You already know how to judge whether a source looks reliable. Today the question is different: when something online is wrong, was it a genuine mistake or was it meant to mislead?
You will sort real-feeling cases into misinformation, disinformation, or true-but-misleading, defend each call, then talk about why the intent behind a false claim changes how you should respond.
Three labels matter today:
The key difference is intent: did the person mean to trick you, or did they honestly believe what they shared? That is not always obvious from the post alone, which is why you will argue each case out loud.
Now try this in pairs: one of you takes a one-line false claim you might see in a group chat; the other says whether it sounds more like a mistake or a deliberate trick, and what clue they used. Keep it fully invented: not about anyone in this room or anyone you know by name. Use a board example if you blank, such as Bus is cancelled tomorrow — my cousin said or Free concert tickets if you share this link. Other safe shapes: a wrong match time, a fake shop closure, a mixed-up exam date.
Open the interactive activity. Drag each invented case into the bucket that fits best: Misinformation, Disinformation, or True but misleading.
For every card, be ready to say:
There is a defensible home for each card, but the reasoning is the point. If your group disagrees, park the card where the majority lands and note the minority view for the class talk.
Now the whole class plays the rest, on your own devices.
Join with the code on the board. Everyone answers every round, not one person per table, and you can change your answer until the time is up. You also say how sure you are: just checking, fairly sure, or certain. The class's split appears on the board once the round closes, then the reasoning.
Getting it right matters less than being able to say why. A right answer earns what you staked and a wrong one loses it, so being unsure and saying so costs you very little - being certain and wrong is what costs. Every round has a defensible answer, and the reasoning behind it is what you are here for.
Same wrong claim, different intent, different next step. Work this short case in pairs, then the class will compare answers.
“The under-16s pitch is closed all month because of a dangerous chemical spill.”
| Version A — Jamie | Version B — an unknown account | |
|---|---|---|
| What happened | Heard it from a cousin, believed it, and posted it to the club group so teammates would not travel for nothing. | Invented the spill story to stop a rival club using the pitch on match day. |
| Misinformation or disinformation? | Decide, and say what your evidence is. | Decide, and say what your evidence is. |
| What would you do first? | Decide for this version. | Decide for this one separately — it is not the same answer. |
Then, in one sentence: why does the intent behind a claim change how you respond, even when the words on screen are identical?
Be ready to share one answer with the class. There is no single script the lesson wants you to recite; defend the response that fits the intent.
You're previewing this lesson. Get full access to this lesson and hundreds more — each one ready to teach, with interactive activities, printable resources and pupil progress tracking built in.