From Echo Chambers to Critical Dialogue: A Comparative Case Study of Social Media-Based Pedagogy For Addressing Scientific Misinformation

Abstract

In an era defined by rapid digital information dissemination, higher education faces the challenge of equipping students to navigate landscapes rife with scientific misinformation. This study addresses that challenge by evaluating a novel pedagogical intervention designed to move beyond traditional information-deficit teaching models. It presents a comparative quasi-experimental case study conducted with 84 undergraduate students in Azerbaijan, examining two distinct social media-based approaches to combating misinformation. The primary aim was to compare a control condition, in which students received curated fact-based content, with an experimental condition, in which students engaged in structured critical dialogue and collaborative media creation grounded in Critical Media Literacy (CML). Pre- and post-intervention assessments were conducted using a custom Misinformation Identification Test (MIT) and the Critical Thinking Disposition Scale (CTDS). The results reveal that while both student groups began at an equivalent baseline, the experimental group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in accurately identifying scientific misinformation (p < .001) and showed a marked increase in critical thinking dispositions, whereas the control group’s gains were negligible. These findings suggest that pedagogical strategies emphasizing critical dialogue, peer-to-peer debate, and co-creation of content are substantially more effective than passive information delivery for fostering students’ resilience to misinformation. The study provides an empirically validated model for educators seeking to transform social media platforms from potential echo chambers into forums of robust critical inquiry.