes to identifying very big problems connected to keeping the public informed about current issues and events, about half of Americans (49%) put the amount of made-up news and information in that category. A similar percentage (51%) cites the public's ability to distinguish between facts and opinions as a very big problem, compared with 37% who see journalists inserting their own views into coverage as a very big problem in how the public stays informed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Many Americans Say Made-Up News Is a Critical Problem That Needs To Be Fixed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many Americans say the creation and spread of made-up news and information is causing significant harm to the nation and needs to be stopped, according to a new Pew Research Center survey of 6,127 U.S. adults conducted between Feb. 19 and March 4, 2019, on the Center's American Trends Panel.

# data[].attributes.body
https://knightfoundation.org/reports/perceived-accuracy-and-bias-in-the-news-media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gallup and Knight Foundation's 2017 Survey on Trust, Media and Democracy found that Americans believe the news media have a critical role to play in U.S. democracy but are not performing that role well. One of Americans' chief concerns about media is bias, and Americans are much more likely to perceive bias in the news today than they were a generation ago.

A Feb. 5-March 11, 2018, Gallup/Knight Foundation survey of 1,440 Gallup Panel members assessed how pervasive U.S. adults believe bias in news reporting is, and whether they make distinctions between bias and inaccuracy.

The survey also probed for Americans' reactions when they see biased or inaccurate reporting and sought to determine if the reactions depend on whether that reporting is about groups or individuals they support or oppose. Among the key findings in the survey:

Overall, Americans believe 62% of the news they see on television, read in newspapers and hear on the radio is biased. They are much more inclined to see news on social media as biased, estimating that 80% of the news they see there is biased.

Americans tend to think the majority of news reporting is accurate, but they still believe a substantial percentage of it, 44%, is inaccurate. They think 64% of news on social media is inaccurate.

More than eight in 10 U.S. adults report being angry or bothered by seeing biased information. A slightly greater proportion of Americans - more than nine in 10 - get angry or bothered by inaccurate information.

In rating various news organizations, Americans make little distinction between bias and accuracy - generally, those that are perceived as biased are also perceived as inaccurate, and those that are perceived as unbiased are perceived as being accurate.

Republicans' and Democrats' ratings of the accuracy and bias of certain news organizations diverge sharply, most notably with respect to Fox News®, Breitbart News®, CNN® and MSNBC®.

To a large degree, bias and accuracy appear to be in the eye of the beholder, greatly influenced by whether one agrees with the ideological leaning of the news source. Americans' perceptions of fairly widespread bias and inaccuracy in news may be unduly influenced by the bias they perceive from the "other side" of the ideological spectrum rather than their own side. Counteracting perceptions of bias and inaccuracy may have a role to play in addressing the lack of trust in the news media and giving Americans more confidence in the media's ability to carry out its democratic responsibilities.

Gallup and Knight Foundation acknowledge support for this research from the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perceived accuracy and bias in the news media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gallup and Knight Foundation's 2017 Survey on Trust, Media and Democracy found that Americans believe the news media have a critical role to play in U.S. democracy but are not performing that role well. One of Americans' chief concerns about media is bias, and Americans are much more likely to perceive bias in the news today than they were a generation ago.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Developing-Digital-Detectives-Essential-Discerning/dp/1564849058

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From the authors of the bestselling Fact vs. Fiction , this book offers easy-to-implement lessons to engage students in becoming media literacy "digital detectives," looking for clues, questioning motives, uncovering patterns, developing theories and, ultimately, delivering a verdict.

Shares meaningful lessons that move beyond traditional "fake news" protocols to help learners navigate a world in which information can be both a force for good and a tool used to influence and manipulate.

Includes resources and examples to support educators in the work of facilitating engaging, relevant (and fun!) instructional opportunities for K-12 learners, in both face-to-face and digital learning environments.

Unpacks the connection between social-emotional learning and information literacy.

Includes access to the Digital Detective's Evidence Locker, an online collection of over 100 downloadable and remixable resources to support the lessons in the book.

The current news landscape is driven by clicks, with every social media influencer, trained and citizen journalists chasing the same goal: a viral story. In this environment, where the race to be first on the scene with the most sensational story often overshadows the need for accuracy, traditional strategies for determining information credibility are no longer enough. Rather than simply helping students become savvy information consumers, today's educators must provide learners with the skills to be digital detectives - information interrogators who are armed with a variety of tools for dissecting news stories and determining what's real and what isn't in our "post-truth world."

As the authors state: "Remember, the detective's job is NOT to prove themselves correct. Their job is to detect the truth!" This statement reflects the way they approach the lessons in this book, providing clear and practical guidance to help educators address and overcome this ever-expanding issue.

This book: Audience: K-12 educators and library media specialists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing Digital Detectives: Essential Lessons for Discerning Fact from Fiction in the ?Fake News? Era

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Developing Digital Detectives: Essential Lessons for Discerning Fact from Fiction in the ?Fake News? Era: Jennifer LaGarde, Hudgins ,Darren: 9781564849052: Books: Amazon.com

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/Fact-Vs-Fiction-Teaching-Critical/dp/1564847047/ref=pd_lpo_1?pd_rd_i=1564847047&psc=1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact Vs. Fiction: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in the Age of Fake News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazon.com: Fact Vs. Fiction: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in the Age of Fake News: 9781564847041: LaGarde, Jennifer, Hudgins, Darren: Books

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
oregon police want an end to 911 calls for toilet paper - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Oregon police department is asking residents to stop calling 911 because they've run out of toilet paper

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As police across the US brace for continued emergency calls in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, the Newport police department is asking residents to stop calling the police because they ran out of toilet paper.

# data[].attributes.body
https://casel.org/what-is-sel/

# data[].attributes.headline
News Literacy Must Include Social Emotional Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
News Literacy Must Include Social Emotional Learning

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.slj.com/?detailStory=News-media-literacy-must-include-social-emotional-learning-SEL-librarians

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More schools are consider new ways to add news literacy and SEL to their teaching. There's never been a better time to combine these efforts.

To most educators, the word "firewall" calls to mind a computer system designed to block unauthorized access and protect users from unsafe content. But for decades, the term firewall also held a specific meaning related to news and media. It referred to the tradition of separating news content from the business of raising revenue through advertising. This prevented the need to make money from influencing how the news is reported.

That has all changed. In one of the most prominent examples, in 2013, Time Magazine became the first major news outlet to dissolve the separation between its newsroom and business sides to remain solvent. While the internet has (to some degree) democratized access to information, that shift has not come without consequences: Many traditional journalism outlets have collapsed, while online outlets frequently blur news and advertorial content. According to the Pew Research Center, newsroom employment at U.S. newspapers has dropped by nearly half since 2008, reflecting a 62 percent drop in ad revenue. Other news platforms haven't fared much better in an environment where clicks, not subscription models, are the new currency. Many journalists don't have the luxury of the firewall as their organizations push to make stories go viral.
Pulling the emotional trigger
Combine those factors with the rise of strategic disinformation online, and you understand why news literacy is so vital today. One incredibly effective strategy for increasing engagement with online content is to embed emotional triggers at every access point. A 2018 study found that "content that arouses strong emotions spreads further, faster, more deeply, and more broadly online." Littering headlines, sidebars, and photo captions with words eliciting an extreme emotional response and/or confirming existing biases increases the likelihood that a story, in video or text format, will be clicked, liked, and shared.

When we connect with news that triggers an extreme emotion like fear, anger, or outrage, our immediate urge is to express that emotion-often by passing on the information (and our feelings about it) to others. Too often, this happens without fact-checking or even reading the entire article. Once emotion is in the driver's seat, all our knowledge about how to parse credibility flies out the window. Creators and spreaders of disinformation count on this reaction. Chances are, if I'm outraged by a news story, and I share it, others in my network will also be outraged and pass it on to their networks, who will then share with theirs... and so on.

There is an inextricable, and yet largely untapped, link between information literacy and Social and Emotional Learning (SEL), defined as "process through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions" by the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL).

We know that news is often designed to trigger an emotional response. And yet, teaching kids to recognize and manage those triggers isn't always a component of news and information literacy protocols. While many schools are looking for ways to incorporate both news literacy and SEL right now, individually, we believe that the relationship between news and emotion creates an opportunity for them to be combined.

READ: A Media and News Literacy-Themed Mixtape for Tough Times
Helping kids think about how news affects them
Whether exploring headlines online or using an activity like this one from Common Sense Media, it's important for kids to consider what emotions the content creator was hoping to trigger, and why those triggers work. In this simple activity, we've asked learners to not only identify the language that might elicit an emotional response, but to also connect that language to a specific emotion. Asking younger kids how information makes them feel is a great way to develop a disposition of considering how news affects us as human beings. Older learners can take this activity one step further by discussing the target audience for each headline and considering who might be most affected by the sample triggers.

Most importantly, all learners need to see the "red flag" of a potential trigger as a reason to press pause and either a) manage their own emotional response to the information or b) recognize that red flags like emotional triggers are a sign that information may not be credible, and detective work is necessary before we believe and/or share the resource.

CASEL has developed five core competencies (pictured) to help learners manage emotional responses to both internal and external stressors. These core competencies can easily be applied to news/information literacy. What's more, the application of these competencies to news can be a powerful first step in helping prepare students for the later work of applying more general news credibility tests.

One of the reasons these traditional approaches to news literacy fail to be applied outside of school is that our students haven't yet learned how to manage the emotional triggers embedded throughout their screen-filled lives. "News literacy education has long focused on the significance of facts, sourcing, and verifiability," researcher Susan Currie Sivek wrote in the Journal of Media Literacy Education in 2017. "While these are critical aspects of news, rapidly developing emotion analytics technologies intended to respond to and even alter digital news audiences' emotions also demand that we pay greater attention to the role of emotion in news consumption."

For educators, this represents an opportunity. News literacy and SEL efforts have a lot in common. Both require learners to develop new ways of thinking. Both benefit from partnerships between school personnel and families. Both are most likely to be successful when integrated across content areas. And both seek to help kids develop healthy behaviors that will serve them both in and out of school.

As more schools consider new ways to add news literacy and SEL to the ways they serve kids, there's never been a better time to combine these efforts.

Read: Get Smart About Memes

Jennifer LaGarde and Darren Hudgins are co-authors of Fact Vs. Fiction: Teaching Critical Thinking Skills in the Age of Fake News.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
News Literacy Must Include Social Emotional Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More schools are consider new ways to add news literacy and SEL to their teaching. There's never been a better time to combine these efforts. To most educators, the word "firewall" calls to mind a computer system designed to block unauthorized access and protect users from unsafe content.

# data[].attributes.body
https://bit.ly/3rEOwED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Core Competencies SEL | Social-Emotional Learning | PBS LearningMedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the core competencies of social and emotional learning (SEL), including practical examples for the classroom and the home.

# data[].attributes.body
https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers - Simple Book Production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers by Michael A. Caulfield is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08H177WQP/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

# data[].attributes.body
https://twitter.com/jenniferlagarde?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Tweets by jenniferlagarde

# data[].attributes.body
Contact me if you have question - darren@thinkdothrive.org

@dhudgins on Twitter & Instagram

# data[].attributes.headline
How Does This Story Make You Feel About The People Involved?

# data[].attributes.subject
How Does This Story Make You Feel About The People Involved?

# data[].attributes.body
https://bit.ly/dddmeme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Does This Story Make You Feel About The People Involved?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Resource was created by Jennifer LaGarde and Darren Hudgins for use with their book Developing Digital Detectives.

# data[].attributes.body
https://drkenbortphd.substack.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From The Mixed-Up Files of Dr. Ken Bort PhD | Dr. Ken Bort, PhD | Substack

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Newsletter For The Digital Detective Squad. Click to read From The Mixed-Up Files of Dr. Ken Bort PhD, by Dr. Ken Bort, PhD, a Substack publication with thousands of readers.