1 - Start ~3 mins
You already know the intent difference: misinformation is wrong but not meant to mislead; disinformation is deliberately misleading. Today the question shifts. Why do either of them matter to you as a reader and sharer, and where along a spreading claim can one person's choice change what happens next?
You will walk an invented scare forward one decision at a time, then write your own three-question pause check for content that makes you angry or excited.
2 - Examine and Discuss ~5 mins
Today you will watch one fake soft-drink recall move through chats and a public forum. At each step you decide what a character could do, and we will talk about what that choice changes.
3 - Hands-on: Trace the Spread ~15 mins
Work through the interactive activity together. It is one invented case told as four decision points. The claim is posted. It is shared wider. It goes loud in public. Then a correction arrives.
For each card, read the story, talk about the options open to the character, and be ready to say what that choice would change for the next person who sees the claim. There is no score. The learning is in the reasoning.
As you go, notice moments where one pause, one check, or one decision not to pile on would have slowed the scare.
Interactive activity
4 - Your Turn: Pause Before You Share ~10 mins
On your own, write a three-question pause-before-you-share check for content that makes you angry, scared or excitedly sure. Draw the questions from the SuperFizz case and from what slowed or sped the spread.
- Exactly three short questions you could actually ask yourself in under a minute
- Each question aimed at emotive content (not a generic "is this true?" only)
- At least one question about evidence or source, and at least one about what sharing would do next
- Wording you would really use, not a slogan for the wall
Keep your three questions. You will want them when a post hits that same urgent feeling.
5 - Make Sense ~5 mins
Pull the timeline together. Misinformation and disinformation matter to consumers because false claims can move faster than checks, ride on strong feeling, and leave real mess behind them: panic, unfair blame, wasted time, and a correction that never quite catches up.
Intent still helps you judge the poster. Impact is what the people who saw the claim have to live with either way. Across the SuperFizz path, the biggest levers were ordinary ones: pause, ask for a source, refuse to amplify, and help a correction travel in the same places the scare did.
Your three questions are the portable version of that. They are how you stay a thoughtful consumer when a post is trying to make you act before you think.
Unlock the full learning experience
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.
This lesson is copyright of Coding Ireland 2017 - 2025. Unauthorised use, copying or distribution is not allowed.